skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That is not entirely true (not entirely false either), the reality is more complicated.

Your metabolism level, and the percentage of calories that are actually taken up by fat cells, depend on many factors besides total calorie count.

A nice paper that came out recently:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151119143445.h...

So, for example, person A can eat 3000 calories of cookies per day, but would gain weight on 3000 calories of rice. Person B could be the opposite. From the paper, it looks like genetics is a factor, though epigenetic factors and microbiome seem more important.
Thanks for these! I haven't given a thorough read yet, will do so later today.

Probably off topic, however, in the CMPH link you quote above, what I gather about the MPH functions is that in any practical setting they probably would require a combination of hash functions to avoid collisions -- right?
Yes, under capitalism, everything that can be corrupted will be corrupted. This generally seem to be less of a problem for the nordic countries somehow, probably a combination of strong regulation and a culture a bit more geared towards fairness.

BTW, Singapore has an home ownership rate of 90%, so it seems like a big success.
So they're just like everyone else?
"I know more about how you should spend your money than you do"
Ill give you paper cranes if you buy me a house
You are surprisingly right. Small state like Cuba with monocultural agriculture and lack of industry is destined for that. But even in these hard conditions Cuba has a better and more people oriented medical care system than the US has and is exporting medical know-how to the third world.
Hardly thousands

That is a barefaced lie. Forgetting the rest of the evil attributable to Communist ideology, the Ukrainian Genocide alone is evidence that it was many more than "hardly thousands": http://www.ncas.rutgers.edu/center-study-genocide-conflict-r...

Indeed, one need only consider the ease of which one could immigrate out of USSR, or other Communist states for that matter, to know something was seriously fucked in your glorious worker's paradise. How good can a political system possibly be when that same system makes it illegal to leave the country and your own citizens are willing to risk their lives to get out? I think if you look back on history, the real stand-out achievements of the Communist system are really it's unrivaled ability to systematically dole out want, suffering, and death to all but a political elite.

Given the logic of your last arguments however, I can easily see why someone such as yourself can look past the facts of the matter and support such a murderous, despicable system such as Communism.

Pointing to accidental deaths, or deaths from wars, or other misdeeds as somehow justifying the volitional and indiscriminate murder of whole populations defies logic. Someone else's wrong does not justify the sort of violence that your original posting obliquely supported.

In the end, your willingness to claim the great benefits of Communism while evading the methods used to cement the power of Communist party officials over the population should be red flag enough to any sane-minded person to reject you and your wares. Even then I would argue the equality of misery produced by the Communist to be no great achievement. Oh... and as for never trying it... I've never been burnt to death either, but I'm smart enough to know I want no part of it.
Systemd developer asks tmux to add systemd specific code
Quite possibly the only popular revolution of the modern age that didn't end in massacres. Probably because it was, despite all the rhetoric, controlled by a group of generally conservative oligarchs who really weren't trying to shake things up that dramatically.
We can boycott the rich. And when we cant, we can just choose to buy from the least rich
Still curious about the AI methods. Also curious about any pedagogical theory underlying the educational methods.
Yes, and 2.5x is something that can be dealt with by deploying beefier hardware. The productivity gain is what makes that tradeoff a no-brainer.
I was happy reading your points about C. C is the language I feel the most at home with. In fact, I was working with C for most of my career - I only moved to higher level languages in the past 3 years of my career. So the things you mentioned I should be familiar with, like undefined behavior, are - or were :( - my arena.

I'm surprised that apparently the rigor applied to this kind of software doesn't seem as hard as I had imagined. I had always pictured code in the defense industry being heavily scrutinized, proved and whatnot. But I'm still excited about the idea of having to conform to certain standards.

> That culture allows for schedules with a proper chunk of time put in for making sure the software is quality.

Now I want to work in that industry even more! :)
> Taking about Champerty makes you look like sore losers and you know it.

This is weirdly personal, since I am not a member of the media and have no vested interest in the outcome. I'm interested in the moral implications, more for philosophical curiosity's sake, but it is very telling to me that you resort to this sort of statement and continue to say a lot of unsubstantiated things as excuses to dismiss champerty without actually dealing with it.

> now that they are gone they have to redraw the boundaries of what is permissible so they don't meet a similar fate.

That's a good way of putting it -- Thiel is attempting a certain kind of moral gerrymandering, which many people find to be quite obviously more frightening than the boundary transgressions he's using as his personal gerrymandering excuse.

There will always be boundaries between these different sectors. I completely agree that Gawker straddled that boundary. The worrying thing is that a single wealthy person gets to redraw the boundary to suit his personal whims, with essentially no input from society at large (who, seemingly, derive lots of value from the service Gawker provides, evidenced by their willingness to pay Gawker with attention and dollars).

