skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If something you require to be happy is for sale, money will buy it. But money won't tell you what to buy, nor will buying it guarantee you'll be as happy as you were supposed to.

Also, poor people are not unhappy people. We all know how to have fun, minus those who don't.

Anxiety is the enemy though, and with a significant amount of our population either debt riddled, on prescription meds, or living paycheck loan to paycheck loan, it's no question many are unhappy.
I used to work at that BurgerMaster when I was in high-school!
I wonder if it's part of a longer-term strategy to get people to ignore online complaints altogether. At some point, when it becomes commonplace to tweet about problems instead of calling, it'll be substantially more difficult for horror stories to "go viral".

The more likely explanation is that PR teams are horrified at the prospect of something "going viral" and don't know how to tell what will and what won't, so they work to resolve any potential issue before it can blow up.
Brb rewatching GATTACA.

(great film, if any of you haven't seen it)
That link doesn't work for me. I'd love to read more about this system. Are there any other links you know of?
See Metacademy: https://www.metacademy.org/
Safe browsing doesn't work like that; the list is stored locally. When something does need to be fetched, Firefox obfuscates what's being fetched.

Most of telemetry is on Nightly only, IIRC. The bits that are on regular Firefox are thoroughly vetted to ensure that they don't impinge on privacy.
As long as you ensure they are different algos and have different seeds...?

As I write that I get a funny "no way" feeling. This is so unnatural feeling, if Its true it is indeed a breakthrough. I have to read the paper again.

When people complained about Linux mixing in the Intel hardware rng Linus replied that mixing low quality sources have good entropy - and he got a lot of stick for that.

That they are on different computers is immaterial.
U.S. banks scrutinize SWIFT security after hacks
Thanks. I ask because I've also seen this happen before to someone who was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. They had a history of dosing often, enough that I'd consider it unhealthy for someone who had a clean bill of mental health. They've returned to "themselves", but clearly suffer significantly from the disorder along with their family.

It's more than sad that this can happen to people. I'm someone who has had beautiful experiences with mushrooms, but also have a family history of schizo-* disorders. It's put me off from taking psychedelics again. It's a risk I don't want to take now that I'm old enough to realize the possible consequences. I recently "lost" a cousin in his late 30s to drug induced schizophrenia after he experienced psychosis on cocaine.

Psychedelics are amazing substances, but family mental health history and set/setting are crucial to keep in mind before ingesting.
Indeed, you can see just how blind and hypocritical people are when it comes to drugs.

What I find particularly amusing is that its usually some baby boomer who takes 5 different prescription meds a day, smokes cigars and drinks scotch regularly that will say just how evil mj is...

The drug wars are created and controlled black markets for the darker of the global threeletters. Combine that with pharmaceutical self interests and unsetteling profits that the public tends to forget about, our entire idea and classification of medication is extrmely primitive and far too influenced by politics and corruption rather than science.
A deterministic PSRNG has (by definition) 0 entropy, making them unfit for use as a source.

The point of an extractor (such as the one being presented here) is to take two (or more) sources of low quality true randomness, and produce a high quality random output.
Magic mushrooms 'promising' in depression
Apple Announces New iOS App Design and Development Accelerator in Bengaluru
I recently tested them all (because I moved abroad and couldn't move on the local app store without losing all my songs I had on iTunes match) and the only one that worked well for me is Google Music. I can upload all my songs there, it kept my playlists, my library is separated from their own catalog. It's not perfect, I wish iTunes match and Google music could meet in the middle. But I'm scared for the future of iTunes Match and I can't mass download my music from it so...

Here's the spreadsheet to compare the services btw: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ptV0sWO2tBT4c3G8aiB0...
Starting from a position of "Don't make mistakes" from a series of fallible entities (Computers, People) seems like a position doomed to failure.
Don't forget that the Copenhagen people also haven't really answered the Born problem, they just lump it into the black box of "collapse".
Try out the OASIS build system. It's very similar to Cargo/Cabal (although it's separate from the package manager) in that you basically declare what you're working with and it does all the building for you. It's super simple to use and is good enough for 95% of use cases.
As for traits/type classes, this is in development with the modular-implicits (experimental) fork of the compiler. It's highly likely that some form of this will make it into the language soon, but for now you can already start playing around with it if you want. It's super cool because it uses the module system to express type classes/traits rather than adding more parts to the language.
I thought they were OK until I realized that all the music I had hearted was nowhere to be found...
FWIW, in principle I agree with both points being made, but in practice I just didn't want to be responsible for following the issue and making sure it got resolved correctly. I wanted to hear "oops, leave it to us" and then stop thinking about it.

