skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nononono. The null hypothesis here is definitely true. They take resting state data ("lie here while we scan your brain") and pretend that it was acquired during an experiment, using either block or event-related designs. Next, they look for differences between the fake blocks (or events).

The null hypothesis is that neural activity is the same across blocks. It must be true because the block boundaries are totally arbitrary. In fact, they were defined after the scanning, so they could not possibly influence neural activity (assuming the resting state data is stationary, which may or may not be true; they discuss that).

The NeuroImage paper you linked to isn't disagreeing with this. They're saying that if you use the above procedure to make your null model, it doesn't work and it doesn't work because of the reason outlined in this paper.
Rust is capable of lower-level programming than Swift; it's designed as a systems programming language capable of doing anything C can. It doesn't have a "runtime", and doesn't do any background processing like garbage collection, but still has automatic memory management, a fairly unique property among languages.

If you specifically want to write iOS and OSX apps, especially GUI apps, that ecosystem and its libraries melds well with Swift. It's definitely more appealing than Objective C. Swift's ecosystem seems primarily focused there, even though Swift is capable of other uses.

If you want to write cross-platform applications, services, systems, or libraries, try Rust.
This is not software but 2+ years ago I have redesigned the Microsoft employee badges: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7254786

Today 120,000+ Microsoft employees and vendors are wearing the employee badges I designed: http://www.geekwire.com/2015/the-new-microsoft-even-the-blue... :)
This seems like it would be easy to avoid by not launching too high. I think there are already rules about disposing of satellites after they are no longer being used, so there's no reason those rules couldn't be applied to tiny personal satellites as well.
>if you do that you no longer get to claim that other "slippery slope arguments are fallacies".

You probably shouldn't be making that claim, to be honest. It's only a slippery slope fallacy if there's no historical evidence to support it. Part of the reason we record history is so we can tell whether a slippery slope might be a real danger.

There's several instances where a historical collection of information on citizens, done under claims to protect the people, turned into an oppressive regime, sometimes leading to the deaths of innocent citizens. The SS, Stasi and OVRA are all good examples, and a more current example can be found in China.
Would be interesting to grow anything. Buzzing in with "drones" disqualifies it with the title...
Could just be the next iteration of Motif[1]... ;-)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motif_(software)
Yes, but it is still alive. And even LibreOffice copied feature introduced in Apache OpenOffice by IBM(sidebar). But OpenOffice cannot copy code from LO due to license incompatiblity.
When I'm hungover I like to lay on my stomach and press my closed eyes against a pillow. I get similar to what is detailed under level 4 CEV. I see a lot of people's faces, rooms, objects, etc.
Location: Seattle/Ukraine

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: Yes (expect US, have a visa restriction due to scholarship)

Technologies: Python, R, ReactJS, React Native, Swift, C/C++

Résumé/CV: http://romantsegelskyi.github.io/CV.pdf

Email: roman.tsegelskyi at gmail.com
After reading the README I think that "Felony" is a very appropriate name:

... built on the modern web with Electron, React, and Redux.

Building desktop applications with web frameworks should definitely count as a felony.
EU-FOSSA pilot project: choose a software for a sample code review
Swift uses reference counting for reference types, but emphasizes value types. Rust supports reference counting for certain types, but emphasizes value types too.

Also observe that Rust's drop flag is a form of (1-bit) reference counting.

In this particular area, they are more similar than different.
I agree wholly with your first paragraph, but disagree entirely with your last one. Look at every industry with economies of scale today. Do any of them make it easy for newcomers to compete? At best economies of scale are entirely uncorrelated with number of players. I suspect it's worse than that: economies of scale allow large players to crowd out small ones. That will happen in software as well once we figure out how to systematize our learning (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2012/10/15/economies-of-scale-econ...)
It's like global warming: the two sides aren't symmetrical, and trying to balance between inaccurate and accurate articles does not bring the reader closer to the truth.

(The Telegraph have James Delingpole as their anti-wind-farm global warming denialist column)
Great article. Known but very often not implemented wisdom.

Especially liked this analogy: People don’t test from the start for the same reason they don’t floss their teeth: It’s unpleasant.
Is reference counting not implicit manual memory management as well?
call +13023650294 or email adam_loudon@outlook.com.com for your university grades hack, pay-pal hack, whatsapp, bbm, telegram and viber hack, western union hack, social media hack, phone calls hack, mails hack, credit card hack and bank account hack, IOS hack and data recovery erase criminal records, delete employer’s bad comment, we also tutor and give free ebooks on how to become a professional hacker.
Well that's clearly not correct.

The service you provide to the customer is use of your VoIP infrastructure. That's what they pay for.

