skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The wirelesstags.net stuff looks good, but it also is tied to their cloud services. I couldn't find a local API to talk to their bridge device.

The nice thing about Hue is that their bridge can run completely disconnected from the internet and still respond to RESTful API requests, which means that when Phillips end-of-lifes Hue my bridge will keep working with Home Assistant.
I'm thinking of functions with many arguments: every argument adds an extra dimension to the table. Even if you unwrap the dimensions (e.g. instead of a cube made of 1/2, a/b and x/y, you have a table of a1/b1/a2/b2 vs x/y) you still multiply the state space.

S-exprs are simply a representation for trees, and you can use trees for anything - not necessarily the most efficient way, but trees are very flexible. But trees encode policy: the choice of root and branch determines what's cheap and what's expensive. Tables are agnostic, but they pay for their agnosticism with their dimensionality.
Chapter 5 – Hunting Mallory – The Psychopath Code (2015)
The same problem exists in some societies' failure to accept male teachers in elementary school or kindergarten. The diversification experience of armed forces might provide valuable insight.
Conference talks magnify the usual biases. On the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog, but there's no way to avoid it when you're in person in front of hundreds of people. If you pick a mechanism involving speakers self-selecting (either literally an open CfP and no attempt to encourage people to submit, or encouraging people you know are good speakers to submit), you'll see the results of past biases.
> Wasn't that the promise of the early cable TV?

No, early cable TV was a way to provide signals from broadcast (and, thus, ad supported) channels to areas where, for geographic reasons, there was poor reception.

(The CATV acronym frequently used for cable TV originated as an acronym for its earlier name, "Community Antenna Television" -- reflecting it as a model of consumers sharing an antenna to receive broadcast signal.)

Premium, ad-free content, cable-specific programming didn't turn up until decades later. So, you've basically got it backward: instead of being something that originally promised subscription fees for no ads content but fell away from that, cable is something that initially offered subscription fees for access to ad-supported broadcast content but later evolved to include subscription-based (and pay-per-view) ad-free content available on top of the basic ad-supported content.
And AES was developed in Belgium...
Progress Towards 100% HTTPS – Let's Encrypt – Free SSL/TLS Certificates
> there's no way digital advertising as we know it today will replace TV advertising

As people adopt DVRs and quality show producers move on to online platforms like Netflix and Amazon (as they entice them with full creative control and no ad interruptions), won't the only thing remaning that resembles TV advertising be during live broadcasts (sports, maybe news)
The Psychopath Code (2015)
I'm confused. The reason the FSF gives for copyright assignment is precisely in aid of their legal enforcement of the GPL. From their website [1]:

... enforcement of copyright is generally not possible
for distributors: only the copyright holder or someone
having assignment of the copyright can enforce the
license.
...

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html
Ah

I love it when my error is so simple that there isn't any question in my mind I missed something.
disappointed that there is no mention of Terminator.
And still...

http://static-media.fxx.com/img/FX_Networks_-_FXX/641/266/Si...
Fixed! https://twitter.com/_conorpp/status/745645894368886784
Passenger drones are hovering over the horizon
Ecto 2 and Phoenix Presence with José Valim and Chris McCord
> it is well known that there is an 80:20

It is well heard, it is not well known - this would require more than vague hand-wavy logics.

There is also an 80:20 rule wrt employee value, (that always seems to benefit the sayers of such a rule).
The paper you cite about the bacterium that uses arsenic instead of phosphorus in its DNA was conclusively discredited. http://www.nature.com/news/arsenic-life-bacterium-prefers-ph...
God save the Queen!
I'd like to have a security key and prompt enabled at the same time.
My understanding is that all known organisms share at least the ribosome RNA genes. Unless you're counting viruses, which is not exactly fair since they hijack the host's ribosomes.
Why doesn't Chris just go update the website to clarify this? Surely Benno isn't the only one with access to change the site. Even if so, the domain is registered to Chris.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11952255

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11949278
The middle class went where? You’ll be surprised
It's almost impossible to imagine anything getting an ARPU greater than cellular phones already do. Maybe you could make one car payment for your car and another for communication services for your car, but that's just about it.

There is a limited amount of money that most people can spend on their phone bill before it cuts into spending for housing, food, health care, college, etc.
Michigan Sues Two Companies Over Flint's Poisoned Water Crisis
No, Snowden is not a U.S. citizen. He has not be charged with a crime in the U.S.
Wonderful news. I managed to gloss over that :)
I think you are talking about sickness when you are talking about human physiology.

