skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If anything, this demo shows:

1. Unpredictability is possible even when the user doesn't have any choice about input (type keys based on a PRNG)

2. Predictability is possible even when the user can choose from both available options (human user)

It's an interesting study in our ability to be random, but it doesn't tell us anything about the macro-level philosophical concepts of determinism or free will. Compatibilism is not relevant to this demo.
I wish we had something like this officially backed by the react team. In 30 minutes when a new standard approach comes out, this tool will become obsolete.
If somebody builds a security module for lambda (an automated security test suite, or a pentest aid), it SHOULD be called crowbar.
Normally i dismiss most people who are wary of using a lot of services on AWS/GCE... due to concerns of lock in since I think the benefits of more rapid development outweigh the costs.

However, this seems like a terrible strategy. Are they really outsourcing all of the core service and voice integration to Amazon?

This totally reminds of windows. Microsoft built the core operating system which became the defacto OS to build programs on. Hardware manufacturers then had to compete with each other almost entirely on hardware specs and price since most programs would only run on windows giving microsoft an almost complete monopoly. Microsoft makes $$$ as monopoly, hardware manufacturers make hardly since they are all competing on specs and price.

Amazon is probably laughing their way to the bank on this one.
There's nothing inherently wrong with third parties helping each other out. I can't understand why anyone would be worried about that. In fact, a lawyer is an uninvolved third party.

What is wrong is the degree to which wealth influences the outcome of a case. That's the real problem. In an ideal world, a person's case could be presented with equal strength regardless of the money spent for or against them. Obviously we don't live in this ideal world, but imo we should be laser focused on moving in that direction.

What frustrates me is the utter lack of focus on that task. Almost nobody seems to care about the broken legal system itself. All of the attention is being diverted to Thiel, billionaires, etc, and it's maddening. How do we expect to fix problems that we are willfully ignoring?

The media is acting in its own self-interest by framing this as a free speech issue. The "99%ers" are acting in their own self-interest by framing this as a billionaires-vs-the-rest-of-us issue. Where are the "good and just" people who should be acting in their own self-interest by demanding improvements in justice? Shouldn't that be all of us?
Etherised
You make a good point that "doing devops" is a methodology that you can choose to use or not. There is no moral hazard in not using it.

That said, having ops excluded from the architecture decisions that go into building containers is absolutely antithetical to "doing devops."

As for your assertion that people know who is responsible for what in your model, I argue that devs are usually not thinking ahead that they're going to be the ones on-call to fix whatever breaks in production in the middle of the night, because they're the only ones who know what's inside the container. Ops can't be responsible for fixing whatever is inside an artifact that it had no role in creating.

We're going to to have the inverse of the little-girl-smiling-at-the-house-fire meme. "Kubernetes is Running Fine, Dev Problem Now."
The Creative World’s Bullshit Industrial Complex
displaying the accuracy changes my behavior. I'd like it to log the prediction, result, and accuracy, and after a set number of configurable presses, it displays the report summary.
I was able to hang at around 0.5 by remembering something I'd read on HN about identifying non-random strings because they did too much alternating and not enough repeating.

Instead of trying to pick randomly between f and d, I picked numbers between 0 and 9, with an intentional bias toward lower numbers, and those would determine the length of the next sequence. So if I picked 4, 3, 7, 1, 3, 2, 2, 5, 0, 4 as my numbers, that would translate to

ddddfffdddddddfdddffddfffff[0=don't change]ffff.

I suspect a more sophisticated program would be able to pick apart my strategy, but it worked really well against this particular algorithm.
Thanks dang, should we try resubmitting the RFC then?
That's actually a really depressing story. Genuinely made me sad to be honest.
Are people still excited for HL3? It has been so long that at this point I've lost all interest. And this is coming from a huge fan of the HL series.
Making Slack Feel Like Slack
You had free will anyway. More to the point, you used it to behave unpredictably.
Further, they're also collecting massive amounts of data about commuting patterns that will give them an edge over new entrants once driverless cars are a thing.
What ever happened to Delicious?
Renders nicely on my iPhone 6S.
Golang has a very minimal footprint compared to Rust if that matters.
+1. Kenny Tilton's blog is also great for that kind of thing.

"You know Lisp is the perfect language precisely because it lost its momentum (died) and lives on. Other languages need their Next Big Thing momentum."

http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2013/08/wow-even-lispers-h...
> At the moment the team is focusing on fixing the issue
> and I don't want to distract them from that.

That might be ok for feature teams, but for infrastructure tools/services, it's very frustrating for users (devs) to be kept in the dark on the progress of the fix.