In the case of Spotify, the service is not access to infrastructure. It is access to digital goods in the form of licensed music files.
Watcher – simple utility to watch directory and execute cmd
Swift abstracts away lots of memory management concerns by defaulting to thread-safe reference counting. Rust defaults to the stack and allows you to choose between a wide range of memory management options, and even build your own if necessary. Rust therefore gives you a great deal more room to move, and is much more flexible as a systems programming language.

That said, Swift is a nice language, perhaps cleaner looking in syntax (although I prefer expression-oriented languages), and integrates nicely with the macOS/iOS ecosystems. I wouldn't say it's 'higher level' - Rust's upper bound on expressiveness is around the same - but it does hide away lots more of the minutia of thinking about how you manage memory.
I'm curious as to what the author means when discussing whether the extension makes the language "more regular". I thought regularity of languages was a binary thing; either a language is or isn't regular. And since all languages with recursive grammars are not regular (if I'm correct in that statement), why does it matter?

Regarding this particular extension it seems more or less fine to me; I'm not sure if it's really worth the effort just to remove a single character (usually) but it doesn't seem like a bad thing overall. I think the resulting syntax would be quite familiar to ruby programmers and could make it easier for newcomers to grok the syntax.
No matter the thread, you keep evading responding to the most fundamental of the questions. Stop with the bullshitting, and take it like a man: you are wrong about the basics, so it would mean a lot if you could just acknowledge that this PT-fed narrative is bad revisionism.
The mismanagement debate is almost a separate topic!

There was massive pressure in the 2000's to convert to .NET and C# from corporate managers, auditors and customers, I never understood how this became such a force but In 2005 it was intense to the point of paranoia and a lot of my colleagues converted (Delphi 8 sealed the deal in most cases). Needless to say most are now very happy with C#. if I had stayed an employee and not gone independent at the time it would have happened to me.

As of now I am very happy with my decision to stay with Pascal, Delphi XE2 compiles my legacy code fine even with Windows 10 and All new developments are in Lazarus giving me the ability to support Linux/BSD and ARM processors which more customers are coming to appreciate.
Having multiple syntaxes and having to switch between them is error-prone and leads to bugs.

Except in cases where manufacturers are totally clueless about syntax, I have far preferred using the "official" assembly, rather than the Unix version. (In some happy cases these are the same).

Thank God I don't write assembly language much any more; maybe a few hundred to a thousand lines on a modern embedded product. At that level, it's still fun. [I've been using assembly since the late 1970s. Z-80 and 6502 FTW! :-)]
The Alto thread posted a ref to BCPL, and it was interesting that the original symbols for the comparison operators were text: eq, ne, gt, lt.

C broke BCPL syntax that was clear, memorable, and consistent and replaced it with a math-like syntax that must have wasted millions of person hours of debugging time in the decades since - for no good reason.

Similarly &(pointer address) and &&(logical and) are too close and too easy to typo.

Language design really should have considered human factors much more than it did.
It depends upon what you're interested in developing for. If you're a pure linux developer swift is not as exciting as rust. Just the fact that you need a bunch of Apple kit to fully enjoy it is a downer. WIth rust I can hack on my $35 pi3 box without having to go buy an ipad.
Fascinating article. Thanks for sharing it. People interested in exotic, old computers might also like this file listing NSA's designs up to 60's:

http://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/NSA-HGPEDC_1964.pdf

One surprised me by using mercury. Proving no buffer overflows exist in the code was rarely more significant far as hardware itself went. ;)
For me, things changed ~18 months ago when I had my son and suddenly, I was less willing to travel, more willing to take breaks when he's awake, and I take ridiculously early morning flights so I'm there to tuck him in the night before. Those opportunities are fleeting.

PG talked about it here - http://www.paulgraham.com/vb.html

Fun fact: My son's initials are QA. I made sure the paperwork was signed and out of the room before I pointed that out. ;)
Hitler didn't forbid home schooling, that hasn't been allowed in the Weimar Republic either and before that it wasn't allowed for centuries in some parts of Germany.

There is also no relevant political party in Germany that is pro-home schooling. In fact some would argue we would need to expand the Schulpflicht and make it mandatory for children to go the Kindergarten.
Clarifying: there are large regions of France which are forbidden to entry due to the UXB, mine, and other hazards present in them. That's the Red Zone map mentioned by another commenter here.

I'd run across a good article on that a year or so back. Search doesn't turn it up, though a NatGeo piece covers it:
http://nationalgeographic.org/news/red-zone/

42,000 acres, which is 170 km^2 or 65 mi^2.
Of course my view is probably biased by the fact I'm an American, but I do not think the small talk friendliness is at all false or insincere. Yes, the interactions are fleeting but the friendliness and politeness is real as being polite and friendly to other people makes me feel good and I feel good when others show me the same.

Sure, I may never see them again, but that doesn't mean our small interaction wasn't a genuine moment. We'll never be friends with everyone but that doesn't mean we can't be nice to them.

