skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When I was talking about strong appreciation by smaller groups, I wasn't thinking of the kind of works that only a privileged rich elite can afford. Certainly there are people who go to art auctions and buy paintings for millions, so I suppose that would be an extreme case of the same principle.

However, when I wrote my previous post I was more thinking about products in niche markets. An academic text by an expert in a narrow field would presumably appeal to fewer people than a Harry Potter novel, but to those who are working in the field, it might be very valuable to see the insights of an authority on the subject. Thus it becomes viable to publish texts that cost far more than a novel for each copy, if there are enough people still willing to buy it at that price. There are parallels in other niche markets, say a relatively obscure music style where fans are still willing to pay for recordings by a band they enjoy, or specialist software that is only useful to a relatively small number of businesses but is so useful to those businesses that it can sell for thousands of dollars per user.

Are those specialist texts greater works than Harry Potter because they sell for more? Are those specialist software products greater works than the latest Grand Theft Auto? I don't think that's necessarily the case. To me, a popular work that brings happiness to many people can be great, even if the highbrow brigade would look down on it and say it wasn't very good. When they've brought as many smiles to as many children as JK Rowling, their opinion on that subject will mean something to me. :-)

I want to close by coming back to the idea that value is often subjective. I am certainly not implying that to any given person a work can only be great if it makes a lot of money, just as in your own example of two people being in love, only two people's opinions on the greatness of the relationship really matter. I am just saying that in the large, as an economic matter, judging a product by how much others consider it worth is one of the few relatively objective measures we have available.
RethinkDB – Fuzzy Search
On the latter point, I think this will become more prevalent in the future, and has really interesting applications in displacing trust as a dependency in interpersonal interactions.

Once we have more accurate profiles on individuals, and the profiles are shared more widely, you could make much more informed decisions about who you want to share public spaces, interact, work, live, or even enter into relationships with.
North Korea may be behind Bangladesh bank heist
Have been running the trial for a few hours and am really satisfied so far. I see the same issues with Spectactle, though. Hope this can be addressed in a future version, as I'd love to have both apps running permanently.
Interestingly, when talking about SpaceX, the CEO is almost always 'Elon' rather than 'Musk', and I'm sure there's some sort of point that could be made about that...
“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both. “

Applying that to Hillary's case is a bit of a stretch. It's not like she was downloading all the confidential stuff at the White House and emailing it to herself. And anyone emailing to clintonemail.com would presumably guess that was going to the Clinton's email server.
It's worth pointing out one major difference between Word 93 and Google apps in 2016. Back in 1993, we were pretty much living in a 1-device-per-user world. People had one computer, and they used all their apps on that one computer. Hence, if consistency is the goal, the only thing to be consistent with is other apps on that computer.

However, in 2016, we're living in a multi-device world. A single person can easily own a smartphone, a tablet, a laptop as well as a desktop. Some of them may be iOS, others may be Windows, and others may be Android. And they are likely to use the same apps (eg, google Maps) on all of those different devices. Hence, I would argue that consistency across devices today, is more important than consistency across different apps. As someone who owns a mix of both Mac and Android products, I would like for Google docs to look and behave similarly no matter which device I'm on, even if it means that Google Maps ends up looking differently from Apple-Music.
There's also the problem of identifying a proof when you have it. Hooray, after running a super-exponential number of steps in the real universe somehow it turns out Turing Machine #38,384,768,209,040,100 halts after fifteen googleplex and change steps. What does that mean?

(This is not criticism, this is elaboration. The approach is useless in practice, but deeply understanding all the reasons why is a good exercise in computer science.)
A mini game to learn to type fast built with core.async
Pessimist! :)

I disagree. I think much of human suffering due to competition stems from lack of security, or the lack of reassurance that basic needs will be met.

Imagine a technological utopia. All of your needs as a human being are met. All of the needs of your friends and family are met. Can you not imagine how much easier it would be to advance toward a "social utopia"?

Before the Renaissance, the cut-throat psychotic human beings tended to do the best in terms of gathering resources, security, etc. Since the Renaissance, this has become less and less true and merit has started to take precedence.

Eventually, once the conditions for a technological utopia are met and for the majority of the population, it will be a like a light has suddenly been turned on. Those that have all of their basic needs met, tend to be nicer to others on the whole.

Besides, even if I'm wrong, it's not hard to imagine some sort of machine or system that short-circuits "our biologically driven urge to dominate the gene pool" for the good of humanity.
Potato, potato...
Do browsers actually verify and enforce the pathlen property of a CA?
There is an increasing appreciation that large proofs need "proof engineering" that is similar to software engineering. See e.g.

