skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I strongly recommend doing literally anything else with your time, rather than reading that book. Life is too short to spend time thinking about Tom Perkins.

Good riddance to that awful, old, self-aggrandizing, hypocritical, and bigoted jerk. His death brings us one step closer to a better world.
As the C128D power supply is based on mains transformer, first thing you need to replace is said mains transformer. It's probably easier to just remove the whole original power supply and replace it with some small industrial 5VDC SMPS and 9V transformer (assuming that nothing depends on the frequency of the 9VAC input, which from looking at service manual seems to be the case).
I received one of these emails (most likely because my address begins with 73 and the emails are sorted alphanumerically). It looks like this: http://pastebin.com/vpPU5sLj
I have. And I still echo joe's comment.
Note that I am talking about a comparison with no app store at all, not comparing Google to Apple. f there wasn't an app store at all - you just downloaded apps from random web sites instead like for much Windows software. Now have a random person go download VLC for Windows, or for that matter something like Java. Between hijacked installers, "download" sites, toolbars, dark patterns in the installers and who knows what else, the experience is very negative and would make users far less likely to install stuff. The app store helps alleviate those issues and increase user confidence in apps, which in turn helps those offering apps at the app store.
Docker Meets the Zombies
Why wouldn't you want both? An efficient layout means that your figures move less. You can remap most keyboards to get a more efficient layout, even the $20 keyboard. You can analyze the distance your figures travel for a given text here:

http://patorjk.com/keyboard-layout-analyzer/#/main

I've got resources for the various keyboard layouts on Github:

https://github.com/melling/ErgonomicNotes/blob/master/keyboa...

Some information on split and tenting keyboards can be found here:

https://h4labs.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/the-model-01-an-heir...
The Artificial Intelligence Revolution: Part 1
there was massive government support of their entities. The "gutsy" narrative is a historical rewrite so they can pretend that they're libertarian heroes, when in fact Tom Perkins got started by suckling at the socialist teat.

If there is a hell, Tom Perkins is in it

Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I saw a keyboard before that all the keys were seperate and you could attach them to a magnetic base however you wanted. I always thought that concept was interesting.
Clojure is not a community-driven language. It belongs to Rich Hickey and by extension Cognitect. The bugs that will be fixed and the features that will be added are the ones Hickey cares about. Not saying this is good or bad. It's just how Clojure development is ran.
I keep a file/folder for each client in which I write notes (pen and paper) like a journal. I also make notes of things I think about immediately after meetings or later in the evening last thing before switching the lights off. These are not minutes. They are more like my thoughts (concerns and anticipations.)

This has proved invaluable in two ways:

1. I am less anxious about things that I feel I'm not going to remember.

2. Rereading gives me perspective about evolution of the engagement (nice to read that 1 year ago client had expectations this high, and that this year he is talking about "low hanging" fruit. (I sometimes document new notes with different colored ink.)
Facebook threatens to delete synced photos if users don't download new photo app
I've read various statements which say that Dragon can land on the Moon, such as http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/mars-ahead-spacex-unvei... :

> Musk has said a fully loaded Dragon could even be sent to make a touchdown on the moon or Mars

or https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/04/spacex-debut-red-dra... :

> “With Dragon launched on a Falcon Heavy, it can go pretty much anywhere in the solar system, because that’s a heck of a big rocket,” he continued.

> “Dragon, with the heat shield, parachutes and propulsive landing capability, is able to land on a planet that has higher entry heating, like Mars. It can also land on the Moon, or potentially conduct a Europa mission.”

How does that fit with the statement "Dragon doesn't have enough delta-V to land on the moon"?
Head in the cloud – we destroying our own internal memory
Turn your handwriting into a font
Since the employees are working there voluntarily, it would be logical for them to actually enjoy playing the game rather than being forced to.

