skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
$300mil in Tesla Stock ~1.4M shares.

The average trade volume is as you say 4.45M shares. Selling an additional 1.4M raises the daily trade volume by 31.4%.

Economics is supply and demand. If you increase supply by a massive amount when not changing demand. The price tanks. Effectively you are killing your own price point and this sales strategy isn't in your favor.
Bot having a disagreement with itself
The problem there is not so much X, as software devs not using X but instead just painting everything into "image" that is then dumped into X. This means you are effectively looking at what amounts of a VNC session, without the benefit of compression.

There are at least one X extension out there that offer compression for long distance connections. But for some reason they never really took off.
A reserved instance is just an instance you don't pay hourly for. Lots of people use AWS specifically so they can pay hourly, turning up servers dynamically in response to load, and then turning them off when spikes subside, without penalty.
I've been thinking about this and I came to the realization that it perhaps is a missing parameter from the Drake equation i.e. every sufficiently advanced civilization will "VR" itself into lethargy and wither away due to innovation coming to a complete standstill before this civilization spreads across multiple solar systems.
I work at Pivotal, so I'm partial to Cloud Foundry.

My workflow for deploying a new app for my own projects is to cd into the source directory and type

cf push

After a while I get tired of that, so I set up a Concourse pipeline and let it type `cf push` on my behalf, after going through the testing pipeline.

Interestingly, I used to be much more bullish on moving from the buildpacks model to a container model a la everyone else in the PaaS space. To the point that I presented a case internally that buildpacks should essentially be pushed aside in favour of that model.

But once I started actually writing Dockerfiles I changed my mind. It's a bloody inconvenience. Composition is not really A Thing in Docker, you can only stack. For all the talk about elegance (and it's elegant as an implementation), you're left with what is essentially a single inheritance hierarchy with no clean way to compose containers.

The ability to get your app running immediately is something Heroku pioneered and Cloud Foundry continued (although, OK, if you insist on hurting yourself that way, you can push docker images too). Once you hand off the frankly boring business of automatically building a container to the platform, containers as the unit-of-deployment lose all of their magic.

But again. I'm biased. I've only seen both alternatives up close in my day job and in my personal projects.
> Physicalism of the mind isn't unanimously accepted in philosophy.

Much philosophy is just bad science. Pontificating over unanswerable questions is little more than a waste of time. Philosophy's greatest achievement was science, which is a better way to explore reality because logic alone isn't enough, it needs to be backed by evidence.

Physicalism is all that is known to exist, those asserting otherwise have no evidence to back their claims and are basically asserting magic.
how surprisingly! Youtube seems to have channels for everything theses days
Is there any evidence that VC firms are any better at predicting the future than hedge funds? I understand a few years ago that perhaps there were some inefficiencies in the startup market which could be exploited, but now that everyone focused on SV (and elsewhere) startups, is there really a reason to pay 2% of AUM for someone to make guesses on your behalf?
That means using AWS is just as complicated as using an API in Python or JavaScript. You have to read it carefully, understand their model of thinking, and master the subset of functionality that you need. Nothing new for IT people. But I love DigitalOcean much more. If only they had GPU instances.
> Ranked play is nothing other than a mechanic to match you with players of equal skill at a game.

Almost all such games maintain some sort of per player rating (ELOish usually) which is separate from ranked play and often hidden. You certainly don't need to play ranked modes just to be paired with similar skill level players.

> there's no point in competitively playing a game with a low skill ceiling.

Sure, but in combination with previous comment your inference appears to be that HotS, LoL and Overwatch are low skill cap games. I'm curious what your argument for that is. Using LoL as an example the overall ELO distribution is extremely bottom heavy with a smooth taper to the top; vastly more players in lower ranks than higher despite having consistent promotion rules. A ranking for a low skill cap game would be expected to have a bunching at the top as the skill cap is quickly reached and the outcome becomes more random.

One thing these 3 games do have in common is a low barrier to entry, but I see no correlation between that and skill cap in video games or traditional sports. e.g. a very young child can start to play soccer, but that doesn't mean soccer has a low skill cap.
The blog post was a bit confusing in the way it was structured, and I'm still not quite sure I understood you correctly: You start off by saying that content-based recommendations are what most people usually have in mind when they have recommender systems. Then, you suggest that actually in many real-life situations those systems are kinda terrible to actually meaningfully move the ball forward on offering recommendations that are non-obvious to users. But then you show a nice implementation of just one-such system which you just said may not be entirely useful for a lot of things, and when paired with the other algorithm often contributes very little... is that right?