- D. Aspinall, C. Kaliszyk, Towards Formal Proof Metrics.

- G. Klein, Proof Engineering Considered Essential.

- G. Gonthier, Engineering Mathematics: The Odd Order Theorem Proof.

- T. Bourke, M. Daum, G. Klein, R. Kolanski, Challenges and Experiences in Managing Large-Scale Proofs.
Can I ask an honest question? How much of this "churn" is due to them feeling their way through this for the first time in public. Privately, we would have never even heard about this.

I've been very critical of them deciding to call RC12 an RC because of the amount of breaking changes that have occurred up through beta (and now even between RC1 and RC2). I am typically met with apologists that tell me it's me who is wrong, despite that fact that the rest of the industry doesn't break their software (typically) between release candidates.

In the end, about two years from now, I suspect that this won't be an issue. I truly don't think there is malicious intent here on the part of Microsoft, I just don't think they put as much planning into this effort as they should have. They are also beginning to alienate their new-found open source followers by making decisions behind closed doors. They really need to be careful here...
"official dogma, non-ionising radiation can not cause cancer."

I doubt that you can find a scientist doing research on radiations effect on the body that dogmatically has said that "non-ionising radiation _can not_ cause cancer". I will personally call this scientist up and lecture him/her on the merits of doing science scientifically.

So if you "doubt" the dogma by saying "non-ionising radiation _can_ cause cancer" every scientist, and me, can go "Fk yeah, thats a working hypothesis, go prove that and bring society forward".

But if you would say that "non-ionising radiation _causes_ cancer" you are "stupid" in the way that you don't base that sentence on the current state of science and you are just making things up because you have been "working with biologists for many years" and you are a proud user of Common Sense™.
I think it would help a lot if they could somehow compile a list of the likelinessnes for getting cancer from a specific sort of radiation. It should also contain the radiation that we are naturally always exposed to.

Even if the values were only rough estimates I feel like this would put the real risks more into perspective.
Jumping in late, but no. High quality problems solved make a stable future where things like like transplants are just "solved." You cannot say the same for social networks, which are actually much more reflective of the current culture. We will not look back 50 years from now and say "oh man, thank god Snapchat came along" the way we'll be saying "thank god we pioneered that medical tech which continues to save lives to this day"
This is lxc containers. For installation, (on Debian Jessie) if lxc isn't already installed, you'll need to `apt install lxc`. Done. https://wiki.debian.org/LXC#Installation

Pretty sure docker is just as simple. `apt install docker.io` https://docs.docker.com/v1.8/installation/debian/
Speaking of potentially ambiguous pronunciations, I recently learned that Dr. Richard Hipp, the creator of SQLite, pronounce it Es Que Ell-ite or Sequel-ite, the -ite postfix being inspired by minerals/rocks (like stalagmite).

Source: https://changelog.com/201/
So, like taking a coach bus? In Europe it is very common to do so.
Orson Welles has a famous line about this in the Third Man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuJQ_UO7OE
There's a lot of fine distinction, and a hell of a lot of study, of these kinds of questions. One thing you might ask of your proofs is that they are immediate—which is to say, they can be (a) grasped and (b) believed, at least in principle, after only a finite amount of work. Further, you should be able to prove that your proof has these properties.

Without these properties, it's hard to call something a proof since it might simply go on forever and never resolve the question in the way you wish it would. This is absolutely the realm of things like the Halting Problem.

So 200TB of data plus a short proof that the search completed could at least in principle be immediately checked in finite work. On the other hand, the mere program which generates this data could not be unless it also comes with a proof of its own termination. We have no general process to generate these, so you must create a specific one for your generation program.

If it's cheaper to just spit out 200TB than communicate why you're sure that your program won't spin, then the better proof is 200TB long.

---

As a side note, this is sort of odd sounding because we're implicitly saying that "small is better" in proofs. In an ultimate sense this is probably true---if I had before me all of the proofs of something I would want to order them and pick the smallest.

But in practice, we cannot enumerate proofs and must expend energy to achieve new ones. Thus, there are at least two kinds of energy optimization which prevail. The first is how much effort is required to achieve a proof and the second is how much effort is required to communicate/transmit the proof to someone else.

This 200TB proof might be well-optimizing the search question and it might also be failing on the communication question.
> The real losers are the employees.

Why victimize the employees so much? It isn't like you go to work for the startup and when it implodes you are left with nothing and no options -- far from it, you likely made a good salary while you worked there and are likely very employable afterwards.

> They are investing their time and their careers without access to any information.