>only a lucky few are totally unaffected by it

That is true, but what you aren't covering here is that when software (and hardware) is properly designed, almost no one is affected by it! Vive games with physical locomotion do not have complaints of sickness.
Well, I've been building my own with rpi's and whatnot. But I'd love to save time and just buy an off-the-shelf product that's been thoroughly tested, etc.
There is a very old reading list online I made for the company that is now Accenture -- and this was the subject of a recent HN "gig". I think there is a URL for this discussion in this AMA.
> Non-biologists maybe

Think of it like old astronomers who still refer to Pluto as a planet. They know it's not officially a planet anymore, but they still call it one because that's what they like calling it and they don't give a shit.

Most older mycologists still use the scientific names from before DNA sequencing in casual conversation. It's not that they don't know the new ones, they do, but that's just what they like calling them and they're fine with the younger generation waiting for them to die or whatever.
Ya, true. There are particular areas though where 'wisdom of the crowds' works much better than any expert, and then there are obviously areas where it does not.

I'm not sure exactly what the properties of each type of problem are, but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me that stock picking is not one in which a sort of herd optimization approach might be very effective.
On the 1 hour and 32 minute Tesla conference call this morning Elon mentioned:

-there is redundant/duplicate hardware between solar panel & the Powerwall installations

-substantial drop of cost of sales for SolarCity between 30-50%, also drop on tesla's side

-biggest asset is SolarCity's installers

-also some strengths in the SolarCity's sales side

-a special deal with SolarCity would be a conflict of interest

-a seamlessly integrated product/system is just better, and "you aren't wondering if you should blame the solar company, the battery company or what if you are the end customer"

-installation crew can do everything in one visit instead of two or three

Other interesting note:

-Elon explicitly said Tesla has the potential to be a trillion dollar market cap company

My take on it is if the deal is viewed solely based on past performance and traditional financial analysis it probably has big issues. If viewed from a future standpoint where Tesla pulls off things like the Model 3 successfully, it could be a pretty good deal for Tesla. A bigger question for shareholders is what kind of shareholder dilution could occur between today and say 5 years from now on whatever roadmap Elon is imaging and isn't public.
Do you think they are on the right path to their larger goals?
This is super important research, due to what the article calls, "low security threshold and high passenger count".

I wish the research results would be given to the public, though I understand why we won't see the results for some time, or possibly never.

It's also kind of scary that their only listed "remediation" is to have more accurate contamination maps. It really hits home the concept that, once a bad guy actually gets a weapon to a crowd, there's not much more that can be done.
> Can you make communications spam-resistant? Can you make an unhackable internet service?

Maybe. Can you make a human that can't be suborned by a superhuman evil AI?
...man, I was all ready to get out the pitchforks in response to "bioterror" research in a public place, but it turns out it's more "fluid dynamics research prompted by the risk of particulate bioweapons". It's not a clickbait title, but it asymptotically approaches one.
Right, exactly. 3 days vs potentially year~ for a low power chip with an RF transmitter.
that's not biochemistry- it's structural biology. Biochemistry focuses almost entirely on reducible components in isolation.
Love nano - been using it for something like 18 years or whenever I had my first Linux server online. I couldn't survive a *nix environment without it.
I agree with your "factual" statements about Trump, but keep in mind, the media is trying to hold him accountable not just for what he said, but for what he meant to say. Rubio didnt say Trump had a small penis, he just implied it. Saying Rubio never actually said that, in my view, is more dishonest than missquoting him with actually saying it. Trump, being a presumptive nominee has a really big megaphone. He should be able to convey a very clear message. When he says, Obama has something else going on, the media is right to press, so what exactly are you saying? And Trumps response is: people should fill in the blanks, I don't know. In other words, I agree politicians lie and exaggerate, and sometimes say things they don't mean to say, but they correct the message, move on. Trump doesn't, he doubles down. He cites completely crazy and outrageous conspiracy theories, again, correctly saying, "I heard" or "some people think"... that is complete bs. I hate Ted Cruz, yet I was outraged when he was, again, factually just saying a tabloid run a story claiming Ted's dad was involved in the JFK assassination. "I'm not saying he was involved, but some people think so, and nobody talks about it". Factually correct, yet completely insane coming from a presidential candidate.
Lua did. Python isn't commonly used in situations where you'd consider embedding Guile.
> Maybe useless if you need to convert it to paper dinosaur money at the other end

The vast majority of people on this planet use "paper dinosaur money" because that is what the overwhelming majority of merchants accept. There's also the fact that most people will have to convert their local currency into bitcoin before sending it because they aren't bitcoin enthusiasts who have arbitrary sums of bitcoin at their disposal. Most of the time acquiring bitcoin requires a bank account and can take days to acquire because of KYC and bank account verification (and that assumes you're comfortable uploading your photo id and other documents to bitcoin services).