As a reader, with all of that intro, I couldn't help but be really disappointed that the implementation discussed wasn't the one relying on buying behavior... seems like a good chunk of the article is devoted to explaining why that one is a superior recommendation system, so naturally I wanted to see how you'd go about putting THAT together...
Prof. Stein's earlier post that had appeared here on HN (http://wstein.org/mathsoftbio/history.pdf) is enormously absorbing reading also. It has much more to tell about the significant challenges that stand in the way of developing high quality open source math software.
They're moving from Rackspace.

It was already expensive.
World Thinnest Laptop Now Available
I was intrigued by your comment:

"The recent fashion for founder-friendly term sheets hasn't really extended to employee-friendly employment agreements."

What do mean by "founder-friendly term sheets" and "employee-friendly employment agreements"? Besides the "what" of those two thing how do those things relate? Or how should they?

Thanks.
I wrote something similar (simpler) a few months ago. It used Qt but it was supposed to be client agnostic by providing native wrappers. Anyway, it was a fun project but I decided to not publish it because it was a simple prototyping exercise.

I believe something like this will kill the browser.
MorphOS 3.9 Boot Image
Mostly, I wanted to highlight the importance of scale (data + compute) for the accuracy of deep networks.
HotSpot is a JIT, so that's a runtime option. You'd be asking anyone deploying a .jar containing some Clojure to add fiddly configuration.

Not impossible, but one of the heavily advertised virtues of Clojure is that it can be deployed alongside Java code without anyone having to be the wiser.
> the broader CONSUMER/dev consumer mission of Ubuntu.

The consumer mission which is enhanced by insecure-by-default package installation?
What happens when...

Potential built-in population limiter?

Also, once perfect sex bots become The Norm, there will be people who fetishize actual sweat, imperfections, etc. Real Sex will become some new way to Get Your Freak On.

Human sexuality is surprisingly malleable and adaptable. Otherwise we wouldn't have the problem you are currently decrying.

It is potentially harmful to the possibility of having a real and satisfactory relationship to another living, breathing human being. But I think that actual relationships are so often seriously problematic that the practice of defaulting to them is largely dependent upon there being no other viable options. Historically, women being financially dependent upon men is a big part of why women put up with men at all. As women move into the work force and can support themselves, this raises the bar on what they expect from a man in a relationship. Having sex bot options is better than having no options.

Please note I say this as someone who really likes men, a lot more than many women seem to. But I have been alone for over 11 years in part because I am determined to never again be financially dependent upon a man. I view it as a deal with the devil. It made sense for purposes of raising kids, but it did terrible things to my life and to my relationship to my husband and I am unwilling to live that way again. The default societal expectations for what a woman should put up with are pretty unappealing.

Society is changing on multiple fronts, not just this one. Those changes are going to go forward with or without sex bots. Many of those changes are going to undermine our historical expectations for what sex and relationships are all about. This is already occurring in ways that many people fail to recognize because so many people have so little understanding of what life was like for the common man prior to their own firsthand experiences. But these changes shall march on anyway. In fact, these changes may be part of what is driving interest in and demand for other options where you do not have to put up with someone else in order to get your sexual needs met.
You do realize that the cited code names are all acronyms for simple descriptive names, right? (Relational Database Service. Simple Storage Service. Elastic Compute Cloud). It should surprise nobody that simple descriptive names are often inconvenient in day-to-day use, and hence get turned into abbreviations.

> Why are Dynamo and Redshift not part of RDS while Aurora is?

Because Aurora is a relational database (see above), and Dynamo and Redshift are not?

Of course, it would seem that some marketing weasels managed to get into the organization; new names are fizzy opaque brands instead of the old descriptive-ish naming.
If you take the stance of "nothing is free", then the word "free" isn't particularly useful.
We probabbly shouldn't be surprised. I have a hard time finding a reference but I do remember very vividly the core recipe for a "sinfully delicious" Michelin 3-star restaurant's mashed potatoes.

Per portion, a pound of potatoes, half a pound of butter + seasoning. Of course there are cooking techniques to consider, but the fractions for ingredients are still the same.
If, as I sometimes hear floated around the web, we're approaching a future where massive sections of the population aren't necessary/useful for productive economic endeavors, these pacifying tools may well be a good thing. Or at least a small comfort to anybody on the wrong side of the social ladder.
I used a GPU instance today and it cost me 1$. I think you can discover the best setup in a week or so, with just a few dollars to waste. It's just a small "learning tax".
Mind-body duality have been a strong force in human society.

Heck, swap mind with soul and you may trace it as far back as we have "documented" history.

We have this strong resistance against seeing our thoughts, feelings and such as signal activity between a massive bundle of cells.
Really? That's interesting, though not unheard of. I haven't seen their LP agreement of course.