Perhaps worth adding, I was/am 99% sure how the charge occurred, and that it was a Heisenbug from when I'd trialled Prime. So there was no question of punishing them for being a bad vendor, I just needed them to bounce the issue around until it landed on someone who could fix it (which is essentially what happened).

I think the real root cause of situations like this is that social teams sometimes have more/better options for escalating issues than customer support does.
I'm from a developing country too and that is such an exaggeration. Maybe your career has been focused on mobile, but no way there's overall more native development than web.
All vendors are equal, but some vendors are more equal than others.
I tested these kinds of pay for follower services a few years ago. I had 75k twitter followers in less than a week for under $100.

Within three months I had 13k

Within a year I had about 2k

It hovered around there.

On facebook I bought 3k likes for around $30

I still have 1k likes for that page.

Basically, the only reason I have read that you would want to buy followers is that it can help boost your SEO ranking. It will not last long though and I bet the big social media companies start monitoring for it happening to your account/page if they detect abuse.
Absolutely they do. This is precisely the point I've attempted to make -- if you can find me an Econ 101 book that takes into account the particular political predilections of individual San Francisco neighborhoods, I'll donate $20 to the charity of your choice.

Until then, I contend the Econ 101 meme is totally insufficient. There is no "just build housing." There is only a complex intersection of need, desire, and will that changes by the seasons.

Let's acknowledge those and work towards a compromise instead of calling the other side stupid. That argument is lazy.
In 2008 I wrote some VBA scripts and built an Access database as part of a dashboard used by suits at an insurance company to track sales stats. Pretty sure it's still in use.

The suits also made a decision to open a third call center based on some staffing and cost analysis done by me and my boss. We used two totally different models (and argued a lot about which model was right). The director said, "The conclusions you guys came to were within 1% of each other, so it must be right. We're going to move ahead with the new center." That center is still up and running.

The thing that gave me chills was that no one told me the analysis would be used to make a $25M decision. I thought it was just skylarking and hacked it out with some formulas in a 3-page Excel spreadsheet in about three hours.
What makes randomness so hard? I had this crazy thought awhile back and wondering if it would work out:

Say you took a small disk shaped object like a hockey puck with a window on it and you filled it with sand. 50% white sand and 50% black sand. Inside the puck would be blades that are attached to a motor and rotated slowly to constantly change the pattern. The pattern formed in the window would be truly random wouldn't it? You could mount this to a PCIE card with a camera...
Every Tuesday morning I have to re-authenticate the 2FA that lets me connect to various things at work, and it isn't documented anywhere, but you'd better believe I figured out the pattern real fast. Being annoyed at the same time of the work week is very noticeable.
Checked all of them and Google Music was just better on all front. My biggest grip with Spotify is that I couldn't upload all my own music/playlists and have them there along with the new music I'll listen to through their service.

Made a comparison spreadsheet there: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ptV0sWO2tBT4c3G8aiB0...
I wonder at which level of society the lines of conflict of interest will be drawn. Between corporations, governments, military alliances? Should AI drastically improve the abilities or processes within such an entity, significant - even theoretical - advancements will most likely be kept secret to ensure competitiveness. And as you said, lead to a cold cyberwar of some sort.
I am the original author of LatexMk[1], a Perl script that runs Latex the correct number of times to ensure all cross-references and such were resolved. It can also run continuously with a previewer and several other goodies.

I wrote it around 1993 to scratch my own itch, adapting it from a little script called “Go” by David J. Musliner. At the time I was using a literate programming tool that generated Latex from C code. When I moved on from that job a couple of years later, I released a final version two, which documented that I was no longer planning to maintain it. Since then John Collins took up the cause and been doing a wonderful job from what I can tell from occasional ego searches through google and stackexchange.

Two amusing things: 1) It is the only piece of Perl code I have written, ever, and 2) I had reason to use Latex a few years later, and decided I really dislike the sheer complexity of it all. Despite that, it is surely the most enduring and widely used piece of code that I can claim credit to having a hand in.

[1] https://www.ctan.org/pkg/latexmk/?lang=en
The fix to low-information voting is to disenfranchise everyone who doesn't share your values, worldview? In other words, maintain the status quo.
FYI this is a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11715286
That's the key point. Apple should never be deleting stuff from users' devices. Never. Disk space is cheap. IP status is too ambiguous, and none of their damn business.
Electrification was called "the greatest engineering achievement of the 20th Century" by the National Academy of Engineering. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrification

With today's technology we can do it again.
From what I can gather, it should work independently from the Mirage toolchain, but will remain compatible with all current OCaml tooling, so using Mirage tools will work as well.
It is a terrible situation, and putting out prior art certainly doesn't fix that - but the alternatives courses of action are worse (assuming purely defensive interests). I think you're right though, if the internet was somehow patented then we wouldn't have one-click shopping patents... or much of anything really - we'd likely be having this discussion over a Minitel service.
So, I know OCaml is impressively fast. And, I know OCaml is impressively terse ("concise" may be a more positive term). But, I wonder what would make one choose OCaml (or a variant of it like this) over some of the other new or old languages that exhibit some excellent characteristics for modern systems. In particular, a convincing concurrency story seems mandatory. I don't know enough to know if OCaml (or this variant) has a convincing concurrency story, and nothing on the front page of website tells me.