Being that employees ARE investors (their time), they should do their due diligence, too. A company not being transparent about whatever information you need to make a good investment decision should be a reason not to work there ie as a prospective employee you should evaluate how the company shares information with its employees.
> Someone missed out on the early PC days

I ignored PCs altogether. They were useless toys back then.

We had SGIs, so who cared about PCs?

> devs often reached below the abstraction, manually twiddling registers in the hardware

And we're still doing it, nothing changed. Want performance and control - go low level. Want uniform APIs - use what your vendors are trying to feed you with.

> you're mostly talking about non-consumer hardware

An SGI station is still a kind of a "consumer" hardware.
They already tried to sell filters. I think selling filters didn't go well because filters are free now.
My argument was for not retaining those commits, or not committing them in the first place; drewg123 was complaining about the situation from others, meaning that their private branches were not cleaned up prior to pushing. You wouldn't push your WIP branch, I would assume.

I have also pushed for the purpose of pulling on another PC; that commit then gets `reset --soft`'d.
The overwhelming scientific evidence that we are not all the same. Racial differences have been measured over and over again, and are quite significant. And what I find striking is how often the people living in their "everyone is equal" fantasy bubble will admit this, depending on the context.

For example, 117 people have run the 100m in less than 10 seconds. Do you know how many of them are women? Of course you do. Almost everyone is willing to admit this is a genetic difference. Do you know how many of those men are black? 113. Most people are also willing to admit this is genetic, especially when you point out that we've identified specific genes giving west Africans an advantage in sprinting. But suddenly when the same observations are made about IQ, then it becomes "racist pseudo-science", despite a complete inability to offer any valid criticism of the science involved.
I have discovered a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition that this margin is too narrow to contain.
I'm afraid I am less utopian. To me it seems more likely that we will eventually overreach our productive capacity by wasting time on the "unhelpful" problems I mentioned above, and then enter a period of decline.

The best we could hope for in such a situation is that we realise the immediacy of the "real" problems, and start to focus on those, arresting the decline before it becomes too severe. I have an (unfounded) expectation that the process of switching our (i.e. humanity's) productive capacity to focus on the "real" problems would be characterised by cooperation rather than competition, because the adversity required for progress would already be there, and we wouldn't need competition to create it.

If humanity becomes more fragmented during that process (see the rise of the isolationist right around the world), then we would run the risk of that cooperation being focused on destructive goals - that would seem to me to be along the lines of the worst-case scenario.

It strikes me that a lot of that is my interpretation of some of what is in Joseph A. Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies", which I saw recommended on here, and subsequently read. I heartily re-endorse the recommendation (I did a search to see if I could work out whose recommendation it was that pushed me to read it, but I'm afraid I can't work out which it might be, for which I apologise).
Too bad Mint is done by cowboys.

http://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-the-linux-mint-hack-...
WordPress is now 13 years old
There are inherent risks in startups. Those may be better manageable from an employee perspective with more disclosure. A fundamental problem with startup is that data is backward looking, extremely noisy and is not really a good predictor of what's to come. Considering the need of high level negotiations about funding often at the brink of shutting down financial disclosure at the wrong point in time can put the startup at a disadvantage.

There are also risks of misrepresentation and outright fraud. Those can't be solved with data room access but only fact finding audits from the outside and whistle blowers from the inside.
"I suspect much of our current technological age has its roots in the aftermath of the Manhattan project."

More like the aftermath of WW2 - radar, jet engines, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, computers, nuclear power...
Oops! Must have gotten my timelines mixed up. Please don't tell anyone.
It would be awesome if you could correlate this with songs playing on Spotify. Allow me to explain.

I'm listing to Spotify all day while writing code, listening to playlists like "Discover Weekly" or the "Radio". I find that some songs often make me much more productive than others. With all the data you collect, you could easily determine what songs are playing while I'm "productive" --such as while an editor (Atom) is open for a period of time. Then, those songs could get added to a "productive" playlist that I can use later when I need to really focus.

The problem currently is that we don't know what songs are playing when we are super productive because the truly great songs making us productive don't distract us, and thus never get added to a playlist as "productive" songs; they just keep playing in the background acting as a muse.
From an NLP standpoint, what is the comparison between this and other NLP products? Namely WitAi, etc?

I'm writing a bot framework (code, not web service), and trying to generalize the process so the the developer can switch between different NLP providers with ease (to avoid lockin.. as much as possible atleast).

So, comparing to Witai atlast, is your NLP better? Is it more flexible somehow? etc, thoughts?
Feedy: RSS Feed fetching framework for Python3
I don't need utopia; I would be happy with just less stress, more support, and more free time.

Stress is working over 55 hours a week. It's having bosses who want impossible things faster. It's being overwhelmed with complexity and responsibility with little control. It's being compelled to continuously mask my personality, identity, and emotions.