Libertarian bros like Thiel (and you see this constantly in the HN echo chamber) love to come out in support of blurring legal boundaries, e.g. Uber being required to treat drivers as employees, because it is supposedly how society innovates away from stagnant laws that "should" be ignored by powerful companies to deliver value that customers indicate they want via paying dollars. Easier to ask for forgiveness for breaking or bending the law than to let your innovation be stifled while you ask for permission.

Yet when it's inconvenient for them, such as in this situation with Gawker, they don't seem to care if people generally find it valuable (imputed from Gawker's success) and conveniently they suddenly do care about the specific letter of the law (something that, contrary to your blowhard comments above, is not of general interest when debating these things -- unless happening to focus on the letter of the law is convenient for the tech culture tribe in some given debate). Unsurprisingly hypocritical just like everyone else.
A better way of putting it would be that your investment might improve the economy only via side effects (e.g. the investor who you purchase the shares from is able to invest that money in a new business venture or buying actual goods, or a boost to the company's share price from your buying activity [if you're a massive fund owner] encourages new businesses to start up in that industry or makes it cheaper and easier for them to raise capital)

Your contribution to the wealth of the economy from buying the stock is only the effect of the marginal increase in the speed of transaction and price from the share owner selling to you rather than having to wait for the next, possibly lower bidder on the share. The contribution to the economy made from you passively holding the stock is only the effect of the marginal boost to the share price from you not selling on entrepreneurs, lenders and investors. The average gain you make from share price appreciation is likely to be more than that; the difference is economic rent.

Given there are already enough stock investors for trades to be made in microseconds with tiny spreads, the positive effect of an individual secondary market stock trade is so close to zero as to make the "functionless investor" characterization broadly correct.[1] Moreover, since your decision to purchase secondary market stock has an opportunity cost; you might otherwise have invested it directly in producing something in a market without such ready access to capital, its effect on economic growth might be net negative.

[1]of all the circumstances where economists treat transfer payments as irrelevant, this one might be the most justified
The market has already started to change with new players like PlosOne and Peer-J successfully competing with the more traditional publishers.
A good thermal camera, or maybe just gait recognition might not make that effective. No, break up the cameras for scrap.
It's not supposed to be helpful, it's an interstitial ad. The point is to make you click on it so you get sent to a feed of stories about Facebook and another page full of ads.
If Exxon is covering up climate change, they are doing a pretty damn poor job of it considering the hysteria in most media about it.

The tax system was insane long before Turbo Tax came on the scene. Sure they may have a vested interest in the status quo but they didn't create the insanity and they are not the primary cause it's not being reduced.
Mind Uploading and Human Transcendence
If someone could break 4096 bit ssh keys they could scan every single TCP port on the internet in seconds.
Mugger arrested after victim spots him on Facebook’s ‘people you may know’
Those are explicit national legal rights, limited to the citizens of a particular nation, granting them rights to land under the legal jurisdiction of the national government. It's not the same as a general implicit right possessed by any given person to forage any given plot of land.

In this comment I further explain why I don't believe these national legal rights, and their subsequent abolishment, in any way justify a tax on private income:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11797024
Is the EITC even constitutional in the case where somebody receives more money back than they pay in taxes? The federal government has the power to lay taxes, and can reduce those taxes to $0, but a negative tax isn't a tax.

I can see it if individual states opted into a dedicated income redistribution tax, where the federal government would pool money from any states opting in and redistribute it back to people using the tax mechanisms they already have in place.
I was in the same boat.

I've used tiling WM's full time for maybe the past decade (xmonad, i3, awesome, dwm, scrotwm/spectrwm). Also I use rxvt-unicode with the tabs extension. That's in addition to tmux.

In practice, I do not perceive redundancy. Using the tiling WM to keep the layout of terminals doesn't persist across login/logout or even the X session. Also, you can SSH to the box via another machine and have the layout there waiting for you.

Another factor that played a roll in it probably was irssi / weechat and ssh'ing into a remote box for it. No special splits or anything crazy, just using the attach/detach feature. I started with screen. Eventually moved to tmux (one thing I missed from screen was easily being able to share the 'session', though I forgot screen's terminology for that).

Then for a time, I saw tmuxinator and teamocil out there, but felt meh, don't feel like keeping a bunch of config files floating around. This was before it came a trend to store dot-configs in git.

When I realized I could have a dot config persisted across my machines (local network and remote) via git, that's when keeping project files became less an abstract nicety and more of a time saver.

