skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A technical policy doesn't stop me from doing it semi-manually in JOSM (it'd merely be annoying to geographically segment some edits and space them out over time). So it ultimately depends on good behavior anyway.

The preset system in iD is driven by the data here:

https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/tree/master/data

In particular, the suggestions are built here:

https://github.com/osmlab/name-suggestion-index

The process looks at popularity and then tries to do some standardization from there, suggesting a most popular form when less popular forms are encountered. There's a shorter list of committers, but I would say it's overall reasonably open to contributions.

My point with the Wikipedia is who cares. If you know Wikipedia does 1930-34 and OSM does 1930:1934, the details of converting one to the other will tend to be a lot simpler than any interesting thing you are trying to do with the combined data. It's a bunch of annoying cat herding to get a little bit of hypothetical convenience (hypothetical because what interesting thing is presently held back by the different forms?).
Zara has a very unique marketing/manufacturing/logistic model.
It took 4 iterations for me to buy a Surface.
100 Awesome Women in the Open-Source Community You Should Know
Yeah, understanding how each peice works is generally a good idea since software tends to be very delicate. I certainly hope a programmer is willing to go deeper and deeper into 3rd party modules until they discover the root of the problem.

When you say it, it sounds complicated, nuanced and elegant. But, from personal experience, it simply relates to mental rules like "make sure your fix doesnt screw up more things" and "if you think a programmer is doing something weird, its probably weird" and "if everything looks fine here, look upstream"

For something like database design, usually there is a restriction of the orm that causes fluff or the programmer is trying to minimize memory usage by reusing variables or something else that can cause utter chaos. Im all for "thinking like the writer", but I feel like that doesnt present actionable steps only to approach it with sympathy. Id argue, get a mental model of minimal necessary steps and see how the other program fits into it or expands upon it.
It's a can of worms that really needs to be explored. Maybe the answer is not UBI, but there needs to be some good ideas on the best ways of transitioning to a "post-wage" world, if such is indeed happening (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/07/world-wi...)

Mind you, the robots-are-taking-our-jobs predictors have been wrong before. But if they aren't, the issue I see is that a big spoke of the modern capitalism wheel revolves around employment. Employment provides income that supports a wider range of people than mere rentiers can. These employees can in turn spend this income at businesses. If there is no consumer income, any business that depends on consumer demand... well, they have a problem.

I guess it's easy to envision things being pushed a lot further, where automation has eliminated huge amounts of work. The main economy would thus largely be revolving around rentiers, who are unaffected by a lack of jobs, people that support the automation (which so far has been a relatively small group), and any other employment which can't be automated (in an extreme scenario this would be very little). From my perspective, such an economy would hardly look like modern capitalism at all, it would potentially look more like previous rentier-dominated economies. Because jobs are such an important pillar in 20th century life, there will probably also be a culture shock on top of that. Without some changes, it's possible that this transition will be rather rough (even if the automation doesn't quite go so far as some predict).
I suspect that too. I think I read a similar studies a few years ago except this had mouses. They never really got down to how they were cured of the diabetes
Typing assembly into a medium that is built for that is worlds apart from precisely inputting it using a standard controller into a game that was not meant to do it. If you think it's not an accomplishment, you are free to try it out yourself to see how incredibly difficult it is to do without assistance from a tool. Getting it exactly right is a skill, and not an easy one to master either.
Here's the rub: The people who are the least dependent on getting a job in order to survive are the best positioned to succeed in the economy. They can take time to educate themselves. They can spend time networking, and building relationships. They don't have to struggle to be well fed, well clothed. They have lower levels of stress.

Contrast that to someone who is 100% self reliant. They don't have friends or family to lean on. Every day they have to figure out where their next meal comes from, where they will sleep. Basic safety is not even guaranteed. (You can't be 100% on guard, without break.) The constant demand to take care of one's basic needs slowly wears them down. They have to struggle just to stay clean and well dressed. If you live in a city, you see people like this all the time. They're not part of social support system that benefits economically successful people – and the results are tragic.
Fairness in Learning: Classic and Contextual Bandits
I think #1 is actually the toughest bet. I can see Palantir, Dropbox and Pinterest either remaining static or even dropping from their current valuations. Even Uber and Airbnb don't have a clear path to huge growth in front of them, Airbnb is the safer bet for growth because of the lack of competition. Uber still seems a strong business but I'm not sure how well they continue to grow. X-factor for Uber is how it well it expands into complementary product verticals like self-driving cars, deliveries etc.

