skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> people actually did in fact overcome their differences and collectively combat the Nazis

The question is, when? Not within Germany, not at first. Or at least not to a high enough degree. Unless we simply define as intelligent those who resisted or were Jewish etc., but that would be cheating. The Nazis didn't really get much successful resistance until they openly tried to conquer the world, and I can't fathom how much more they could have gotten away with if they had stuck to annexing Austria and Poland, and had "just" murdered and brainwashed in their "own" territory. There might never be a plaque at Tiananmen square. And last time I checked, Dick Cheney still wasn't in jail. And so on. Either fascism and murder aren't actually a thing intelligent people successfully combine against to keep in check, or they suck badly at doing so.

At any rate, that there was such a monstrosity to defeat in the first place is due to lack of resistance early on, and the major political groups cannibalizing themselves before the Nazis even started attacking and murdering them. And then many intelligent people made an about-turn, too. Hannah Arendt said in an interview that many intellectuals were good at "coming up with something". That is, they adapted and came up with all sorts of elaborate rationalizations. You could say the intelligence of a person didn't determine their resistance to the Nazis, but the complexity of their justifications for not doing so. Just because there were (and are) exceptions doesn't mean it wasn't (or isn't) the rule. As the White Rose wrote in their second leaflet:

> The greater part of its former opponents went into hiding. The German intellectuals fled to their cellars, there, like plants struggling in the dark, away from light and sun, gradually to choke to death.
It only has an excerpt, but one point towards that is this:

In the past 10,000 years there have been five economic systems. 10,000 years ago the world were primitive hunter-gather bands living in primitive communism. Then the slave societies of Babylon, Egypt, Greece etc. arose. Then the Roman empire was replaced by feudal states - and while things in places like China were slightly different, there were definite parallels to feudalism. Then capitalism arose as the process of production. From the Paris commune, to the Bolshevik revolution, to the leftie society on one side of the Spanish civil war on, you might say there were the beginnings of a fifth economic system, the one Varoufakis talks about.

In this context, all of this makes more sense. Economic systems eventually outlive their usefulness and are replaced by something else. Marx said the new economic system would come out of the center of the world economy - in his day that was a place like Germany. If he was alive today he might say it would come from Silicon Valley, or some bio-industrial center, or maybe some up and coming economic center in East Asia.
You should be hiding naked mutation/accumulation like that in some abstraction. ++ is a smell that alerts you to the fact that you should probably be thinking in a different way.
True, a single cell is an astonishingly complex system. On the other hand, science does, in fact, offer hypotheses as to the origin of life on Earth. Also, the fact that life in all its forms that exist today was able to evolve from those primitive single-cell organisms seems to me just as amazing.
Do you have any pre-existing mental health conditions? The article makes it sound like there is a strong correlation between mental health issues and this syndrome.
Dinos were not on the way out. That reading comes from a misinterpretation of the fossil record and bad statistics. Some species are represented near the extinction event; some are not found except in layers some time before the event. This is in fact the expected distribution with normal sampling. Since the record is fragmentary, and some species are hard to find in any event, its normal to not find them all exactly at the boundary between pre- and post-event.
Being drugged into not noticing something as much isn't quite the same as having it treated.

With enough morphine you wouldn't even care about a broken leg.
* Make it illegal to advertise or market any drug that requires a prescription.
You're correct, but you missed the author's point. He didn't say we understand everything, or that there is nothing of-value left to discover in the domain of 'everyday life'. What he meant was that anything we do discover in this domain, won't impact our current understanding of fundamental physics.
Wikipedia has a list of unsolved problems in physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_p...

Most of them might arguably not be "Physics of Everyday Life", but - number one on the list is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)

We do not know why time moves in the direction that it does! And you cannot get much more "everyday life" than that.
The Apache Clownfish symbiotic object system is an alternative to the "universal runtime" approach. It is a library rather than a platform.

Instead of trying to provide a superset of semantics which encompasses all languages, it provides a single runtime which supports a subset of features, which then lives inside the "host" language environment.

https://github.com/apache/lucy-clownfish
By encryption, authenticity tests and anonymous one-way hashing. One can know that a vote is by a legitimate voter, and simultaneously not know which voter it was.
How content marketing is changing the game
I have written and use my own Lisp, Emblem. It's syntactically similar to Common Lisp, but like Scheme is a Lisp 1.

Functions are incrementally compiled into byte code instructions for a virtual stack machine I designed specifically to run Lisp. Compiled functions are added to the Lisp image, instead of being run directly in a Unix shell. The virtual machine is written in C++. Using the read function as the parser and Lisp-specific byte code as the target simplifies the compiler, which is only 1000 lines long. It also reduces the size of the object code. This does come at the expense of speed, but it's fast enough for my requirements.
Sure, its true today that gender-separated schools have better outcomes. But it may not be necessary to go to that extreme for everybody.

