skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks for your kinds words. I'm a little surprised to be recognized! I know that's normal in a community but I just wasn't thinking about it.

All I can say is ...

... I know some people who work for government. In the last few hours, in fact, I was telling one about our conversation and they were surprised that there was any debate - they thought it would clearly be a career-ending move, and the only reward they knew of was around $3,000 (and if there are other rewards, what does it say that they don't know?). They said the only thing they can imagine you are referring to is that whistle blowers on government contract corruption in certain circumstances get a percentage of the contract or savings, which could be a lot and potentially worth losing a career and all the other institutional penalties that will come down on them too.

... It matches my lifelong experience and observations of every institution and industry, and what I believe is common knowledge of everyone in one. The worst thing you can do is be disloyal; you will be blackballed, your reputation may be smeared, and you may be investigated for every paperclip anyone is willing to allege that you wasted or used for personal reasons, etc. As one example, priests worldwide in the Catholic Church obviously knew raping children would be overlooked, but not one (afaik; certainly very few) dared to report it. Many at Penn State knew about Sandusky raping children; none dared to report it to police and several openly said they feared for their careers and reputations if they did. The first people to report it, a mother and her victimized son, faced such community retaliation (in Penn State's college town) that the local police prepared a witness protection program for them - for a raped child! - and those weren't even employees. University trustees who took action on the issue were voted out of office by angry alumni. Stomach-turning, but that unfortunately is human nature very often.
Ideally, a land tax would tax away all land rent (but none of the capital income from the house on top).

If well designed, one can't take more than 100%.
Regex is pretty easy, IMO. It's just a bunch of patterns... About as predictable as any bit of logic can be. They can become complicated by virtue of composition, but are not intrinsicly complex.
Iranian Startups Spread Kindness During the Holy Month of Ramadan
I work in eLearning and we create a lot of visual content as its easy to convey ideas in video than through text.

The cost of video production is at least 50X or 100X more than text and hence, we take extra caution to make sure that it's precise and accurate. What is said in 1500 words is trimmed down to 250 words to create a video. It goes through multiple talents like motion graphics team, anchors etc before it hits the screen and hence it's interesting to watch. Text, caption etc are just there for SEO. Bandwidth is the only constrain, especially in developing nations.

And then there are low-quality mugshot videos, which takes less budget than what it takes to present the same content in text.

The quality ones will replace text forever.
It's funny people in the comments mention that they did not buy games exclusive to the monitor manufacturer. It's true but it also reminded me of the 3D movies wars of 2010. Major CE manufacturers all got exclusive rights to the parts of a small 3D movie library and made these titles available only with the HW purchase. E.g. Panasonic had Avatar so to watch Avatar in 3D you had to buy a Panasonic TV, Samsung had How To Train Your Dragon, Sony had a bunch of Sony titles and I don't remember if LG had anything. We all know how this turned out for the home 3D.
Yes, you could use the proceeds of a land tax to eg pay for a universal basic income.

You can also use some proceeds to pay for infrastructure development (of any kind). If done well, then the additional infrastructure will raise land values enough to pay for itself in higher taxes.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem
IIRC there is evidence rats replay their experiences, sped up, while they are asleep. Dreaming may be something else entirely though, because my dreams aren't anything like my memories of the day before.

Artificial neural networks can "dream" by predicting what frame it will see next. This is a really cool technique. They've shown slightly blurry videos of atari games being played that comes entirely from the network's dream. With no interaction with the game at all. You can even train the reinforcement learning on the dream sequences and improve it's performance.

But this also doesn't seem quite like what human dreams are. Human dreams are wild and unrealistic, while the NN dreams try to match the training data as closely as possible.
I thought it was for regularization.
The miners are not the network; the expectation of market reaction is the network and the miners make their choice just like everyone else. Miners don't want to be on the wrong chain.
Phone book whites pages
Idealists will get wiped if they don't agree with majority consensus. It was always a human system and "the code is the network" is just ideology.
In discussion of economics, 'left' generally means large-scale government intervention in markets, while 'right' means truly free-markets based on the efficient market hypothesis.
E.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Politica...

There is a lot of confusion -- no doubt. This has to do with the new usage of the term "liberal" to describe Democrats or people on the left, when historically, liberal meant people on the right, like Libertarians or Republicans. As a result, we now describe free-market liberalism as "classical liberalism", to distinguish it from modern "social liberalism".

To further complicate things, pundits on the left have attempted to associate the uglier side of left politics (namely, fascism) with the right, so you have a lot of people calling neo-nazis "far-right", when in reality, National Socialism was a leftist movement. Hitler was a "liberal", in terms of being a believer in large-scale government intervention in the markets.