SpaceX could end up carrying this category.
Called it! It was No 7 on a low-ranked comment [1], the third option in link at bottom of another [2] for standard cells (knew they'd get messed with), and mentioned repeatedly on Schneier's blog. Guy I learned risk from said he actively countered analog poisoning of 3rd party I.P. his company licensed. He said he was constantly finding it, mostly for I.P. obfuscation but sometimes more nefarious. Here's one of his observations on subverting crypto processors with digital or analog additions:

"Controlling bits like the Carry flag is essential to the security of all crypto algorithms (techniques like DPA and "timing attacks" try to discover this information by observing the operation of the CPU) if you have a hardware way to transfer just this ONE bit, than most crypto available todays is useless. "

He kept pointing out, probably from experience, that you could just modify a bit here, an MMU there, or add RF circuit to bypass plenty of protections. Nobody would even notice analog additions because "their digital tools can't see it." It would take careful reverse engineering. Old risk already deployed into production re-invented in a neat, new paper with new technique.

Honestly, I originally got the subversion idea from the MULTICS Security Evaluation [3] [4]. Schell and Karger, not Thompson, should get credit for first attack like this as they introduced software that kept poking at a memory location until the MMU experienced an intermittent failure. They got in since software people assumed HW always worked. They also invented basis of "Thompson Attack" (see note below). So, I predicted HW trojans sitting on MMU, IOMMU, PCI, TRNG's, and some other things using non-standard circuits that nonetheless preserve timing, etc. So, a few years ahead on this one.

Note: Karger and Schell also invented in same project the idea of subverting a PL/I compiler to insert malicious code into stuff compiled with it, including the OS. Thompson read that and expanded on it with Trusting Trust. Now, Karger and Schell attack is called the "Thompson Attack." Nah, the founders of INFOSEC thought of that one first, too. Take that Thompson fanboys! :P

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10906999

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10468624

[3] https://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/classic-multics-orig.pdf

[4] https://www.acsac.org/2002/papers/classic-multics.pdf
I feel better about this now than I did a year ago. Proposition 1 is up about 50% in the first year, and proposition 2 is up about 65%.

The main point remains--we spend far too much time talking about whether or not startups are in a bubble. It's boring and it gets in the way. Sometimes it will be true and sometimes it won't, but the stories claiming a huge bubble for the last 10 years have been generally wrong.

It was telling to me that, even with the fever pitch of VCs calling for the end of the world last year, only one investor (a TechStars mentor) would take this bet.

The goal of this bet was to deflate the bubble conversation, and that seemed somewhat effective.
Yes, the Tor Project effectively did this for years, since no organization or organizational structure existed to take your sanctimonious "unit of caring" and turn it into geographically disparate non-colluding exit bandwidth. Sometimes the real world, or "territory," is more complicated than the "map" you find over at Less Wrong. Take a minute to ponder this in between the daily Neoreactionary Discussion Group and the hourly Why Aren't More Women Rationalists/Rationalist Pickup Artistry thread.
Have you grown food, ever?
Huh, will definitely do that, and will also file an issue for Java support in Realm. Thanks.
Guessbook – Information based guess platform
How Evans Cycles Uses Hotjar to Help Them Understand (and Build For) Their Users
I guess that depends on whether by power it's generally meant "the max power the engines are capable of under ideal circumstances" or "max capable under current circumstances". I think the latter is generally what is assumed when talking about operating (since it's hard to know the former). For example, in a car, you would probably assume that meant the gas pedal half depressed (and even that would be grossly wrong to the actual meaning of the latter interpretation, given gearing and the RPM power curve).
The location data thing is something Google+ used to use to recommend friends, so I can't see why Facebook wouldn't.
People may want a lot of things but in order to belly up to the demand side of the economic table they have to have the means to buy them.

Create an economy where the vast majority are unable to consume very much while aggressively expanding productivity and you'll create an economy with a demand shortfall.
How companies like ParqEx have created a Collaborative Economy
You're right that the problem is that progress, with each step, benefits fewer people.

Why capitalism is cited is that it exacerbates the problem. If you look at Switzerland or Sweden, you don't have the same issues that you're having in the US. There are protections. Health care is provided, universities are free.
I don't see how you boil this all down to being not possible because of religion. What specifically about these religions limits a more compassionate peaceful world? As I understand it, this is exactly the nature of Christ's teaching. Just because a large swath of people that identify themselves as Christian are 'finger-wagging blowhards', doesn't mean they'd be any different if they were Atheists or Agnostics. They might just be assholes no matter what. See Matthew 25:35-40 on Christs thoughts on the subject.

I could just as easily say that this progress is impossible because of the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest thinking, but that would be ridiculous because despite some people believing whole wholeheartedly in evolution they can still be humanists. I'd encourage you to not put large groups of people in such small boxes.
I don't think it's because of his prediction accuracy. What I love about his writing is that he brings in a fresh perspective and an alternative way to think about tech and its future, whereas most normal tech press just reports what's happening today and not even the why of that.