So, why do I want to learn this, rather than, say, Go or Elixir?
F(a,b) = ab = ba leaves rather hideous properties of the input apparent. Because your operation is both associative and commutative, your operation is an abelian group. Any result ab says a lot about the probability of a certain input pair.

Because Math.random returns a real number between 0 and 1, with finite bits, a<1 and b<1

ab < b and ab < a

2ab < a + b

2 < (a+b)/ab

0 < (a+b)/ab - 2

This equation has roots. Given that there is a finite bitspace, IEEE float/double -- if ab is .9 for example, then the possible (a,b) pairs for the result are 2^(number of bits) * (1-.9) = one tenth of the bitspace

You planned to have 2X where X was the entropy of Math.random alone. Instead you got 1/10 of 2X, 1/5 of the entropy of just using Math.random. A total failure. Hows that for shits and giggles. This is why crypto should be left to mathematicians. Dont invent your own hashes, don't invent your own crypto. And don't try to combine two entropy sources with novel approaches, you'll most likely fail.

I'm not very versed on mathematics yet, just getting into it. But you can already see multiplication is a terrible terrible choice versus an actual hash. But even a hash will leave us vulnerable considering our random source is the same.
I came away with the opposite lesson. Everyone should run for office at least once. Once you see how the game is played, everything makes sense.
Oh cool, it's just like Hunger Games. The kids love Hunger Games!
It is for truckers.
How Immutability Helps (Java Example)
You wrote a printer driver when you were 10!? Jesus ... about all I managed at that age was lasting through a few waves of Space Invaders.
That's interesting. I haven't seen this paper before. None of the others I've read before (e.g., from Couder & collaborators on bouncing droplets) feature a fluid analog of entanglement.

(For anyone interested, an example of a theory that derives Schroedinger from a classical particle interacting with a fluctuating background field can be found here: https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/qf.pdf .)
How do employers view this program? Are they starting to come around toward online degrees or are they still looked down upon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_random_number_generat...
I'd say it means that the social team monitoring twitter has more power to get shit done* than the CSRs manning the phones.

*in this case meaning escalate to product teams or get the attention of executives
https://act.eff.org/action/publicly-funded-research-should-b...
I mean if you are talking about something like weebly then sure. If you are talking about something like Tony Stark's assistant then you are really talking about replacing almost every occupation. If AI becomes that smart then it will probably take over the world anyway before we even realize it has happened.

The main problem with replacing programming is that programming is constantly evolving. Weebly can do most if not all of web 1.0 and some of web 2.0, but there is still a lot that it can't do. The rapid pace of technology doesn't slow down enough for our automated tooling to catch up. Unless we are talking about basically a sentient AI then I just don't see this really happening unless we are talking about replacing programmers that are barely programmers at all.
The top complain I've heard about syntax is that too many people focus on it ;-p

Maybe that's because it's the first and only thing one can see and therefore it's cheap to have an opinion? Or is it because too many professionals are used to languages which are little more than a syntax on top of a toy evaluator?

When I first try ocaml long ago, I though overcoming the syntax would be a huge challenge (especially since I was using lisp at the time). Surprisingly, I got used to it after the first night, and even started to like it. Just a single data point of course, but it seems useful to warn new programmers that your first impressions on the syntax of a language are just that.
Also, your estimation of the time that would be required to learn a new language based on how easily you can parse the syntax at first sight is completely wrong. It took me longer to understand some error messages that the compiler threw at me long after I though I could "speak ocaml" than to build an initial understanding of the syntax (roughly 2 hours).

All of the above, of course, is just a disgruntled and grumpy way to say: despite we all know we don't care about the syntax of any language once we know it, it's still an overly important factor to drive a language adoption (or, in the case of ocaml, disaffection). Therefore, let's hope this new "revised syntax" will help many more programmers discover more sophisticated languages than the industry standards!
Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I think this quote threw me off:

> The academics’ latest work hurdles those restrictions allowing the use of sequences that are only weakly random

What does "weakly random" mean, if not a PRNG? Just low pure entropy per bit of sequence data? What's the threshold then between strong random and weak random -- wouldn't it be a continuum of entropy?