Lastly, I noticed somewhat the same in my limited time in Central America as well. I spent a good deal of time in Costa Rica and less time in Nicaragua and Panama. I thought people there were very friendly and chatty as well, especially in smaller towns. Perhaps it was because I was a foreigner but I spoke pretty good Spanish and had many interesting conversations with strangers.
See mattkrause's comment below. I think you might not be understanding what they're testing. They're taking only resting state data, randomly sorting some of it into "pretend active state data" and then asking whether they get any statistically significant difference between these two groups when they shouldn't. But they do. That means the tests they used, the same tests many authors use, are giving false positives. The null hypothesis is "there will be no difference between testing state data and whatever data we get when we ask the subject to do some activity". They can "reject" that hypothesis using only randomly shuffled resting state data, so there's something wrong with the stats packages themselves
You got me, i can't find that that literal quote (though im pretty sure it exists). I meant to say that is what is intentionally implied.
@mattkrause: you beat me to it
I find this quite sad. There are a LOT of worthwhile organizations and purposes that need your time - badly - and would add needed balance to your life.

I volunteer with the American Red Cross which needs volunteer personnel for all kinds of purposes ranging from two week deployments to disaster areas to occasional help at blood drives. You'd develop all kinds of new skills and meet a lot of great people, all while having a very tangible impact on the world. And that's just one random example from what I personally spend my time doing.

Look around your area, community, and industry, and find more things to do. If nothing else you'll get a lot of good stories to tell. You might just find your purpose on life.
>"The null hypothesis is that neural activity is the same across blocks."

You may have written this before seeing my other response, but I will repeat the point here. You have mentioned only one part of the null hypothesis, there are other assumptions being made that can be violated. From their description, it sounds like they discovered one that is causing the null model to make bad predictions.

Btw, I am using "null hypothesis" and "null model "interchangeably here. Really, null model should be the preferred term but people are so used to "hypothesis".
> I wonder why learning can't be more like that?

Money. There isn't enough of it. America would rather spend it on other "more important" things.
The interesting part would be making it non-selective; anyone who wanted to be there for a while could. Maybe some social pressure that rich/temporary people contribute cash or externally produced things.
It's not that bad. I usually start small:

- Write a program that just returns, or halts;

- Write a program that prints something or blinks an LED;

- Print numbers 1-10;

- Handle some input, using function calls.

- Write some data structure (binary tree or hash table). Or maybe get an MMU working, and handle a system trap.

... working your way up to writing a context switch handler, for a coroutine or threading system, of course :-)

... at that point, you're off to the races. Mostly I try to get the toolchain a debugger working reliably in the first step, and everything just builds on that.
> it's just always more pleasant to treat someone else as an interesting human being and be treated as one in return.

This is exactly it for me. Sure we're engaging in a commercial transaction but that doesn't preclude being friendly with one another, for however fleeting a moment. Worst case you're nice and you never see them again. Big deal. Best case you make a new friend or more.
This is pretty cool.

What I don't quite get out of the article is in what situations this will be used?
This was a great post idea, and I've been very inspired by many of the posts here. Maybe someday soon I'll be able to create something of my own and have it go somewhere :)
You're using anecdotes to counter statistics?
> "Apple uses control over the iPhone platform to advantage Apple Music over other subscription music services."

Is this true? I don't feel like my iPhone compels me to use Apple Music over Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, etc. Shipping the app with the phone perhaps gives a slight advantage.

Of all the examples of tech companies overstepping their bounds, this seems particularly benign. The other two examples are more troubling.
The problem with free will debates has to do with its definition. I think once people start hammering out the definition, free will either becomes a wimpy variant that people didn't want to talk about in the first place, or it becomes so ambitious that it's outside the scope of science to discuss.

If you define free will as the ability to generate and choose options based on constraints, then people get bored of that discussion because it seems to lack the freedom they want. If you define free will as the ability to escape biophysics, then it becomes an unscientific discussion of metaphysics.

But what people really want is the freedom from biophysics, not a discussion of a bounded system to generate and choose options. People want a reality where this state does not need to relate to the one before it, a non-markovy world.

That's why people mix the discussion of behavioral computation and free will. People want the most ambitious form of free will, something too special for computers -- freedom from biophysics, freedom from the prior state's tyranny over its future state.
You're not wrong at all, but with many games the money being spent has zero impact on performance. All this CS:GO business is for stuff that's 100% cosmetic and changes nothing about gameplay.
I guess we agree then!

I think it takes practice and discipline to really enjoy your life _outside_ of work. I take my kids to school, eat breakfast with my wife, handle my personal business in the morning. Then I go to work, WORK WHEN I AM AT WORK, and go pick up my kids from school and go home.