There are actually two reasons why LPs typically don't want to agree to this. The first is that most funds focus on a specific stage (early, late etc); typically early stage funds want to invest through the entire cycle (so if firm X puts $5M into your A round they plan to put a total of, say, $20M through the liquidity event). But a later stage fund might want certain investment criteria (expansion, growth, whatever the partners come up with) and don't want it used for "familiar" deals that might not fit that thesis.

The main reason, the one I mentioned above, is propping deals up. the big driver for this is that the IRR numbers are completely made up based on judgement, which has to be the case as most of the fund will be tied up in illiquid investments. However the people making the decision is conflicted -- they are the fund GPs and of course want to look good to get new investors into their next funds. You shouldn't assume they are corrupt or malevolent: inherently they can't be dispassionate, otherwise they wouldn't be qualified to be supporting their portfolio companies through thick and thin. But this is why firms are unhappy about CALPERS releasing IRR numbers, or why Fidelity might legitimately (publicly, as they are required to) mark an investment down while the venture firm might just as legitimately consider it higher in value -- and different venture firms could even disagree.

So the poor incentive cross-fund investing provides is that a fund that is struggling, especially a zombie fund, might want to bridge some of its firms via an investment from a newer fund in the hopes that things might turn around. This incentive is even stronger during a negative macro event (i.e. a recession). An LP in the new fund doesn't want to see its good dollars following bad, it wants the money in new, promising investments.

Now if you are a big firm and can throw your weight around, or have some unicorns that everybody is clamoring to get into even at a nosebleed valuation, then you might be able to get the LPs to permit cross-fund investments. But you might not even want it (don't forget the GPs will likely be different in the different funds so their interests might not even align.

So: quite uncommon but not unheard of.
What's wrong with that thought? That seems to be the interviewers genuine experience.
NASA alumnus made a 256-core processor just to handle AI
My preferred way isn't to call people "faggots".

Interesting you jump to that though. This is what I'm talking about... anything less than perfect politeness must be exaggerated into indefensibility. The "you asshole" typed into in-game chat is apparently enough to get someone fired.

Then, if it's reported or commented on publicly, someone like you'd jump in and characterize it as "he was running around screaming that we were all faggots".
It is 2 way street physical damage can cause mental damage, vise versa.Pure psychological damage takes sometime to really cause physical damage I would imagine. PTSD Is a thing that we all suffer from as we get older and get bumps and experience trauma. this is a great find. +1.
I'd just go for Taro at that point.
I thought it was clear enough that I was making a general point about how tests can be applied, and illustrating it with an extreme example from the South.

In general, I think asking for clarification is better than being condescending.
It's still a country made up of humans. Humans are not so different there than they are here (where ever here may be).
Pausing within a synchronized block to exaggerate slowdown sounds really interesting - and would provide a great opportunity to learn about how locking works "under the hood" :)
According to Amazon, the "R" in RDS is for "Relational". Dynamo is not a relational database, so it doesn't go in the RDS group.
> while actively hating the only network that had a chance, google+.

Google+ is like Wordpress.com, it's no replacement for Facebook. The fact that is it public BY DEFAULT is a no go for me. Facebook at least allows me to configure what data can and cannot be accessed by my friends,friends of friends ... I'm also a bit sick of giving all my personal datas to Google so i'm not going to use more of their services.
Show HN: Distro – transform article HTML for third-party platforms
You'd be maybe be right, if that was the only thing that the maintainers were doing. Speaking as a maintainer of several projects myself, it's all too easy for some issues to slip through the cracks.
As someone who has to build things solo most of the time, AWS does not need a specialist.

Oh yes, to squeeze the most out of it, I am sure it does.

But you can get along with EC2, Route 53 etc. pretty fine.

Personally found the multiple terms, docs (outdated) and other stories of people being billed lots pretty intimidating but when it came down to it, it wasn't as scary as I made it out to be and I've set things up at about half the cost of Digital Ocean and others.
Not sure why you get downvoted. Its true, with all this VC casino "startups", you as a hobbyist, not living in the us or be part of the bubble stand no chance.
I would imagine that humans will maintain a wide variety of relationships with "sex robots", with some treating them mostly as tools/appliances and others seeking social relationships.

Interestingly, I've been a researcher in the field of human-robot interaction for around five years now and sex robots are for the most part unexplored within HRI academic research.
The purpose of technology is to make peoples lives easier and more controllable, and it turns out that dealing with other people is often hard and introduces uncontrollabilty.

Technology is an alternative solution to many of the same problems that we used to have to use community to solve.

Finding ways to build community when we aren't forced to group together for survival is one of the big challenges of modern life.

On the other hand, technology also provides us with reasons to connect (shared digital activities), it breaks down the barriers of connection (time and space, and increasingly language), it reduces the cost of connection, allows us to share other peoples lives in a way that was previously impossible.