Minor nitpick: Also, how can a deterministic PRNG have less entropy (0) than that of its seed?
I think the sanitisation of the headline is in keeping with the spirit of the following guidelines:

If the original title begins with a number or number + gratuitous adjective, we'd appreciate it if you'd crop it. E.g. translate "10 Ways To Do X" to "How To Do X," and "14 Amazing Ys" to "Ys." Exception: when the number is meaningful, e.g. "The 5 Platonic Solids."

Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.

Furthermore, the full title as displayed on the article "SSRN sold to Elsevier: From open access to the worst legacy publisher" is actually a main title and subtitle, as noted by the colon separating them.

It's quite common on HN for the subtitle to not be included in the submission's title, or for it to be used instead of the main title.
Mechanical devices utilizing some form of chaotic behavior are usually pretty good sources of randomness, but they have a really high probability of malfunctioning (when your motor stops, you get predictable outputs), the are subject to wear-and-tear, and their entropic properties can be hard to quantify.

And they are less cool than avalanche noise, when you're asking nerds like us.

IMHO, one of the best devices to get low amounts of randomness is still the dice (cube). Casino-grade, if you're anal about it. I use that to throw Diceware passphrases.
My gripe with the music app is the super small buttons. I've got a plus size phone, yet this app makes me feel like Shrek trying to fold delicate origami when I want to pause a song.
A variable space font is good for a programming book where it can be a challenge to fit 80-character wide line of code on a page, but awful for actual programming.
Make less mistakes? Test more? Don't move so fast?

And you know what? I will expect perfection. Because if someone has the gall to destroy people's stuff they better execute to fucking perfection
...and in Capitalist America, party ignores people like you since indistinguishable from apathy and laziness.
To Bean or Not to Bean
Because ocaml type system is state of the art unlike go or elixir.

Also, what's a convincing concurrency story? Does multiprogramming count?
Well...... You'd clearly be right if you were looking at a timeframe of a few years, or a few decades, or maybe a century or two.

But if you successfully establish a long term presence in space, you've got access to a lot of resources. If you're stuck in a hole in the ground for 5,000 years, and the surface is considerably more hostile than space, I think there's at least a colorable argument that space is the way to go.

Spoilers for the end of the book follow.

As it happens, remnants of humanity survive in space, underground, and underwater. This was the part of the story that broke my suspension of disbelief. I just couldn't really buy the end-third societies. It's like Stephenson couldn't get his mind around how long 5,000 years actually is.

Just as a for-example, language: In 3,000 BC, there might have been an unknown language that we designate proto-Indo-European because we don't actually have any texts that reference it. Proto-Indo-European might have begat another language that is still so ancient that we can only guess at it that we designate proto-Germanic which begat a family of West-German languages that begat Old English that begat Middle English that begat modern English.

Meanwhile, in 7,000 AD, apparently they speak a light pidgin of modern English that's pretty understandable to modern English speakers.

I get Stephenson's argument for why his far-future cultures are so directly related to the action in the first two thirds of the book, I just can't quite buy it.
Some of the struggle is due to silly arcana. For example, the local deadline for submitting candidate statements is immediately after filing week, but before endorsements can be known. So crucial signals voters rely on are often missing.

The only fix is to keep pushing for improvements. Explain the problems to the gatekeepers, lobby for change.
Isn't "Independent and no correlations" redundant? How can two random variables be independent but correlated?
Spreading the gospel of Open Access sounds strange today, but someday, in the future, it just will be.
Gates owns a silver 959. This one:

https://www.instagram.com/p/MgiOYcGyhI/
Tetris movie adaptation secures $80M budget, starts shooting next year
GraphPad Prism 6 Crack Mac and Windows Free Download
I don't really know what I'm talking about here but...

If two such devices were identical in every way and started from the same conditions (i.e: the sands were placed in the devices the exact same way) then over a sufficient amount of time the sand mixture in the two devices would reach an identical equilibrium state of mixing. At least that's how two gases would act. No idea about sand.
How is this different than taking two independent bits with < 1 bit entropy and XORing them together to combine their entropy? (up to a max of 1 full bit)
I heard a story about a terminal in a public terminal room that a user was able to consistently log in to if they were sitting down in a chair in front if the terminal, but never if they were standing up.

They thought it might be static electricity, or some mechanical problem, or "problem exists between keyboard and chair", but finally they noticed something else was amiss...

It turns out some joker had re-arranged the 1234567890 keys to be 0123456789, so when the user was standing up, they looked down at the keyboard and typed their password (which contained a digit, of course) by looking at the keys. But when they were sitting down, they touch typed without looking at the keys, and got their password correct!