I see many gradually evolve into trying a session manager out, but also see many (like another commenter ITT) who get by fine with a simple script.
Each customer would need to see a normal distribution (possible), and each would need the mean to match the "correct" value (not possible without the overall mean matching the correct value).
VisualSFM: A Visual Structure from Motion System
C++ for Games: Performance, Allocations and Data Locality
This isn't so. Quoting [1], energy dissipated as side-effect heat during gestation and storage:

Carbohydrates: 5 to 15% of the energy consumed

Protein: 20 to 35%

Fats: at most 5 to 15%

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action
No, they are OK. They just have other problems, not another scale like 'I do not have 100K to close my mortgage and that guy has no extra 2BN to buy that robotics facility in Korea'. They live in another dimension. It is called power, when they decide about values of your currencies for example - remember what Soros did to the sterling pound.
There's one thing this communist logic doesn't take into account: risk. Ownership and risk are inherently tied to one another. Thinking only about scenarios where this risk already passed and then calling owners "parasites" is survivorship bias in the purest form.
They did cover it up and had a lot of success: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_co...
The government only recently scanned the US Statutes at Large, so I would say they have more important works to scan.
My money's on location services having been enabled on the mugger's phone, likely both the mugger's phone and the victim's phone.
My theory is it's a cartel of cartels. It was always a possibility given all the markets naturally seem to develop oligopolies and shift to cartel-like behavior. Buying off politicians to protect profit or market share was also common. So, what happened is that they started acting collectively for whatever interests them. They still compete or argue for other things but certain laws and trends are valuable for all rich capitalists.

Project Censored published a great report that surveys many of the organizations, their boards, and so on. First report whose theory is very similar to my own research.

http://projectcensored.org/the-global-1-exposing-the-transna...

As you can see, the boards have considerable overlap where people who appear to be competing in one sector are working together in another. There's also a clear incentive, per doctrine of maximizing selfish gain, for board members and CEO's to all give each other ridiculously high compensation while driving it down for laborers. The reason: they can. Why else?

So, it's a combination of corrupt politicians, elites at CEO/board level, and media whose boards work similarly. The worst part is that the media is critical to changing the situation but has financial incentive to avoid that ever happening. That's why they so deviously self-censor on these issues to the point Americans can't get mad enough about the specific problem to do something with specific solutions. Media never presents either. Instead, works on side issues or total distractions (esp shootings or celebs) that prevent threats to stability of plutocracy.

EDIT: Given not everyone likes this source, I'd be interested in any similar data and analysis from academics published in a peer-reviewed journal. No paywalls, though. Can't fight elitism with more elitism. ;)
Yeah, and to some degree, this feeling is what a lot of reactionary and anti establishment parties are doing well off of at the moment. Growing inequality means that there's a lot of votes for political parties on the far left and right whose solution to this is basically 'destroy everything'.

I suspect fears of this are also why 'identity politics' has become a scourge in the last few years or so. Why immigration is often used as the fear of the moment. Why so much of the media tries to paint people as bigots.

Because things were getting quite bad against the 1% beforehand, with stuff like Occupy being a good example. Getting people to turn against each other over gender, race, personal hobbies and interests, religion and minor social differences diverts the anger to targets that don't threaten them.
For nth time can we please stop talking about 'tax-avoiding' as if it's something we should not do? Every sensible individual so arranges their affairs so as to avoid tax as much as possible within the law. Governments of whatever stripe set the tax rules. We citizens obey. Government is always free to change the rules to suit its tax raising objectives. Tax evasion is of course illegal.

As UK Judge Lord Clyde stated 'No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or other, so to arrange his legal relations to his business or property as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel in his stores. The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue'
Here is a link to the pdf: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29696071/500L.pdf
Yes, I graduated in 1988.
-French Nobles just before the revolution
For testing common sense in AI I like the field called "Winograd Schemas".

Type-questions:

- The trophy doesn't fit into the brown suitcase because it's too small. What is too small? [The suitcase/the trophy]

- John couldn't see the stage with Billy in front of him because he is so short. Who is so short? [John/Billy]

- I poured water from the bottle into the cup until it was full. What was full? [The cup/the bottle]

http://www.cs.nyu.edu/davise/papers/WS.html
Wow. I am truly impressed.
I always wonder at lack of reciprocal thinking in these kinds of views. People don't mind buying cheap stuff from foreign countries but think there's something wrong or bad when the people that received their money use that money to buy something in their country.

This is exactly part of the whole deal. It's inseparable. Why would they sell you something in the first place if they couldn't buy anything back?
>I completely agree and don't get why so many people are so grossly upset.