FWIW, while I found this particular piece insightful in general, I think he ignored the huge importance of Android and iOS. Even if the future is voice, the medium for the voice is likely to continue to be the phone or other wearables connected to the phone for a long time (5 years or more). And hence Apple and Google are likely to remain dominant since they will be at the front of the funnel. Even if the actual intelligence is coming from other companies, they will still have to be packaged as "app/AI plugins" into Android/iOS, so the OS owners should be able to continue to extract their pound of flesh a.k.a. App store revenue cut.
Hi! I am part of the AVA team. For 0.15, we've added awesome features such as better test filename conventions (we run `__tests__` directories automatically), being able to submit tests that should fail, test macros, and experimental support for limited concurrency.

Hope you like it! Let us know in the issues or Gitter[1] if you have any problems.

[1] https://gitter.im/avajs/ava
I grew up in the U.S. but in the past year, I've been able to spend a significant amount of time abroad, primarily in Europe and Japan.

The single biggest thing I've noticed: there are virtually no overweight people. And yet, no one is on some kind of obscure no-meat/no-carbs/no-fruit diet. People just live, eat the local food (which often has a ton of butter, salt, fat, etc.) and somehow still look 100% better than Americans.

My conclusion: obesity is caused by some combination of excessive portion sizes + over-processed food. It's not that complicated.
You do know that post is one big "valuations are high and we are in a bubble" joke, right?
This was basically Marx starting point: The idea that capitalist competition will cause capitalism to eat itself - sooner or later there are no new markets to expand into for growth, and competition will force ever slimmer margins and ultimately the only place you can trim margins in in employment costs. Then what happens to your market?

His belief was that on one hand capitalism was/is absolutely necessary to create sufficient wealth to make redistribution viable (he made the point in The German Ideology that a redistribution before that point would do what we saw e.g. in the Soviet Union: simply spread poverty around, and restart the class struggle it tried to erase as people tried to et out of poverty), on the other hand it would in its end-stages lead to "overproduction" combined with mass unemployment as it would fail to reconcile the need to try to win more of the market with the need to cut employment costs.

The ways society could prevent this happening are many, including things like basic minimum income as you suggest. But Marx argument was that societal changes of this magnitude tends to instead result in increasing tensions until revolutions erupt for the reason that ruling classes rarely see the gravity of the situation until it is too late.

There are many ways he could be wrong about this, but I find it very interesting to observe the increase in frequency with which this issue of automation and its consequencs is now coming up again.
Which one is which?
>How do these finitists handle things like the real numbers?

You may enjoy "Meta Math" by Gregory Chaitin (jump to Chapter 5 for the impatient):

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0404335

"Finally, and perhaps even more devastatingly, it turns out that the set of all reals that can be individually named or specified or even defined or referred to—constructively or not—within a formal language or within an individual FAS, has probability zero. Summary: reals are unnameable with probability one.

So the set of real numbers, while natural—indeed, immediately given—geometrically, nevertheless remains quite elusive:

Why should I believe in a real number if I can’t calculate it, if I can’t prove what its bits are, and if I can’t even refer to it? And each of these things happens with probability one!"

You might also want to take a look at some of Norman Wildbergers work, like:

"Set Theory: Should You Believe?"

web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~norman/papers/SetTheory.pdf
Protip: Bubbles always last 18 months longer than you think they can.
What a terrific summary. Thank you!
Linkedin: Open Sourcing Kafka Monitor
"Android which is super successful is to ensure people use google search" - WAT? I use Android all the time, and at no point Google pushes me to use their search. It's an app platform, and it primarily makes money through paid apps and ads/paid features inside the apps.
One of the drivers for feudalism was the prevalence of cavalry in warfare starting after about 700AD. Mounted knights are expensive to maintain, hence the solution of providing land grants in exchange for military service. It's a medieval version of the military-industrial complex.

The connection between mounted warfare and feudalism is controversial [1] but it's common enough that societies adopt social structures optimized for defense. There were almost certainly multiple reasons for the prevalence of feudal relations.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stirrup_Controversy
Exactly. Along the same lines, don't do anything to improve your interview process and find more productive people, because otherwise you could employ more less productive people, if you value "number of jobs" above all else.
> 1 company in each will disproportionately skew.