So yes, we can judge the employees.
I see a lot of issues but not a lot of PRs. As a maintainer there is a lot of prioritization going on, and it seems that the things that bother the blog author are not things that bother the maintainers. I also agree with some of the replies on the issues - garbage in garbage out for a function is ok behavior.

One of the cool things about clojure and other languages like this is that these things can often be fixed at runtime - so even if your fix doesn't get accepted you can have a "my-better-fixes" lib you pull in for yourself. A "consistent-set-opts" lib you add to your project.cls for example.
Interesting to see the amount of "winters" AI has gone through (analogous, to a lesser extent, to VR).

I see increasing compute power, an increased learning set (the internet, etc), and increasingly refined algorithms all pouring into making the stuff we had decades ago more accurate and faster. But we still have nothing at all like human intelligence. We can solve little sub-problems pretty well though.

I theorize that we are solving problems slightly the wrong way. For example, we often focus on totally abstract input like a set of pixels, but in reality our brains have a more gestalt / semantic approach that handles higher-level concepts rather than series of very small inputs (although we do preprocess those inputs, i.e. rays of light, to produce higher level concepts). In other words, we try to map input to output at too granular of a level.

I wonder though if there will be a radical rethinking of AI algorithms at some point? I tend to always be of the view that "X is a solved problem / no room for improvement in X" is BS, no matter how many people have refined a field over any period of time. That might be "naive" with regards to AI, but history has often shown that impossible is not a fact, just a challenge. :)
I am about the age and had a very similar experience, but it went beyond LAN parties. In retrospect, I went to a very quirky school. It was public, but you need to apply to go there--it was no one's default school.

Despite that, we had some of the best sports teams in the state, debate teams, and engineering teams. It was a culture of excellence and it was difficult to even classify geeks and jocks because so many individuals fit into both groups.

I'm not sure what this school did to get it right, but it's sad to see it not replicated many times over.
You get it! This is what I'm referring to.

The brand is tarnished in my mind.
I switch between both every day with no problem, except I've noticed that I prefer QWERTY for programming and Dvorak for writing prose. It's been 7 years since I learned Dvorak.
My random advice from the internet: just keep saving the money. The apartment might appreciate in value, but it is by no means a slam-dunk investment. A slam-dunk investment would be picking it up for 1200€ per m2 and selling it on for 2200€ per m2 in a month or so.

Which probably highlights my theory of investment. Winding up with good returns is mostly a matter of dumb luck. The reason is because amateur individuals are up against professionals who spend all day and lots of money figuring out how to separate amateurs from whatever money they place at risk.

One of the ways the professionals accomplish separating amateurs from their money is via promoting the idea that investing is smart and saving is stupid and selling marginal investments.

Good luck.
But how easy is it to avoid an automated sentiment analysis system flagging you as being "passive aggressive"?
20 years ago or so, I ran an evolutionary algorithm that permuted keys in a layout, evaluated them against a corpus of English texts from Project Gutenberg and the Linux kernel sources, and a home-grown cost function that penalized finger motion and especially double-hits by the same finger. The best layouts all had the property that the vowels were on the home row under the left hand, and the common consonants were on the home row under the right hand. That's basically Dvorak, and I considered the experiment as being kind of a confirmation of that design's principles. And so I stuck with Dvorak, since it's available everywhere.
That's the main issue. I switched to Dvorak a year ago and it's been great, but being on other machines is difficult. The most egregious issue I've seen is a colleague who took the GRE and was forced relearn QWERTY. The best writer I've ever met score lower on that portion of the test due to keyboard layout.

That said, I'm happy I switched. Keyboard shortcuts in design applications took longer to mentally remap than the layout itself for daily typing. There are trade-offs (as with everything).
As a side recommendation, I'm most of the way through The Practice of Cloud Administration, and it hits on most of the things you've mentioned. It's on SBO, so you likely have a copy through work.

http://the-cloud-book.com
It's a bit of a shame that these push a Sovereign Citzen-esque pseudo-legal message, when they could point out an actual legal fact: under Common Law, you can use any name you like.
Absolutely valid point and comparison, thanks for clarifying and I definitely agree.
Yeah personally, I like my split keyboard. Until, I got a split keyboard I couldn't really touch type. I think the problem is the arrangement of keys for the left index finger on traditional keyboards. So now that I have a split keyboard, I can touch type. Though, I'm still slower than I would like.