Anway, competition is normal in the working world (at least in America). So there's a problem regardless of school effects.
> It does sacrifice a little expressiveness. But in languages that have dedicated syntax like ranges for iterating over sequential numbers, the ++ and -- operators end up pretty rarely used so it's no big loss.

This is one of the big points too, that often gets overlooked. The removal of ++ fits nicely with the removal of C-style for loops.
There was a some interest in something like that ("text/ruby" support via an applet + JRuby) a while back:

http://almaer.com/blog/running-ruby-in-the-browser-via-scrip...

I remember hearing about it initially, but it doesn't appear to have gotten much traction.
I was about to say this. Thank you for clearing it up.
Actually there's a lot of support for that. Just not official support. But seems like if you need X to run on Y then somebody somewhere has a hack to make it happen. Some obviously more substantial than others.

That, and almost everything has support compiling to its original target and JavaScript these days.

Nonetheless I agree with the sentiment, perhaps because I'd love to see Scala on .NET and F# on JVM in particular. I don't know why, of all the things that have happened, neither of these ever did. Maybe too much overlap to be worth it. I'd also have to imagine that strongly-typed languages are a bit more difficult since you have to match the underlying runtime.

Curious if there were any languages and targets in particular you had in mind.

FWIW ClojureCLR is still going strong; seems to track the JVM version within a couple weeks: https://github.com/clojure/clojure-clr/commits/master It does have some warts, but I've played with it and it works fine.
State governments have reduced funding by about 10% per student, and increased them in general (the number of students went up significantly).

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/higher-education/rep...

The fact that costs are out of control (notice the 200% increase in tuition) suggests more oversight is needed, not less.
Vehicle-to-Grid
I've begun to regard statements of "decrease funding" by media reports with skepticism. Usually "cuts in spending" means "reductions in the projected growth rate of spending". I believe that absolute state funding of public universities is on the decline though in the last few years, but its important to note the levels in a historic context. If you increase spending substantially, and then proceed to decrease it in the following years, that's not the same as a steady erosion of funding over decades.

It appears as though there was a huge spike in funding around the time of the financial crisis, and now it has been dropping over the last few years back to levels closer to that of the 1990s [0]. Not sure why most articles point to the high water mark of the last 5-10 years as the benchmark for cuts.

[0] http://www.randalolson.com/2014/05/20/skyrocketing-student-e...
I think what we're really talking about is, "why aren't there more lower level abstraction layers that are simple and 'open minded'?", and I like the idea of such a thing.

The problem is that there isn't really any immediate gain for the organization doing this. The benefit is for the community as a whole. So, we end up in a Tragedy of the Commons-like scenario with disparate pieces that disregard each other.

Going down a few turtles, my understanding of RISC is such that it does something similar (providing a much simpler set of possibilities, leaving more to the next level above), but at the machine level. What would 1 or 2 steps up from RISC look like, if it were built with some of the same principles?
I never break a promise... unless it's a special case statement. Ba dum chish!
> You need to be responsible for your own future and a possibility of your job being eliminated.

Easily said for the readers of HN. What you do today won't last forever, and in many cases won't last 5 years. We're all on our third or fourth or seventh expertise.

But you can't treat truck drivers, coal miners, or even medical specialists that way.

NOT having a plan for the disemployed also locks us into stupid make-work policies: Too many cops, screws, soldiers, narcs, TSA agents, etc. These people make nothing. They are overhead. And our overhead has overhead. That's not how you return a mature economy to high growth.
I immediately thought of Seveneves as well. You know some time thousands of years in the future, the Earth's humaniods are going to ask how their ancestors survived the asteroid in our future.
The title is a philosophical statement; one which, to me, is brazen and absurdly proud.
Isn't machine code in some sense a bytecode for a universal runtime?
The figures described seem to argue the opposite of the headline. If you get a 12% return on the cost of your education regardless of where you go, then that means that more expensive colleges are providing a commensurate increase in returns.

The fact that they can maintain 12% return is fantastic, and you should be spending every last cent you can afford on that. After all, if I offered you a 12 cents a year if you give me a dollar today, and someone else offered you $12000 a year if you give them $100k this year, you'd probably take the latter.