Because they are regressive libtards. There is no other explanation.
Comments on NPRM 16-39
You know, I'm wondering: could part of Dijkstra's reputed arrogance be due to a cultural difference? I'm Dutch, and bluntly calling out flaws in each other's work is not considered all that rude over here; it's almost the opposite: not calling someone out on their flaws implies we either consider them a lost cause or not worth the hassle of educating.

I almost got fired from a teaching position in Sweden because I told my 3rd year bachelor students that many did not bother to add their names or the assignment number, or using paragraphs and in some cases even basic interpunction on their assignments. And that this was well below the level required to to pass secondary school, and that I expect better from them.

This was apparently too confrontational, and a few upset students later I got chewed out and almost fired. Meanwhile, from my point of view, I was just doing my job and already sugarcoating it by Dutch standards.

Having said that, yes, even by Dutch standards I would say that Dijkstra liked to troll people a bit.

PS: I really like the following insight from Dijkstra's review: But whereas machines must be able to execute programs (without understanding them), people must be able to understand them (without executing them).
That doesn't really work unless your antibiotic is going to be a short chain peptide, which might find something but would be extremely unlikely.

Besides, fungi/bacteria have been waging this evolutionary war for a billion years, and we haven't tapped much of anything past beta-lactam (ala penicillin) from that arms race.
>So, for example, person A can eat 3000 calories of cookies per day, but would gain weight on 3000 calories of rice. Person B could be the opposite. From the paper, it looks like genetics is a factor, though epigenetic factors and microbiome seem more important.

That's not at all what that paper says. It describes that blood glucose response to various foods can differ between people (and shows to extreme outliers as examples). Your interpretation with "3000 calories of cookies" vs rice is both not supported by the study, and also nonsense.

I'd look up the studies for this if I had the time, but: the actual correlation (relationship) between calories and weight gain/loss is extremely large, with the differences between most people of similar body types less than 200 calories/day.
Euclid

Baby Rudin

Collected speeches of De Gaulle and many biographies

The Bible

The Bhagavad-Gita

The Iliad

Thucydides

Xenophon

Chaos and Pain training manual
Probably worth mentioning that Jailbreak (which has been described as "Microcorruption dialed to 11") is nearing completion at Starfighters. I understand it's in private beta right now.

http://starfighters.io/
Startup books are like books about screenwriting: the common wisdom is you learn the most by actually doing it. Reading about it without doing it is like reading about the piano or programming without actually doing it.

Now, once you've started the most useful book or resource has to do with the problem you face. If you have customers but need to raise money, its one kind of advice. If you have a customers but the product isn't working, its another sort of advice.

If you don't have customers, well, that's the hard part.
The original article is naively expanding the definition to include simply "owning things which are worth money/time", i.e. the time value of money is somehow rent-seeking corruption.
To be fair, if you're heading into linear algebra, you should have already dealt with vectors and matrices.
It's useful for more than just QM!
The article posted is literally about ideological differences so.. what?

Also, name calling? What?

I see that the submission was removed or flagged down. I suspect that has more to do with the fact that it is critical of leftism rather than that it has nothing to do with startups or programming. This community would be much better if you just removed most of these non-programming/non-startup related submissions.
This adds to my point, it does not subtract to my point.

Not only is the fat digestion process inefficient, but on top the fat absorbtion process consumes more energy to make happen ( that heat )

We'd have to see where in the large 5-15% ranges various items stand.

Sugar dissolving in water... I'd be amazed if that released 15% of the energy. I'm still amazed it would be as high as 5%, so thanks for that info

EDIT: spatular set me straight with a detailed process for sugar absorbtion
Of course, in the end, it's the poor Oklahoman's who keep supporting people and policies that make them poor.
They can only do that if the ssh daemon isn't already listening on the port, i.e. it has crashed or is not running.
For your last point, I would also add that the sale of such a income stream is a private consentual business relationship. Neither the seller or the buyer is being exploited. I feel like communists like the author simply don't understand the time value of money.
This was not equality of misery. It was equality of opportunities. My father was a factory worker, my mother was from peasants family. They were able to put me into high class secondary school and I was in position to select any university after graduating from it.

In the modern UK this is financially impossible for a family like that to give that kind of education to their kids.

Besides, there was no such thing as 'Ukrainian genocide', its a part of modern US political discourse to maintain the US political agenda in the Eastern Europe, hence the research you are referring to.
I'm not at all sold on this idea of "platform" vs "application" that seems to have become so common. I'd much rather have a Nix-like system, where you still get the isolation benefits (each package specifies an exact dependency hierarchy), while also opportunistically sharing stuff that is identical between packages.