Most of what most people do on the internet is build community, real community, so even while we're contemplating the dangers, let's not get too pessimistic.
Got it. Of course, your mini-lecture about "not assuming good faith" wasn't condescending at all.

I spent a fair amount of time researching this urban legend earlier today. I wasn't "assuming" anything.
Yeah. For that matter, I think it's common wisdom that people's first times having sex are often (though not always) awkward and not particularly satisfying.
Eh. I'm not sure about the comparison, but sports certainly have many short and long-term effects on body and mind. My knee still hurts from high school football 10+ years ago and my experiences playing heavily influenced my personality today.
I recently deleted the Facebook app and the world hasn't stopped spining.

Actually I feel quite better
But if your server doesn't enforce data consistency -- that is, the business logic resides on the client -- you can't rely on the quality of your input. And if your authorization sanitizes the data to ensure consistency, then you've just built your middle tier for logic.
- Variance in female intelligence/math ability/other traits is smaller than for men, at roughly the rate Larry Summers famously speculated about.

As to the first study (Hyde et al. 2008), your claim only holds for white 11th grade Minnesota students, and only in terms of standardized math scores. For Asian-Pacific Islander students, the M/F variance ratio (VR) at the 95%+ and 99%+ percentiles is 1.09 and 0.91 respectively.

As to the fourth study (Kane and Mertz 2012), they don't report VRs for the upper tails of the distribution; they focus exclusively on grade school children; and they report that the overall VR varies widely from country to country, with a mean of 1.08. So again, your claim does not follow from their results.

I haven't read the other two studies, but given the pattern so far, I don't think I'll need to.
Nehalem is the oldest chip I ever saw a floorplan for, and it had a logic block called "misfit" that had special logic requested by a company whose stock ticker you might be able to guess from the block name.
However, most people's load doesn't regularly go to zero - and in fact it still might be advantageous to use reserved instances even if it did, because they're so much cheaper.

The situation is analogous to "base-load vs peak-load" on the power grid. Base-load power (reserved instances) are very cheap but cannot respond to transient spikes in the load. Peaking plants (on-demand instances) can respond to transient spikes quickly, but are expensive to run.

A naieve model is that you find your minimum usage and buy enough baseload to cover that, with peaking beyond that. However, since peaking is so much more expensive than baseload this is not necessarily optimal - instead, you may want to buy some extra baseload that isn't fully utilized during your off-hours, because that offsets expensive peaking capacity during your high-demand hours.

You almost certainly would not want to have zero reserved instances.
I find that sad and disappointing. Patents are a curse upon humanity.
Isn't the problem along with these somewhat dubious "Hacker Schools" or "Bootcamps" the demand side for a "shortcut" to an instant developer title or less likely an instant $100K/year job?

The reality is that there are no shortcuts. What ever happened to the good old fashioned "take an entry-level support position and work your way up"? That gets you both a foot in the door and get real rubber on the road experience? Is it sexy? No. Does it work? Yes.
Um, dealers don't get plea bargins for turning in people below them on the supply chain, they get plea bargains for turning in people above them.
AWS is fine as long as... you do not want to control it with shell scripts and without a large scripting language.

(No Perl, Python, Ruby, Go, etc.)

I tried this when I first experimented with AWS after I read the story behind it, i.e., the directive Bezos allegedly gave to disparate groups within Amazon to make their data stores accessible to each other.

The AWS documentation claimed everything could be controlled via HTTP. Great. I know HTTP. Sign me up.

I have no trouble interacting with servers via HTTP using the Bourne shell and UNIX utilities, without using large scripting languages. I have been doing so for many years.

But after a few hours trying to get AWS to work using UNIX it was such a PITA I gave up. And I do not give up easily.

But it turned out there were small errors in the documentation, so even if one followed their specification to the letter, things still would not work.

The Amazon developers in the help forums would just say use the Java programs they had written.

Of course AMZN had a "web interface" from Day 1. But I have little interest in another hosting company with a web GUI.

At the time all Amazon offered for anyone interested in the command line was Java. Installing OpenJDK and a hefty set of "Java command line tools" just to send HTTP requests? This did not inspire confidence.

Then came Python. Everyone loves AWS. How can anyone criticize it?

I concluded that if AWS was well-designed (according to Bezos alleged directive) then it would be possible to interact with it without having to use a large scripting language and various libraries.

I guess I am either too stupid or I set the bar too high.

AWS, as I understood it back then (before the massive growth), is a wonderful idea but I am not sure the implementation was/is as wonderful as the idea.
Technology more and more transforms from a solution to a problem as social interactions are essential to being a human.
Connecting to people digitally can't replace real contact in person.