At work, the incident response starts with identifying Investigators (to find and fix the problem) and a Communicator (to update channel topics, send the outage email & periodic updates, field first-line questions about the incident, and to contact those most affected by the incident so they don't get surprised/try to fix it themselves). The person who starts the incident is the Coordinator, who assigns the roles, escalates if more help is needed, tries to unblock investigations, and turns facts from the investigators into status updates for the communicator.
Middle of the night? I was trying to buy something this morning on the east coast and the site wasn't working.
Yes, I think most people don't bring predictability into it at all. Free will is about the feeling of "I could do, or could have done, X instead of Y", but your search space only ever included X, Y, and Z. Just knowing your search space makes you highly predictable even if you maintain the freedom to choose inside that space. (And however we choose, it is not randomly, that would be terrible, but more chaotic in the same sense that weather has too many unknown inputs that we can't predict all the details we want to perfectly.)
Yeah, I was also somewhere around 0.5-0.6 after a minute or so, then got the idea to try truly random numbers
If they built a "Coincidence Detector" for racists, would you object?
What would you call something made in the 3rd shift? Where they use the same materials and factory they use for making branded gear, but don't put the brand on it?
The fact your username is IE6 and you mentioned rendering issues makes me smile :)
How in the world are you going to get the scale anywhere near the same as the flash market though?

I have been wondering about going back to carts. When I see a 64GB Flash Drive for $10 retail I have to think that that the price premium over pressed Blu-Ray disks starts to make sense. You can significantly cut down on loading times, avoid obnoxious installs to the local disk, and have potentially more flexibility in the future to release larger games that don't require multiple disks.

Plus, the optical drive is one of if not the most failure prone component on the system (next to only the fan), so eliminating it could cut down considerably on returns and warranty claims.
I've been relaying the quote from the readme for years. If you didn't click through:

"In a class I taught at Berkeley, I did an experiment where I wrote a simple little program that would let people type either “f” or “d” and would predict which key they were going to push next. It’s actually very easy to write a program that will make the right prediction about 70% of the time. Most people don’t really know how to type randomly. They’ll have too many alternations and so on. There will be all sorts of patterns, so you just have to build some sort of probabilistic model. Even a very crude one will do well. I couldn’t even beat my own program, knowing exactly how it worked. I challenged people to try this and the program was getting between 70% and 80% prediction rates. Then, we found one student that the program predicted exactly 50% of the time. We asked him what his secret was and he responded that he “just used his free will.”
Maybe that's why Bitcoin transactions are up.

It should be possible to follow the money. Bitcoin is only semi-anonymous. If you have a large number of transactions to track, it should be possible to figure out where the money is going.
There's a thread running through free will discussions referred to as "ultimate origination". The Free will theorem touches on this as the sibling commenter mentioned.

There's a fringe view (also help by some of these physicists) that "The more radical group holds that the agent who determines his own will is not causally influenced by external causal factors, including his own character."[1] Start with section 3.2 of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and move on to perhaps the whole article or the referenced primary sources.

My take on the link between the Aaronson Oracle and the ultimate origin view follows like this.

Suppose that we take the radical definition of free will and try to devise a test that demonstrates an individual making a choice not influenced by external causal factors. One thing that comes to mind is to ask that individual to make a choice between two options. If the a choice is not causally influenced by external factors, then we can expect that it will not be predictable.

It's interesting that a number of commenters have reported prediction rates very close to 0.5. Typically in similar hot hand experiments[2] that's not the case and I suspect it's a reporting bias (why should those closer to 1.0 feel the need to report their findings).

There's also a bit of a counter-example in the whole space of pseudo-random number generation that's very much an example of a deterministic system with nothing but external causal factors, but will pass the Aaronson oracle test. On the other hand, truly random sources without any identifiable causal sources (ie radioactive decay) will also pass this test. Both of these passing support an argument that the test has no power to discriminate at all.

My personal take is that I like the idea of thinking about having free will as a spectrum or degree rather than a binary proposition. In the ultimate origin conversation, I don't see external causal factors as being completely avoidable nor unavoidable so having a test whose output is a range of predicability is nice to see.

[1] - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#1

[2] - http://math.williams.edu/the-hot-hand/
Show HN: Rock, paper, scissors with Font Awesome
Yes, I agree.

The best response to a clickbaitesque headline is a short answer (and No Click!). That's why I wrote "No". Everything else would just feed the trolls. But of course, it's much easier to downvote such a comment than to think about the clickbait itself.

Kind regards,
Plus while redux is an excellent redux it's not everybody's cup of tea. (I currently like both redux and mobx depending)
Yeah, I was anticipating that response, since that's a cynical description of taxation in general. There are safeguards for that process too, like term limits and multiple branches of government. Let's not have that argument here, though.
From a physical point of view, free will doesn't make sense. Laws are deterministic at macro level and contain some randomness at the lower level. Neither are free will.