Conversely, the USSR was and China is "conservative" in the classical sense. That is, they believe in government intervention in markets, which was called conservatism 100 years ago, and is called liberal today.
I worked in companies that would try to avoid paying for those and companies that would never pay for those no matter what.
I get many calls from third party recruiters and some directly from Hiring Managers or internal HR...all from posting my resume on job boards and LinkedIn. Most of the third party recruiters are unfortunately worthless and from New Jersey...I have no idea why, I live in Portland, OR. I am a Sr. SharePoint Consultant/Architect/Admin/Dev with over 20 years of IT experience and 8+ years of SharePoint experience. I now run my own consulting company and utilize the job boards only to get corp-to-corp or direct contracts with companies. Of the many of thousands of third party recruiters only two have really stood out to me. I am not otherwise affiliated with them or their companies (though I have worked with them):

Lisa Matar, founder and owner of Collaborative Vision http://cvhires.com, a boutique third party recruiting firm based in Portland, OR has fostered a positive relationship with me and with the companies that she works with. I had a question about a corp-to-corp SharePoint migration contract I learned of from a different recruiting company. Lisa reached out to the CTO of a large Healthcare company most of us have heard of within minutes and provided the information I needed. While the role was cancelled due to a long story, I was blown away by her execution. She is also very competent with current technologies, though she is not a developer or admin. Lisa really understood my background and experience and has proactively pinged me about positions and sometimes for my feedback. She is also very willing to place consultants corp-to-corp if the end client allows it. Thank you Lisa, you are the best.

Another recruiter is Susan Schmidt at InfoGroup Northwest with offices in Portland and other cities. Susan called me, I aced the interview same day, got the ball rolling, let me sign the paperwork electronically, and had me in a client-paid-for hotel room in a different city the same day, working the next day on a contract (it was kind of urgent for the company and me at the time). Unfortunately my recent experiences with InfoGroup have been negative...no feedback, no pings, I'm just a wet bag of meat that has potential to put money in their hands from my work. Chris R, the owner of InfoGroup is a very impressive woman and has a great business sense, which means shrewd in her case. I hope IGNW gets it back together, because they have coordinated several corp-to-corp contracts for me that I would not have otherwise known about and are mostly great to work with.

Does anyone know of any other recruiters in Portland that are open to finding corp-to-corp opportunities?
JPMorgan is a sponsor of the event talk, no doubt team happiness does not count (FYI, worked there)
Also, sarcasm.
Civilization's biggest challenge is addressing multi-generational problems. Modern America is one of the most depressing and backwards nations in that regard... we struggle with small engineering projects that simply span a couple decades, to say nothing of investing in and protecting future generations.
> It's like saying if engineers had wheels and engines laying around everywhere, nobody would have thought of connecting them together and making a car without a government grant.

But they didn't. I mean, if government projects lag behind private sector projects, why didn't we have ARPANET going nowhere while some private sector project jumped ahead? Even if you think we would have gotten their eventually (debatable), we can at the very least say that the government project got us there sooner.
Thanks for appreciating it.

I do like it, too. However, my policy recommendation differs from the author: use a land tax to cut down land valuations.

One goal is of course to allow substituting capital for land (ie higher houses) to make housing cheaper. There's a reinforcing cycle: less NIMBYs, leads less restriction on that substitution, leads to less NIMBYs as per the paper.
This seems about as well thought out as:

"Nip Alert is a GPS-driven app designed to give users "the location of a woman with erect nipples." It was created by Big Head, and is Erlich's example to Richard of "showing promise."

The stripper Mochachino, who shows her nipples for a living, finds the app uncomfortable to use and sexist. "
Human worth is intrinsic and absolute. It depends on nothing and is granted simply for existing. It cannot be taken away. The commission of crimes will result in a loss of freedoms and rights, but not human worth.

Economic value however is not meaningless. It represents a measure of contribution to the capital engine that powers our lives. The whole system however is completely unfair and biased since the actual economic value created by workers is not realized by them. Workers create value that companies could not survive without but these companies do not then redistribute gains from that value in commensurate with the work done.

As such I don't have a problem with us looking at being able to generate economic value as meaningful, I have a problem with the skewed system that distributes the rewards and opportunities unfairly.
I'm curious if more recent data would disagree at all with this. I agree the whole 1950s as some sort of turning point (or near to) is likely false based on the meta-analysis you linked but I find the idea that this started taking off in the 21st century to be a plausible hypothesis.

Another thing to consider is that though actual correlation with success may not have changed, the cultural attitudes surrounding it may still have. My high school years were in the late 2000s, and although my elementary/middle school years lent credence to the "nerds get beat up by jocks" cultural cliche, my experience (and that of many other nerds) in high school was not anything like what I expected. Not only that, but the nerd/jock divide was blurred to the point of being essentially non-existent. A lot of the people on our championship-winning football team were at the top of our class, and definitely not by virtue of the teachers just passing them because of pressure from on high. This doesn't seem to be such an uncommon experience for my generation.