And this is not even counting the fixed cost of the time you spend going to university. The cheap and the expensive both charge you the same in time. But the latter gives you a phenomenally higher return on that time.
This is very true, and it's absolutely something that we don't understand. But Carroll's point in this blog post is simply that we have no reason to think that the ultimate answer to these questions will require some fundamental principle of physics that is not ultimately a consequence of quantum field theory (and specifically, the standard model) and general relativity as we understand them today.
Thinking about this, that's basically equivalent to, in America, handing out your American W2 tax forms instead of references. The forms give a duration for which each company had you on payroll, plus a separation code (layoff, quit, fired with/without cause) if you're no longer there.

Sure, they also show how much you were being paid, but presumably you could wait until after a salary negotiation to hand these over.
Won't do that. But I would like to be able to donate them to someone for whom that copay would be burdensome. My point is that these things are VALUABLE and that violent people may want to steal them. It is another way that over-prescription can do harm.
It's hard to separate how your language behaves from how the underlying runtime behaves. Unless you're incredibly careful, programs will end up depending on runtime behaviors which you'll have to either emulate or break when you target a new runtime.
This is preposterous. We don't understand gravity.
Just a quick clarification regarding Ruby. All the major Ruby implementations (MRI, JRuby, Rubinius) use virtual machines in their current incarnations.
Saying a market economy is the end of economic history is like saying physics is over. We're reaching the point where microeconomics can be computationally scaled up to the macro level. The economic activity of every human and all capital can be tracked and modelled. This is very likely to produce results that will out-predict, and out-perform markets.
The difference is the tuition will be gone, but a house will still have its value. And since the house is in an area with a good school system, its value has probably risen :-).

It's certainly not a fair system.
The article doesn't distinguish "friends" from "family".

In my experience they're totally different. Also, the more emotional energy you expend with your family (e.g. dealing with teenagers), the less energy you have left to interact with friends.
Without video evidence, it becomes "he said, she said". If I were a sex worker, I'd want the video evidence.
> I really don't like having my picture taken anymore. You don't where it's going to end up.

feeling similar sometimes but it's weird to be the "crazy" person in social settings to not wanting to take photos
Thanks, I clearly haven't used Ruby for a while. I edited the post to be clearer.
Hell yah. It's not a coincidence that America is the only country that allows direct to consumer advertising of medication.

Here's another one: ban all forms of compensation from drug companies to doctors. No more bribes^Wconference trips.
Maybe not knowing the names, but how about knowing the masses? Part of the theory is precisely that apart from some numbers we already know, there is nothing more to know about those particles.
>This is preposterous.

Why don't you read the article? Author's second paragraph starts with: "Obviously there are plenty of things we don’t understand. We don’t know how to quantize gravity, or what the dark matter is, or what breaks electroweak symmetry." - which suggests that he may actually address your point (Hint: he does).
To everyone in this thread bringing up things we don't understand yet: you're right, but probably missing the point he's trying to make.

What he means is that we have a theory ("Quantum Field Theory") that is mathematically capable of predicting every physical phenomenon we're capable of observing here on earth with any instruments we've invented to date. He's definitely not saying we understand everything about the universe. By analogy, it's like saying we know conceptually what a Turing machine is and how it works, but not everything about computer science and software engineering.

It may also turn out that quantum field theory is somehow wrong, in the same way that we replaced Newtonian physics with relativity and quantum mechanics. But we still use Newtonian physics in engineering because it's only wrong in ways that rarely matter in practice.

I highly recommend watching Sean Carroll's talks and picking up one of his books. A few suggestions:

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMfW1jY1xE - "The Origin of the Universe and the Arrow of Time"

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vrs-Azp0i3k - "Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality"

* http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Here-Quest-Ultimate-Theory/dp... - "From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time"
Searchable Panama Papers database goes live Monday
I am perhaps misreading, but your tone sounds unnecessarily callous.

I think you are also assuming that there will always be sufficient numbers of jobs to keep sufficient numbers of the citizenry employed - or, if you prefer, able to be responsible for their own future. There is ample evidence to suggest that we need to be preparing for a society where this is not feasible.

> The spontaneous order of the free market is always going
> to be more effective than the top down order of some
> government mandate ...

Not necessarily, but it's kind of missing the point, and implies those are our only two options (so, no choice at all).