> I think of Bitcoin as an awesome idea for a replacement of the current corrupt system

The cryptocurrency ecosystem is infamous for its association with fraud, abuse and incompetence. Whenever a bitcoin company goes offline for more than a few hours it's actually a serious concern that the operators might have absconded with the funds leaving users utterly powerless to recover their money or bring the operators to justice. Bitcoin operators have lost or stolen MILLIONS of dollars worth of money from bitcoin users... yet the current system is the corrupt one. My "dinosaur money bank" has never lost or disappeared with my money. Literally never.

> it is still possible for people to transfer Bitcoin between themselves with no middlemen

Which is useless if your overseas family wants to pay for goods and services like groceries, rent, medical care and other basic needs. You can say whatever you like about the ease of moving bitcoins internationally but it's a fact that almost everywhere in the world bitcoins are not accepted in exchange for goods and services and most people are not technically sophisticated enough to safely convert their bitcoins into local currency.
Ah, I thought they meant "why would a software developer working in Silicon Valley live there."
This has nothing to do with the NSA, and the NSA has no interest in RF noise. The noise isn't some encrypted electronic communication. It's electromagnetic noise as a byproduct of poorly designed electronic products. It's like if in a chemistry lecture if all the students started humming, it would become difficult to hear the lecture. So there is no connection to the NSA.
Tibetan Buddhism is not what it seems and is actually very far from true Buddhism. Their culture, rituals/ceremonies are full of black magic and many call upon spirits. Many tourists unknowingly attend such rituals (where milk and other offerings are made) without knowing what's really happening. One should read up more on the history of Tibetan Buddhism, particularly the colored sects.

Tibetan monks are not as innocent, naive or pure as the world think.
>Why would I want Apple to regulate the third party headphones available to me? ... having that many choices isn't a problem in my mind. ... Tell me what advantage is gained by eliminating the other options in be market?

Is it really not obvious what the advantage is? It's a huge advantage: to listen to music on headphones with your shiny new iPhone, you'll have to either buy some shiny new Beats headphones from Apple for $300, or to use non-Apple headphones you'll have to buy some kind of dongle adapter for $29.95. This is a giant advantage for Apple because it'll improve their profits.

The advantage to you is that you can feel warm and fuzzy about being a mindless Apple consumer and having a shiny new iDevice that costs a fortune and only works with other iDevices and forces you to buy new headphones. People like to feel like they're part of an elite in-group.

It's very simple: if you don't like the way Apple does business and treats you as a customer, then don't buy their product. The only reason they're able to get away with this kind of thing (using non-standard connectors is something they've been doing a long time) is because people line up like lemmings to buy their iDevices. If you buy an iPhone with no headphone jack, you really have no right to complain about it being missing; it isn't a surprise at this point.
Here in the states "Tupelo Honey" is quite sought after as it does not crystallize easily and is said to taste quite good.
In South Florida, orange blossom honey is another popular type. Bee keepers will put their bees in a grove, and then harvest the honey just as they take the bees out, this way they can certify what type of honey they are selling.
That reasoning works until the judge considers damages. Then let's say it's a small developer, not too much work, and no commercial interest in the code. Damages are limited, in western law, to, well, damages. You need to have suffered a financial loss, the other party needs to have violated the license/contract/law/... and you need to show the causal connection between the two.

Let's say you contributed 500 lines of code to some project. You sue somebody for violating GPL and not publishing their changes. The judge has to give them the choice : either pay damages or actually comply (another western legal principle : money buys your way out of anything, as long as it isn't criminal).

What damages to assign ? Well, seems reasonable to say "how much for 500 lines of code ? A week's wages ? Okay, 2500 dollar damages awarded". The other party might become scared because other developers could conceivably sue, but ...
This is what I do as well. I think it's pretty standard.
Elon Musk's OpenAI: We're working on a robot for your household chores
If it's written by BBC, it's probably not going to be something very damning about the U.S. government, quite the contrary.
The copyright assignment requirements in GNU projects point to the GPL not being good enough, thereby undermining it.

They are obviously rooted in the fear that in fact the FSF cannot use code that is merely GPL-ed, if someone else owns the copyright.

"Use the GPL for your code to grant everyone rights and freedoms. Just not when giving to us; we would prefer your right, not your left, thank you very much."

There is a legitimate concern that someone apparently placing code under the GPL might not have the right to do so. But for that, an affidavit should be good enough, not an affidavit plus assignment of copyright to the FSF.