All that said, I fully encourage any mucking about with keyboard layouts. There are quite a few variables that can be tweaked.
You can split QWERTY up all you like, but it carries its problems along. Way too much finger motion off the home row.
Again, what stops a litigant from using loser pays to bankrupt other parties?
In what way is "garbage in garbage out" better than consistent handling and explicit failure, especially for something so well-defined mathematically? That's sort of a lazy argument, imo.

I shouldn't need to pull in more libs for baseline language expectations, either. Core libraries are what languages really are, much more important than just syntax.
It's not about speed, it's about comfort, at least for me.
MISRA is already used extensively in the auto industry. But i guess what I was trying to say is that while it helps, it can easily be tricked while a compiler designed with the safety measures MISRA promotes already baked into it will not let you do certain things.
If you want this there is no reason the software needs to be embedded in the hardware. Install a hypervisor with remote access, install the other OS in a VM and you have all the same capabilities through the hypervisor, but now you can inspect or improve the hypervisor and update it when it's vulnerable.
Once I tried to make a union of a sorted set and an unsorted one. Result set inherits behaviour of a bigger input set so when i first got my sometimes-sorted set i thought like loosing my mind.
Server side rendering of react and express.js
I clicked through to the github exchange he links to, and I don't think you can call that shabby treatment. Perhaps a bit too terse (though I don't think so), but it's just saying "the docs say data must meet requirement X, and that's good enough".

His other examples sound prima facie troubling (I don't know enough clojure to have a real opinion), but he's miss-characterizing that interaction.
I've been in computers since the early 90's and as far as I can see, Apple has always been hostile towards developers (and users).

> For all those developers sitting on the sidelines refusing to develop iOS apps...

I've made a ton of money building Ionic and Xamarin apps and recommend those to anybody building for iOS because both of them will let you spend as little time using OS X as possible. The way my workflow is now, I could totally rent a cloud Mac and just compile and publish stuff from there.

Anyway, even though I think OS X and iOS are quite possibly the worst operating systems I've ever had the displeasure of using and even though I know for a fact that Apple is hostile to developers and users, I don't mind making apps for them because I figure anyone who uses there stuff must not care about wasting money and it should be easy for me to grab some...and it is :)

And, like Spotify, all of my apps are subscription based with out-of-app signup, so Apple doesn't get 30% of my money. I also only buy used Macs because Apple doesn't get your money that way either. Right now I'm running a Mid-2012 Mac Pro with 32GB RAM that I got for ~$1,200. It was about double the money that I spent for a similar PC server, but I made all that back by taking money out of Apple's ecosystem and not putting it back in, so I feel like that's a win for everybody (except Apple of course, but hey - fuck them - if they're going to be hostile to me, I'm going to be hostile to them.)
I'm a pretty big Musk fanboy, but I'd bet against him. Walt Disney had a good track record too, but he was another billionaire who couldn't will away human nature in order to create a utopia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPCOT_(concept)
Generalizing the idea: https://notes.pault.ag/its-all-relative/
There are basically four possible attitudes to abstraction:

(0) We don't need no stinkin' abstractions! Obviously not befitting a high-level language like Clojure, move along.

(1) We enforce abstractions in our heads. Running into an undocumented scenario is undefined behavior. (Yes, in the C sense.)

(2) We enforce abstractions via compile-time checks. Clojure won't have this anytime soon, move along.

(3) We enforce abstractions via sensible coercions (whenever possible, if desired) or runtime exceptions (anywhere else).