But, that's just me.

I just want a safe, simple place to think about ideas and concepts and collaborate with other like-minded people whom I trust to build them into reality. The trust part is really important (and increasingly hard to find).
WinRT isn't tied to store apps. You can use most of it just fine from .NET/C++ desktop apps. (not the XAML bits obviously)

https://www.nuget.org/packages/UwpDesktop/
Yeah, I'm not sure what GP thinks prevents rampant cheating from American students. It's not elaborate cheat detection systems — most students don't cheat simply because they choose not to.

And to act like this isn't a problem unique to Chinese students is a cop out. Culturally, there just isn't the same overwhelmingly negative view of cheating, and that difference is seeping through GP's justifications themselves despite GP ostensibly not being a cheater himself.

Sure a university should try to prevent cheating, and they do, but how far can they go? I don't want the costs of my education to skyrocket and the stresses on my professors to amplify just because some foreign students don't perceive an inherent wrongness with cheating.
Are you sure it's not more than 90%, or do you actually have almost 1200 dev configuration in your hosts file?
Well said! A company that has literally all the resources in the world comes up with better advertising and engagement through memes and addictive games. I guess that is what we deserve.
Hey, we did lots of maths too! (Well not me personally, but lots was done).

There is actually 12,418,001,077,381,302,684 semigroups of size 10. We only had to find 718,981,858,383,872 by brute force search (which still involved a whole bunch of maths and case splitting), which is 0.006% of the total. There is a whole PhD in the maths involved.

Of course, we could (and have) just published the search which has to be redone, and the maths which is required to prove the piece of search to be done.
This seems... incredibly silly. Not crazy or wrong, just silly. This feels like a child walking out of a movie theater like a cowboy, because they just saw a western.

I don't want an implant to achieve something I can manage with a needle and a bowl of water.
Wait, is that wrong? I've only ever met a single person that pronounced URL like "Earl". Everyone else says the letters, and thus, you get "see you are ell". I tend to go back and forth with cURL, sometimes calling it "kurl".

Same problem with SQL. Is it "ess que ell" or "sequel"?
I think he covered it already!

> Scrum is designed to manage the weakest Engineers and consequently dis-empowers the better ones
Easy to laugh at jokes, it's hard to watch real racism first hand.

Next time you experience racism in the real world, saying something - experience first hand what it's like in the real world to confront it, then reflect on why it's wrong to make choices based on race.
I wish somebody with clojurescript/reagent experience would rewrite this to see how it compares.
Haha that's just too much... sorry.
Uber for Auto Repair
IF you, as a technical lead, are building a product which is shipping in 2016 and decide to build it on something like .Net Core then you DESERVE to get sacked.

You're a leader, you are responsible for doing the risk assessment.

Do you build your product on a platform which is been in development for 18 months; which is an ambitious rewrite, and which is planned to have the first RTM in the second half of the year?

You're lying to yourself if you say that you're working in the best interests of your employers if you say yes. You're being irresponsible. You're doing CV-driven-development.

As a leader you're an experienced developer: you know that shipping dates are unreliable at best. We know that version 1 of anything is simply a starting point. You know that building a platform is extremely risky.

This is exactly why I chose not to immediately start using .Net Core. Sure, the tech is great, but it is bound to be delayed. No way am I betting 6-9 months of a team of 10 developers on that.
Aggregating the world of events
Angular 2 workshop in Zurich on June 20
(or send dick pics)
makecontext/swapcontex doesn't have automatically growing stack (opposed to their WinAPI equivalents). Yes, you can do this, too, I know. But if you don't want to go into the gory details here you either have a alloc a "large enough" buffer for your coroutines thus probably wasting memory.
Amazing (from the Who we are section):

> NEIL HARBISSON

> Cyborg artist with an internet enabled antenna implanted in his skull that allows him to perceive colours beyond the visual spectrum and connect to satellites to sense colours from space.
> If one submits a PR and it has a messy history, what is the reviewer supposed to do? Make them go through the commits and clean them up?

That's up to the project. Some do, yes, for the reasons that I described---it's much easier to review a series of patches that can be comprehended, and has benefits later on (e.g. bisecting). If the patch is large from a contributor, and a bisect arrives at that commit, and the contributor is not the one doing the debugging, it can be a frustrating and inefficient experience. I've wasted many nights on something that could have otherwise been immediately obvious.

> If you only have squash commits from PRs and run CI on them, you are sure that every commit compiles.

It's not difficult to loop through commits and make sure they compile.

In fact, bisect can do it for you, if you aren't fond of command-line loops.