On a more subjective note, I actually find the attitude aspect to be the more detestable one. One can defend intelligence being correlated with success from a lot of at least not totally evil viewpoints: it makes sense to have more intellectually skilled people in jobs requiring more intellectual skill, intelligence requires some level of cultivation so there should be incentives to do so, etc. But while the social carrot has some arguments that start from acceptable terminal values, the social stick does not. I would be very surprised to learn that chastising people for being stupid across the board made them (or anyone else) smarter. The only motivation I can only see for it is purely egotistical.
Google is trying to compete with Amazon in e-commerce too
Likely because people in the Ruby community tend to favor solutions that allow them to continue writing Ruby. In the context of the OP, Rust is being used only to augment Ruby, to complement it, not to outright replace it. Adopting Swift or Crystal would involve rewriting much more code from Ruby into the new language.

Look at it this way: for these programmers, the choice isn't between Rust and Crystal, it's between Rust and C. And for people who've never written systems code before, Rust is enormously friendlier.
> However, Steam 'DRM' is less DRM and more SDK

It's definitely 'DRM' - its just a good DRM that tends to not get in the way of the users.\
So what is this all about: https://www.reddit.com/r/Vive/comments/4nxpnq/fuck_facebook_...

Seems like trying to buy exclusivity to me - unless Serious Sam has some reason to distort the offer.
This is simply false. An SDK is not DRM. They offer optional DRM but the platform itself is not managing rights inherently.
Was this article ghost written by Diana Moon Glampers?

I disagree with basically every sentence in the article and don't even know where to begin.
This is why it makes me laugh when idiots think the Minority Report interface could ever work.

Text will rule for a long while yet.
The implication here being that intelligence, impulse control, and the ability and desire to work towards long term goals are not merit? I'm curious, what then do you think constitutes merit?
> The quality ones will replace text forever

And this need to be a startup.
I suspect you come from a culture that portrays itself as disconnected from nature. You think of civilization as a kind of nihilistic growth machine that is totally devoid of meaning. That makes sense. I see a lot of that when I look at the world too.

But not every civilization is like that. There is a form of civilization which exists in deference to nature. There is a form of enlightenment which doesn't worship blind reproduction, but instead worships harmony with nature. It sees our role as humans not as an all-conquering virus, but as gardeners, shepherds of life. Not über-wolves, but über-trees. Some people call this "permaculture" but it has lots of other names, and has existed for millennia.

I think the culmination of human civilization is to reach a kind of pinnacle of progressive efficiency, combined with an almost regressive reverence for the past and our bodies and the ecologies which sustain them. I suspect other alien life may also be similarly inclined.

And this notion you have that planet pollution is the only way to exist is very sad. It's no better than climate denial. It's arguably more destructive, because you are suckering in smart people who would otherwise balk at denialists. I would urge you to spend some time learning about ways of living which nurture ecologies. There many such traditions, spanning every biome.
It may seem counter-intuitive, but...yes?

Small investors benefit from HFT and related technologies, which is why, eg, Vanguard is pro-HFT. Investment banks are harmed by it, which is why, eg, Goldman is anti-HFT.
A pioneering 19th-century abstract artist: Georgiana Houghton
That doesn't make TPUs better at achieving performance, just cheaper. My bet is on the size of the team. FB only put in 2 people, or so it seems, while Google invested 10x more man-time.
To be fair, the version you read is likely translated from chinese.
> we won't get X product fast.

I am also very sympathetic to this view. That the work would get done anyway if capitalism weren't aggressively "stimulating" us with an insidious short-term mindset. We will certainly get there regardless. It would be ideal to do it without all the externalities. But locking Elon Musk up in your utopia won't make him a constant beacon of happiness. I imagine he isn't alone in that regard. You're making a utilitarian trade that seems strikingly suboptimal. When you go off the spectrum of motivation, as Elon Musk has, you tend to get a little cranky. There needs to be a place for cranky people to work. We just can't let them dominate other people with their madness. There are plenty of willing converts. Lets actually get rid of slavery. Then there can be a flood of ex-Tesla workers if need be. I suspect Elon Musk would topple your utopia from the inside out before launching his space empire. Getting in his way is not the solution.
Can you expand on your experiences, and why you think they are a trend?
My cofounder said “I love what we’re doing” and we shut down our startup
On chrome it's "Tab Cookies": https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/tab-cookies/iahecg...

On firefox, "Self destructing cookies": https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/self-destruct...