Like the author, I find (3) the most sensible choice, and I'm surprised that the Clojure team would rather choose (1), which is known to be a major productivity killer.
“The American Woods”: The 19th Century and Beyond
A Post-Human World Is Coming. Design Has Never Mattered More
It is actually quite a huge increase in the ICE. Ferrari's been using it for a year.

"Furthermore, this process allows ... peak indicated thermal efficiencies up to 45% - not to be confused with the reported > 48% thermal efficiency that Mercedes is achieving for its entire F1 power unit."

http://www.f1technical.net/news/20316
The underlying issue to me seems to be that Clojure is still not developed by a team, but by a single developer, who cannot think out of the box.

union and intersect not doing the same thing as in common lisp (accepting lists and vectors), and returning buggy values instead is just a bug, even if the developer didn't have that in mind originally, and doesn't like to support that.
I love Clojure, and I use it in every project where I have control over the technology, but I do agree with the points raised by Ashton Kemerling.

Clojure is beautiful, and backed by beautiful theories, but its implementation needs to be clean or it will eventually develop enough special cases that its beauty will be ruined. In some sense, you could say this is what happened to Ruby, though there the allowance of "special cases" was more deliberate. I recall, back in 2003, reading the interview between Matsumoto and Bill Venners: http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby.html -- and I thought that Ruby had a beautiful philosophy. But having worked with Ruby for many years, I now see how much it is undermined by the many special cases it allows, and the wild ambushes that its most imaginative features allow (monkey patching).

I don't want to see Clojure go down that path. I want Clojure to remain beautiful, and that means the implementations must also be beautiful. There is a limit on how much the core team can say "That bug is only an implementation detail". If you take away all the implementation details, then Clojure is only a theory, not a real technology that can be used by real people to do real things.

In a truly ideal world, Clojure could be the practical Lisp that pushes itself to bring in as much of the experimental Lisp's beauty as is practical. I would love to see the best ideas from Racket and what Fogus refers to as the Fluchtpunkt Lisps:

http://blog.fogus.me/2011/05/03/the-german-school-of-lisp-2/

These are ideas that can make the world better. I have high hopes that Clojure will be the project that makes some of these beautiful ideas practical. I will be very sad if Clojure ends up like Ruby or Groovy or Scala, becoming a bit too muddy to reach its full potential.
‘It’s a lot better than I thought it would be.’

Oh?

... the boiled pudding calls for two pounds of potatoes
and one pound of butter...

Oh.
It needs a slider for number of 80 year old grandpas who should have been off the road years ago but DMV keeps passing them to be nice.

Our town has implemented a few of these traffic circles. For some reason a memorial to the killed appears a few months each time after one is opened. I don't think it was drivers killed, I think it was pedestrians trying to cross at the inlets/outlets.
All of those are examples of jobs with fairly to extremely reliable performance measurements... E.g. if a salesperson sells makes 20 sales in a quarter, then there is zero chance of them getting fired because their managers think they actually made -7 sales.

Whoah, suddenly you are applying a much lower level of skepticism to performance measurements now that we aren't talking about education.

As you know, the mean standardized test score of students in a class (with no attempt to adjust for student quality) is just as objectively known as the number of sales. So I guess if we just did that, we'd be fine?

Of course, the relevant question is how does that compare to a baseline # of sales that this salesperson could be expected to get?

I knew a salesgirl doing enterprise software. In a given month she might make 0 sales, or 1, in a very good month 2. Is she a bad salesgirl because she had a month with 0 sales? That's variance, which according to you 100% invalidates a performance metric.

You are making isolated demands for rigour in education that you don't seem to apply elsewhere. See this article for a description of this fallacy: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/08/14/beware-isolated-demands...

Now ask yourself, why are you doing this?

Since you seem to believe good teachers exist, what evidence do you have of this? The lighting of fires in the belly of invisible dragons?

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
I actually rather like the typography - reminds me of Talking Heads' True Stories.

There is one of these boards round the corner from me, and that is quite close to the one that appears in the Birmingham news page - both in lower rent working class areas, perhaps the billboards are cheaper in our kinds of area?