The 'free market' is about to break, which is the point that Yanis (and many others) has made. That it's about to break and we don't know what will happen, and worse, that we're seemingly not preparing for the transition to some other political / economic / social structure, is the alarming bit.
But then again, machine code is platform specific too.
This is addressed in the post. Everyday life is well explained by general relativity and there is no reason to doubt that it will continue to do so.
Stemcentrx bought for up to $10B
Pentagon exploring AI-human warfare teams
My understanding of Carroll's point here is that if we were to revisit this question in 2110, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the ultimate explanation for superconductivity would have turned out to have required any fundamental particles or interactions other than those in quantum field theory as applied to the Standard Model (plus gravity). Certainly our ability to do calculations within those theories will probably have improved drastically by then! But there's every reason to expect that physicists of that future era will be able to say, "Physicists from 2010 were entirely familiar with the basic principles and structures that our recent algorithms explaining superconductivity are based on."
I see it all the time now when referring to Lambda or Azure Functions or Google Cloud Functions. I'd claim, in fact, that there is no other one buzzword which is currently used.
The few times I've ever seen checks (CA, WA) it was for particularly dangerous places that had lots of inexperienced travelers passing through.
e-gold, Pecunix and the ones that just shutdown and ran off with the user's money like ECU-Money and GDP.

There were a bunch of them.
We understand gravity in exquisite detail: the theory of General Relativity is our theory of gravity, and its numerous predictions have proven true again and again.

But you don't even need GR for "everyday life." For that, Newtonian gravity suffices, and the entire theory of Newtonian gravity could easily be grokked by a high school student.
By analogy, it's like saying we know conceptually what a Turing machine is and how it works, but not everything about computer science and software engineering.

That's reverse of what he is saying. As you say, we understand the Turing machine (the most basic elements), but we don't understand everything it implies.

Whereas in physics, we don't understand the most basic elements, but we do understand what those elements imply (at least, the article asserts that we do).
This is the funniest thing about historians and, more than any other, the Marxists: they believe in historical laws and historical processes. They think history has a purpose and a meaning. They believe we are in an unavoidable journey towards what they think is progress. And they think their "progress" is the only possible progress.

They look like those children laying in the grass and seeing images, forms and patterns in the clouds. But the patterns are not there, they are just imagined.
How do we get to the PRs/commits for the proposals? I see a link to a JIRA issue, but the issue doesn't link to anything in Github.
I think the author is saying a generic runtime instead of having each language to create its own.
We actually have pretty good ideas on how life could have started

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
The hilarious thing is that the US has the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act through which we can punish multinationals - usually BigPharma - for bribing doctors in other countries, where direct-to-customer advertising is prohibited.
Sean Carroll is very good speaker and a tremendous communicator of science. He has a bunch of talks on youtube, and they are all very enjoyable to listen to. And if you're into that sort of thing, his debate with William Lane Craig is fun and informative (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKDCZHimElQ)
As far as bikes go, they're designed to stay upright by automatically turning the front wheel when it is tipped in any direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZAc5t2lkvo
What you keep saying in these threads is that opiates aren't effective. Why then do people continue to use them? Certainly if you're in pain, you're not taking a gram of morphine-equivalent per day just because. If there are effective alternatives, why are they not used? Then with pain under control, you can slowly (over a year, say) taper down.
How to File a DMCA Takedown on BlogSpot for Copyright Infringement
You're "supposed" to drive 25-30 MPH with chains on.
I don't see why Standard Model would not be able to serve as the "theoretical basis" for chemistry and beyond. On the other hand, the reductionist approach is rarely helpful, and it is not helping here, because the modeling of chemical processes can be done by applying methods of quantum mechanics and does not require particle physics.
New Rustlang error format
No, no. Turbulence, and especially the laminar flow -> turbulent flow transition is A) not really understood B) could absolutely have massive impact if we did understand it (obviously it's possible that that real understanding could be so complicated that the existing heuristics are essentially as good as we could get anyway).
We do. Mass curves space. Curved spaces tells things how to move.
What about the first amendment?
>3. Go is not a good candidate for this universal runtime in 2016 due its lack of a mature optimization pipeline. Maybe in a few years, but in the meantime you'd be better off using HotSpot or .NET for this purpose.

Go 1.7 on amd64 is looking to be pretty competitive (ranging to better than) with HotSpot or .NET in micro-benchmarks. Most of this is due to the new SSA compiler back-end. "Years" might be a pessimistic appraisal.
Funky parse as I wrote it out, but you're correct. Despite the problem, I think the point being made is understandable. You can replace "than" with "like."
> "The spontaneous order of the free market is always going to be more effective than the top down order of some government mandate"

This is why the basic income approach is so popular. It guarantees a minimum standard of living for all without mandating anything but redistribution. If redistribution is reckless interference, you're about to find yourself awfully lonely in your politics.

You sound like you want to maximize economic efficiency. I want to maximize human welfare, and I believe significant redistribution will be required to do so. Monopolies are inefficient, so I'd prefer a decentralized redistribution mechanism, but today's governments will suffice in a pinch.
It looks like you're talking about this. http://web.onetel.com/~hibou/Emblem.html

And you started a visual dataflow language on the same runtime http://web.onetel.com/~hibou/Full%20Metal%20Jacket.html