Also, there is a huge assumption there - the assumption that there is a "self" that can have this free will. There is no self, just a stream of experiences and actions. The "self" is an intuitive concept, a reification that is useful in social dealings. Taking it from the social context and putting it in the realm of physics could be just a sleight of language - it cannot be the same concept in both domains, because the two domains are so far off. And trying to formally define a self in physics is impossible for us.
Location: Winter Park (Orlando), FL

Remote: Any

Willing to relocate: To California

Technologies: .NET Platform, Javascript (React, Backbone, Knockout)

Résumé/CV: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmvoobgtdifpy54/Resume-BrunoAvelar...

Email: brunoavelar[at]gmail.com
On mobile, Firefox for Android has an neat addon for that:

Dark Background and Light Text by Mikhail Khvoinitsky https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/android/addon/dark-backgrou...

It just works™ about everywhere. It is also available on the desktop version, although I've never tried it myself.
> The human eye sees light. So reading illuminated text on a dark background is generally easier.

The scientific literature on readability does not back this up. Results show large individual variability with a small overall preference for dark-on-light.

Some old papers cited here: https://www.joedolson.com/2006/08/on-the-readability-of-inve...

EDIT: Also here is a good example of how reading white on black is hard: http://www.ironicsans.com/owmyeyes/
You went from incredible predictable to better than random? Wow, now that's impressive!
Tax deductibility doesn't matter much when you're making under $20k because your marginal rate is so low.
You've got certain misunderstandings there. Observables aren't eager, what you want to say is that they are push-based.

But that doesn't mean they are terrible at back-pressure, in fact they can be better at back-pressure than any pull based model you can think of, because the communication is more efficient. Back-pressure is the scope of the http://reactive-streams.org protocol and I've also built a library inspired by Rx that has back-pressured observables, started before RxJava went this route as well: https://monix.io

Funny enough back-pressure doesn't help with just "slow consumers". In Rx.NET flatMap is an alias for mergeMap because it is safer than concatMap, as concatMap would require buffering without back-pressure. Introduce back-pressure in the protocol, and concatMap becomes safer and much more efficient if done wisely. Which is cool because it is concatMap that's the monadic bind. And many other operations become more efficient and easier to implement because you no longer need to do buffering all over the place.

In terms of those AsyncIterators, or whatever they are called, I tried that route but the model is terrible as you're forced to introduce asynchronous boundaries on each pull. This means the model is very inefficient.

And I'm going to make another claim. Erik Meijer doesn't know what he's talking about in this case, in spite of how awesome he is and this opinion is probably the reason for why the Rx.NET library is trailing behind most Rx implementations. If I'd have to use .NET for a project, I'd probably end up reimplementing Monix, as Rx.NET isn't suitable for my use-cases at all.
I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I am honestly curious how this differentiates from tj/co?

https://github.com/tj/co
A while back, there was a service on the front page that was a combination of search engine for code, static analysis, and git repository browser. The initial implementation was for Golang only.

Does anybody remember what that project was? Does it still exist?

Slightly OT, sorry. This project just reminded me of it.
While I don't think Steam machines are DOA quite yet, they target an already difficult niche for which Valve's indecisive approach is ill-suited.

The lack of marketing and immaturity of platform and user experience mean the most viable demographic is existing PC gamers. However, existing PC gamers are adverse to markups for what are basically SFF PCs, and are much more inclined to build their own (or buy a lower markup, non-Steam branded PC) to fill that niche. More affluent parts of the demographic less concerned about markup also tend to be older and prefer something more subtle than the gaming glitz styling and branding of most of the premium Steam machines.

There's also self-cannibalism in this demo. Few of the Steam machines are top-tier components for the sake of heat and noise, so it's easy for most existing PC owners to fill this niche by simply replacing their current PC (as most do every few years) and demoting the old box to the TV room. As you mentioned, Steam link or NVIDIA's in-home streaming on Shield TV can also fill most use cases (at least they do for me).

Valve could have leveraged the initial hype and novelty of Big Picture and the Steam machine concept to drive an initial wave of sales, but the delay between those announcements and a consequential number of actual machines being ready to buy outlasted the initial hype.
It does not need to be defined.

"Being aware" can be observed externally (by us) from an attempt by the entity to independently influence whatever state the entity was in.
The only way to assume that those are synonymous would be to ask if one can freely will themselves to be random. However, even that has more to do with aptitude and ability than free will. E.g. I can freely will myself to try and be an NBA player, but I'm bound by physical limitations. However, my inability to be an NBA player would not normally be considered a lacking of free will.
Health data per default uploaded, are you honestly nuts?
The problem is if your X% sure on each of a set of questions and you want to get an A, you want to minimize your chances of getting a bad grade more than you want to maximizes your score. Alternatively, there is no point in setting your odds for every question below the point that takes the minimum number of correct answers to pass. EX: If you need to get X% correct to pass, then don't set your odds below X%.

For a similar example consider what you bet on the final question in Jeopardy does not just depend on your estimate of your odds, but other factors.