I shall just treat it as eccentric urban art from now on...
"To understand how this happens you have to understand that the Stanford-Binet IQ test was explicitly created to re-segregate the California school system and prove that whites were better. "

This is nonsense... the IQ testing came out around the first world war. It was first used to test disabled children and then used to test military recruits.

----

Two people without the courage to actually respond voted me down... sorry, but Zed Shaw is talking out of his arse... the idea that the "Stanford-Binet IQ test was explicitly created to re-segregate the California school system and prove that whites were better" is just incredibly stupid.
With regards to the apparent lack of progress, I would agree that apparent progress has stalled, as far as most people can see. 1900-1950 brought us from iceboxes, horse-and-buggy and kerosene lamps, to electric everything, two cars in every driveway, refrigeration, television, radio, supersonic airplanes, weapons of unbelievable destruction. Then there was the space race, putting men on the Moon, sending probes to other planets, and it looked like the wildest science fiction might be in reach. Then... stagnation. For the most part, today we have the same things we had thirty or forty years ago, just incrementally better or more efficient - and in some cases, worse, since manufacturing quality has declined, aesthetics have been sacrificed, or simple, reliable mechanical components have been replaced with over-complicated and frequently buggy electronics.
Sure, the government invested in and helped create a number of key technologies. But Jobs (and others) innovated and integrated those technologies into products that sell millions or billions of units. It seems unlikely the government itself would ever had created a compact phone designed for consumers.
Yes, indeed. The stench of bullshit is quite strong there, as is with the claim that the tests were adopted with the purpose of "resegregating the schools".

The closest I've been able to find is a claim (without references of any kind) in Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, where the actual question involved a man "walking without his feet touching the ground". Clearly "bicycle" is a better answer for that question than "horse" (because your feet move in a quasi-walking motion when you're riding a bike, but not when you're riding a horse).

The "yelling" part appears to have been invented out of whole cloth. Also, I'm not sure where the notion that Native Americans were unfamiliar with wheeled conveyances in the 1920s came from.
Brilliant.

Now add an option to import street layouts from OpenStreetMap...
NATO is the mutual defence pact, the EU was spectacularly ineffective in the former Yugoslavia.
In this article, Zed demonstrates one of the tremendous screwups with the academic human trials system: actions that are perfectly acceptable normally suddenly become a problem if done for science.

I.e., if I personally want to pay people $5 to play a video game, and then pay them $10 if they win, there is absolutely nothing preventing me from doing this. I can also gather statistics on the result. But if I were a scientist at a university doing this, I'd suddenly need to get permission from an IRB.

This is a flaw with academia, not Riot Games.

The comparison to the Stanford Prison Experiment is nonsense. That experiment literally locked people in jail, an action that is generally illegal in general. This experiment literally involves nothing more than a group of people statistically accessing records they have legal permission to access and then doing some math.

Note that I say this with no positive feelings whatsoever about Riot Game's PC-police behavior. I don't generally favor "no-asshole rules", or any of the other feelings-over-facts policies currently favored by the PC-left.

[edit: since folks reading this clearly think I'm criticizing Zed's entire post, Zed has 8 arguments against Riot. I'm disputing (3) and (4) only.]
1) sounds like exactly what deep learning is...map more complex abstractions in each succeeding layer

2) are computers that can understand speech, recognize faces, drive cars, beat humans at Jeopardy really 'nothing at all like human intelligence?'
Was talking to a few folks in both Alberta and Quebec and they mentioned that they felt that the Taxi drivers were really run by organized crime. Since they (including a few drivers) felt that there was lots of favoritizism and back room dealings with contracts over who could and couldn't service airports etc. Does anybody know if there is any basis for this view?
They moved the downloads to Github: https://github.com/ojbucao/workman
Largest empire in the world in 1200? That seems... implausible.
I have practically never heard of a story involving Jefferies and technology anything going well.