The paranoid copyright assignment obviously guards against the possibility that a rightfully proclaimed GPL can be retroactively revoked. Someone in the project changes their mind and says that these pieces which are wrote are no longer GPLed; not going forward, nor in any past revisions. (That author him or herself, not some previous employer or other third party, from whom permission had not been properly obtained to have that work under the GPL.)

If the FSF believes this to be a real threat, any group of users anywhere relying on the GPL should take the same view.
> locking the barn door after the horse is gone.

It sounds as if that's intended to be an objection to something I wrote, but I've no inkling what. I certainly didn't mean to deny that there are a hell of a lot of them out there.

> we don't have land mines in first-world countries

I think the chances of a productive discussion would be greater if you didn't leap straight to assuming bad faith on the part of the people you're talking to.

Land mines are a big deal. They're a problem that needs solving. But you're not merely saying that; you're jumping into a discussion of something else and saying "you shouldn't be talking about this at all as long as there are land mines".

Which would be at least somewhat consistent (albeit rude), if that were your response to every HN discussion of things less important than land mines. But it isn't. By the advanced technique of clicking on your username, I see that you've been quite happy to participate in discussions of "table-oriented programming", mobile phone headphone jacks, and off-by-one errors in audio programming, and that you work in embedded software development. Are those things, unlike AI safety, more important than land mines?

I doubt you think that headphone jacks are more important than land mines. So why do you react to a discussion of headphone jacks by talking about headphone jacks, and to a discussion of AI safety by saying it's ridiculous and sophomoric to ask about AI safety when there are millions of land mines out there killing people?

You're trying to make out that the reason is that land mines are the same kind of things as hypothetical unsafe AI systems because they are human-made machines that kill people. But you're an intelligent person and surely you can't possibly really believe that. To deal with land mines we need treaties to stop them being deployed, we need ways of finding them that are cheap enough to deploy in quantity and effective enough to be worth deploying, we need ways of disarming them with the same qualities, and we need effective help for people who get blown up by them. None of these bears any resemblance to anything we might do about AI safety. To an excellent approximation, there is no overlap between the people who can do useful work on AI safety and the people who can do useful work on land mines. And the dangers don't arise in the same way: land mines are dangerous because they are put in place with the specific intention of killing anyone who passes, whereas in the scenarios AI safety people worry about no one intends the AI systems to cause trouble.

So that can't really be it, I think.

Why do you object to discussing AI safety but not to discussing mobile phone headphone jacks, really?
So, correct me if I'm missing something (there's precious little documentation out there), but attempts to standardize support for analog audio over USB C using the sideband pins [1] is still fairly new, and perhaps most importantly, not required by any USB specification but the cable/port specification [2].

From this, I assume that audio accessory support is unlikely to be implemented by all USB chip manufacturers, so attempting to use it as any kind of standard would fall flat on it's face. Whereas any USB C port will support USB communication, making a DAC interface an obvious one.

[1] http://www.anandtech.com/show/10273/intel-proposes-to-use-us...
[2] "Accessory Mode support by phones/notebooks aren’t mandatory, so consumers will need to read the fine print on their new electronic device to determine if audio over USB Type-C is supported or not." http://electronicdesign.com/interconnects/usb-type-c-unplugg...
HF is ~3 to 30 MHz.

I can hit VHF/UHF repeaters too, but thats an apples to oranges comparison.
The new tool to take down terrorism images online
Lugg (YC S15) is hiring its 2nd software engineer
Who says "if it's divisible by a number, the number must appear in its factorization"? Why is that true?

For example, 24 is divisible by 6, though 24 has the prime factorization 2 * 2 * 2 * 3, with no 6 to be found.

"Right, but all the prime factors of 6 appear in the prime factorization of 24. If X is divisible by the prime p, then there is a unique prime factorization of X, which must include a factor of p", you may reply.

Well, this is the non-obvious fact. If you don't already know for certain that prime factorizations are unique (and this is the claim in contention), then it's not obvious why X couldn't have multiple prime factorizations, some including p directly and some not including p directly even though p ends up dividing the overall product.

The non-obvious fact is that a prime can't divide a product unless it divides one of the factors. Why should that be true?

(It IS true of the integers, but it's NOT true of other very similar structures. The reason it's true of the integers, the special property that makes the whole thing tick, is, ultimately, that Euclid's algorithm shows us how the values not divisible by prime p are in fact invertible modulo p (and vice versa), so that the values not divisible by p are closed under multiplication. But that's not at all immediately obvious!)
Here is a shared Mouser project list with the eight parts: http://www.mouser.com/ProjectManager/ProjectDetail.aspx?Acce...

I haven't carefully checked that the part numbers are equivalent. If you find an error, please let me know.
What We Learned from the Government Digital Service Design Team