Working when I am at work being the key point. If I walk around the floor at my office half the people will be reading Facebook or whatever, which I completely understand and I myself do read Facebook from time to time but I don't understand why you'd want to do that while sitting at your desk at work.

Edited to add: and I never attend meetings.
> misunderstanding

That's why I said putting all "immigration" into a single category is that it conflates so many different things. The Brexit vote can only affect EU free movement immigration.

> So next time they had an opportunity to vote

Next time? What time period do you think this covers? People have been complaining about immigration since the Empire Windrush in 1948. The 'rivers of blood' speech was in 1968. This conversation about immigration has been happening my entire lifetime.

There's a handy graph widget here: http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc123/i... which any reasonable eyeballing suggests that immigration has been in the hundred-thousands for about two decades across three Labour governments and two Conservative ones.
Making Ar/VR more accessible
Not disagreeing with you.

Commenting a bit further: it's interesting that a lot of US politicians extol the virtues of policies that favor US tech giants simply because they are here in the US.

The argument often looks something like "if we don't adopt New Policy X then big US high tech companies will no longer be globally competitive and the US economy will be permanently damaged."

Back in 1999, when they passed Graham-Leach-Bliley (repealing Glass Steagall) and encouraged the expansion of US big banks and the growth of US based financial services companies (think Citigroup) we saw a similar argument.

There's always a background theme that looks like: "The US must retain its global leadership in industry X -- or else."
Not sure, what was the point of this post.
Yes, unless you break out of it by using unsafe storage methods, which are purposefully made unergonomic to use. Due to its type system Rust has the advantage that you can safely choose by either thread-local or atomic reference counting - Swift has to default to the latter. And you actually don't really need RC all that much - most data in a program is short-lived and has a single owner. The flip-side is that because Swift's reference counting is implicit, it makes the type signatures simpler, and working with them more ergonomic.
They are not referring to regularity in the formal grammar sense, but as constructs being used uniformly under different contexts.
The conclusion is reached by distinguishing between earned and unearned income. Unearned income is essentially investment income, and there is no FICA tax on that income, and it's taxed based on your earned income tax bracket, which could end up making it 0% and thus not taxed at all if you have no earned income.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/2015-capital-gains...

Further, while it is true that "federal income tax" does not include FICA, FICA is a tax on income and the poorest sod pays FICA tax from the very first dollar of income. So it's kinda misleading to say the bottom 45% won't pay any income (related) tax whatsoever.

You can have a case where those 45% are paying 7.65% of their pittance of income on FICA, with no additional income related tax, where someone wealthy enough who has no earned income is paying 0% federal income tax or capital gains tax or FICA on their unearned investment income. And that's just a small example.
The brain is a highly complex system.

Complex systems are characterised by having many, often subtle, and frequently profound, failure and damage pathways.

There is a substantial psychological literature of the long-lasting effects of purely psychological trauma, for example, strongly implicated in borderline personality disorder. Literally -- the behavior and treatment one experiences as a child can have profound life-long impacts.

We're also quite familiar with "diseases" in which a specific symptom or manifestation receives a unified term or description, despite profoundly varying etiologies. You may be familiar with the term "cancer". It spawns variously from viral, chemical, radiological, photosensitive, and physical trauma origins.

Your comment is anything but constructive, though I don't feel it justified flagging. It's exceedingly dismissive, and displays exceptionally limited insight.

Please do better.
It's a big relief that at the barber shop I go to, the guys I usually get recognize I'm not interested in chatting. I see them chat with other people but not an excessive amount. Going in the morning before work may help keep it to a minimum.
I'm not saying I'm doing it (although sometimes I will for readability, small problems that can't be naively vectorised, and where I have to make code readable for non-R people).

But not everything is naively vectorisable or best expressed as a vector operation, which is an idea that offends some R programmers.

The truth is a lot of real world analysis is done where the observation is the unit of natural analysis, and not the variable, and lots of people from other languages think in rows vs columns.

Common lisp realised this, and you've got there a language that allows for efficient expression of scalar, compiled loops, vectors and vectorisation/functional application, so I think this shows it's not entirely an either/or dichotomy in practice and is more about design/implementation choices and trade offs.

My point is not that R gets it wrong, it's that you can't say the R way is the "right way".
They ought to, or they simply have at least one possible motivation to? IMO just because something is in someone's best interest by one metric doesn't mean that they should take that course of action. I don't have any opinion on Warren's statements one way or another yet, but I would hope that legislators would actively try to ignore the revenue stream aspect when determining what the right thing to do is here.

Many police departments rely on ticketing drivers as a source of income, but I wouldn't take that to mean that the police ought to redirect their resources into ticketing as many drivers as possible.
This isn't a very good article, and, in general, OWASP is a pretty poor source for cryptography topics.