Of course even thinking about this stuff is distracting, you may be better off picking a very small number of odds. Say 99%, 90%, 70%, and 50%.
Why don't you like the AW?
I plan on covering par, but mostly the name came from an attempt to explain the current state of lisp libraries, the "stack".
> why would anyone even bother publishing this garbage?

If by "this garbage" you mean this goofy blog post, then that's a good question. But note that goofy blog posts abound.

The article published in Royal Society Open Science doesn't even mention "popularity". That's just this goofy blog post's clickbaity take on it, and basically unrelated to the actual study.
Yeah, I mean I use that word because it conveys the result I'd like to see.

A syntax database is not terribly useful. A concept database is where the real value is. The idea is that a language is much more than just raw syntax. C++, Python, and awk are all so fundamentally different that explaining the differences in terms of syntax is ultimately worthless.

Even something like "array in C++" vs. "arrays in python" is not very valuable because they really mean totally different things. There's a lot of unknown-unknowns for a Python programmer whose never seen C++ code in their life. They would never think that arrays are fixed length and accept only one data type because lists in Python have neither limitation, likewise, a C++ programmer might be looking something to that behaves like std::vector not understanding that Python lists are perfectly appropriate.

It would be perfectly acceptable to have people write the "same" (ideally, non-trivial) code in different languages and link them together. In fact, that's probably what they should seek to do.
>What's your evidence for this? Plenty of people pay for litigation that doesn't result in actual damages.

For starters they took this case to verdict and won thats good evidence for the types of case Thiel backs. But assuming Thiel was financing another case that ultimately lost. If Thiel's goal is to hurt Gawker you don't finance bad law suits or you will have the unintentional goal of actually rewarding Gawker who can win its legal fees and sanctions (plus additional proof of bad-faith litigation in the future). Damages are a standard in the pleading and if no damages are plead, like you suggest, then the suit will be dismissed on Motion for failing to state a cause of action in which relief can be granted. Don't get me wrong there are bizarre cases like Donald Trump suing NFL on behalf of AFL on anti-trust, the Court finding the NFL does engage in unconstitutional anti-competitive behavior but awarded him damages of only $1.

>Do you have evidence for this?

The law firm knows far better than Bollea or Thiel what the the likelihood of winning a case at trial are and its potential worth (damages is a issue separate and apart from liability). Bollea is not going to make a deal unilaterally with Thiel without the advice of his counsel, and they won't give him advice against his own interests(or they can be liable for malpractice and disbarred) and trust me I have had plenty of cases where my Client refused to accept settlement agreements that were more than fair and I usually withdraw as attorney of record (fire the client).

>What's your evidence that they didn't?

The case went to trial in Florida, here in Florida we have a Rule: proposal for settlement. Its like a bet. Basically, if you are the defendant at some point when it is clear (depends on the case, sometime before but sometimes after discovery) your lawyer tells you what the case is worth, and suggests you make an offer to settle to avoid additional cost of litigation. Now if the other party rejects your settlement and goes to trial, if the award is less than proposed settlement then the winning party still has to pay the fees of both sides. Obviously Thiel or Bollea aren't paying Gawker's lawyer fees or thats what we would be reading about and the Court Order would be everywhere, because that would be actual proof (not good proof) of vexatious/harassing/bad-faith litigation.
The stories in the reddit thread do not support this conclusion and seem to largely originate from security illiterates hyping up a DDoS attack.

Lets take the first comment for example:

>Holy fucking shit. That's how I got hacked. 5/25/2016 and 5/28/2016, they logged into one of my computers at 3:24AM both days and used my PayPal, Microsoft account, eBay account, to buy tons of codes for different online stores. I just checked my browser history on that computer and sure enough, all those sites were visited. My bank took care of everything, so did PayPal and Microsoft. It was fucking teamviewer. I enabled TFA for the time being and turned off all computers connected to teamviewer.

This is ridiculous, if someone had in fact hacked teamviewer they wouldn't be wasting their precious time by stealing a couple of bucks from this guys paypal account. (Paypal accounts are essentially worthless, you can buy them by the thousand on various forums)

A far more credible theory is that some bot is either grabbing teamviewer credentials, and those are now being sold on fraud forums.

TeamViewer is used to manage literal fucktons of PoS infrastructure it being compromised would be a far bigger deal than the Target breach.
Or even just isometric boxes. "Hey! A Minecraft van!"

http://imgur.com/jeB5GHm
XMPP is alright. It will never be perfect, but it keeps improving, and that's important.

Personally I believe more in having people be in control of their own communications than having ultra secure crypto. No crypto is going to help if a single actor can see all metadata or decide who is allowed to communicate.

Therefore I strongly believe in federation and allowing everyone to choose their client, service and server.
Deep Dreams. Even though this one was surprisingly effective, but less general than DD.