He's a VC, that's what he's betting on.
You are overestimating the complexity and importance of the average job in developed nations. Most of these jobs, like the grunt workforce in banks, can be fairly easily automated. Automation is slowly hitting all sectors in developed nations as well, it is not as prominent because only parts of the required processes can be replaced at a time and these require training for the people that will be working with the new automated 'stack'. That being said, I think it will be 5 - 10 years in the West until most people really start feeling the effects of automation.
CEOs get the credit when the company does well and they get paid extraordinarily well. Either they don't deserve that credit and shouldn't get paid nearly as well as they do, or they should get just as much credit when the company fails. None of this heads I win, tails you lose bullshit.
> My conclusion: obesity is caused by some combination of excessive portion sizes + over-processed food.

Don't forget lack of exercise from a car-centric transportation culture.
Money flows in a cycle.

The worker must get wages to buy the product. The company must sell product to get the money needed to pay workers their wages.

When you put robots in the mix you break this cycle. When workers/customers don't have money to be customers of employers, everybody loses. It doesn't matter if products are cheaper.

The tragedy of the commons is that corporations in seeking to become more efficient by eliminating employees are actually shooting themselves in the foot.

The change the OP suggests is drastic, but it is a valid methodology to maintain the money cycle. The only thing wrong with it, is that it is not fair. Why should someone who produces no economic output get paid?
Anything involved heating up vegetable oils to high temperature is extremely dangerous, because oil releases carcinogens [0]. Preparing healthy food using heated oils sounds like nonsense to me.

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11981884/Cooking...
That's a very naive and optimistic assessment of how our adversarial legal system works. The $$$ you bring to bear on a case matters just as much as the legal merit. Poor folks are put in jail because their overworked public defender was sleeping when they should have objected. A billion dollar company can bury a mom and pop shop with patent litigation, etc.
Yes, we're all children. Don't let the adults know or they'll stop working so hard
I'm pretty sure that the these are the sort of interesting times to which the grandfather intended to refer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_you_live_in_interesting_ti...
In Romania, especially in its rural parts, it's customary to keep one of the offspring if not with the parents then at least somewhere close to parental home. Families encourage their kids to grow and develop themselves, and support them in doing so up to a certain point in time. Afterwards, they go in the other direction and "encourage" through all their available leverages retention inside the family, and this goes in various forms, from mild pleas for payback care up to heavy psychological pressure with nasty tricks and everything, that stops only when a decision was made by one of their children. The "lucky" one becomes their heir and caretaker and the others are released off the hook. If you're better with or off your parents depends on the times you're living in (be it Romania or other place), but clearly that's not something as simple as a cultural trait.
for the same reasons google develops a web-browser. They need a platform where they have control. Not so much for evil reasons, but because it's a risky place to be in when a competitor controls the platform you use to deliver your services.
I like the tone of this article. I do, however, believe that there is rather more science backing up low carb eating than the piece would have you believe.
Your Business Is Not Protected from Ransomware
> allowing for a plane which, during descent, could regenerate most of the energy used to make its ascent

The Pipistrel aircraft do almost exactly this. They claim about 10-15% energy recovery rate for thier regenerative systems. No need for variable pitch either; they simply windmill the main prop.
Ah, I get the confusion. I've added "just" to my earlier comment.
Oh cool! So based on your comments, you've done an audit of all related code repositories and libraries to confirm?

I'm sure a Facebook engineer COULD find out if Facebook is doing this - but just working at Facebook is not sufficient enough to say for certain it does not happen, you need to actually do the required investigation.

---

I don't personally think Facebook is listening in the way suggested here, key word would be _think_ though. And unless you're saying you've audited the code repositories, you're limited to your _opinion_ based on the context you have from working within the company.

You cannot say it doesn't happen with any level of certainty (as you've tried) just because you have access to the code repositories.
A single bad IPO from that list of firms (Which will likely happen in a climate of pessimism, even if we don't hit a recession) will be disastrous to their aggregate valuation, even if they stay private.

I feel that the only way Sam will win the bet is if none of the firms in #1 or #2 will IPO between now and 2020.
It's importatnt to note that Trump doesn't own the trump towers. Typically he licenses his name to the builder and then has his management company run the buildings.

In Toronto its turned into a huge clusterfk with the builder suing the Trump management company.

It's actually become an interesting case study as the builder still owns the majority of the units in the trump tower because they've been unable to sell them. This has lead to an interesting situation where one owner actually has majority vote in a condo complex.

The Toronto Trump tower was sold as a hybrid hotel/condo, where the condo owners could rent out their condos as a hotel room. These rooms go for $350 to $700 per night to give you an idea of the clientele who would get them.

I'm not very surprised that these don't line up with the budget conscious people who would use a site like hipmunk:)

http://torontolife.com/city/toronto-trump-tower-lawsuit-feat...

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/04/17/trump-vs-trump-i...