You're welcome :)
HN culture explicitly does not appreciate sarcasm, jokes, memes or references. It's a knowingly doomed attempt to delay the flood of noise that eventually dominates vote-based discussion groups like Digg and Reddit.
The customer service has drastically dropped. To the point where there customer responses have poor spelling (and don't actually solve the problem). They allow third party sellers which sell counterfeit goods - meaning you have to carefully look at who is actually selling the item you are about to buy. If you buy shoes its clear Amazon isn't getting the same quality as the bigger box stores despite selling the same brands.

Amazon is quickly becoming the walmart of the internet for me. I'll buy from them because its easy but I don't expect them to sell me a quality product.
Kids are being advised by parents to get an expensive degree because when they were growing up that's how you made it.

That's not how it is anymore. There's no free pass to success, no check all these boxes and then you've made it. You gotta use your brain early on, figure it out for yourself, because ultimately you're going to be the one having to live with the consequences of how you've spent your youth.

I think there are actually good opportunities in vocational schools. Marketable skills that you can use to find a good job. Law, liberal arts and communication degrees maybe not as marketable.
SSHFS Port to Windows/Cygwin
I'm not sure how it works but it works but with Semble in NZ they seem to be able to do it with the phone off http://www.semble.co.nz/faqs/always-on
The legal profession has been in the doldrums long enough people should know better than to go to law school. If you can get into Harvard or Yale it makes sense. Otherwise you're wasting your money and time.
You can't bill clients recurring revenues each month for them.
>You're assuming the contract violates some statute and reasoning from there.

If someone solicits investment funds and those funds disappear without ever having been invested as a direct result of the person who solicited the funds, and drafted the contract, then yes we are all safe in assuming (but I actually know) at least one statute was violated. Very important that I again acknowledge that the DAO funds have not disappeared, and potentially may not.

Even if the funds disappear that does not mean any prosecutor anywhere is going to file charges either and even if they did, we don't know there would be a conviction, maybe there is a plea and the terms include no conviction.

The point is, you don't need an underlying conviction on the criminal side to prove a illegal contract on the civil side. In fact as we all know the standard is lower on the civil side, so it is easier to prove illegal contract on the civil side than proving the criminal case.

>But the question at hand is whether someone using the contract and following its exact terms has committed a crime of any kind, or has simply executed a transaction allowed by the system.

I really haven't addressed what the hacker(s) did or their potential liability anywhere in the thread, all times I have been addressing potential liability for the creators of the DAO. As to your question, whether or not it would be a lawful defense for the hacker(s) to say they were a party to a contract that permitted the taking of the other funds, I suppose it depends who the hacker(s) is(are) and what the crimes charged are. For example, if the hacker(s) are some or all of the creators of the DAO, the whole "contract let me do it" would not be a lawful defense, in fact such a defense would backfire and probably only prove their knowledge of the exploit when creating the DAO and intent in soliciting investment to the DAO. However, if the hacker was some lone wolf 16 year old kid (minor), in a criminal/delinquency setting I could see the defense maybe going somewhere depending on the charge, but it is still ~$40M so I don't really know.
Fuck that. Keep the book collection on display.
It seems that the story is a that a once upwards spiral is now spiraling downwards, and people and institutions must adjust.

At one point in time, law was lucrative, and there were not enough lawyers. Schools responded by growing in size and in tuition. Students could justify the loans because there was a high chance that the "investment" would pay off.

Fast forward a few decades and law as an industry is contracting. Since the profession is not as lucrative, if you follow the chain, then schools should have contracted in response, minting fewer lawyers. But they can't easily adjust when they've built a bureaucracy and dramatically increased the number of tenured faculty. That lead to them misleading applicants by not having transparency with their true employment numbers. For a while, students were duped. But at this point, the cat is largely out of the bag. Applicants numbers are down, and the demise of debt-burdened law grads have hit national headlines numerous times over the last 5 or so years. So now, in uncoordinated fashion, schools must adjust and finally down size. Too bad students were caught in the crossfire for many years before the flares went up.
I'm not a fan of the public just repeating talking points. Namely, you are doing this as well because Mavens wasn't in existence pre-Mayer [1]. Maven IS a new product, you're very misinformed to think anything else.

Yahoo isn't a sinking ship, it's previous 'core' is. Hence why Mayer is shifting emphasis, focus, and ahem revenue. Banner ads wasn't going to keep Yahoo alive, Mavens can and will. Mayer was insightful enough to see this and pounced on it even though she believes in some areas she should've acted sooner (I think she's referring to her Maven's focus).

[1] http://marketrealist.com/2015/03/yahoo-coins-term-mavens-key...
tl;dr; "Yahoo coined the name MaVeNS, a broad acronym for mobile, video, native, and social. Prior to 2012, Yahoo had no native or social ads, and mobile and video were in the nascent stage. The four MaVeNS businesses didn’t contribute any revenue. And now, within less than two years, MaVeNS has contributed more than $1 billion of annual revenue."
They can measure time you played. More time in game mean higher score.