skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> If you read the actual paper

You're right that I didn't. Thanks for correcting me and apologies for the slight fudging. I think my description is still mostly accurate though.

>> I'd guess that they've basically reinvented decision trees.

That would make sense in the sense that it's kind of an obvious algorithm to re-invent if you're trying to learn propositional rules. I'm not so sure about the "evolutionary" part though.
No, the members of the European Parliament are not required to ignore the impact of treaties on their own country. Moreover, every country has the option to veto new treaties, like the UK did when the EU tried to introduce banking regulations to strengthen the Euro: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/09/david-cameron-...

A nitpick: the EU does not write laws, they write directives. It is up to every country's national parliament to write their own laws that meet/implement the directives.
Stein left academia because he builds tools, and academia is only interested in mathematical results from academics. His work is seen (by the mathematicians) on par with Intel, Dell, and the notebook paper manufacturers, not a part of the pure math department.
Show HN: “OK Google” – Explore Google Now voice commands
This process has been helping me define the project, that's for sure. By being an API I would say there needs to be a amount of technical competence, or at least knowledge of how to communicate using it. But communication through an API lends itself to a differing language and conversation. The context and nature of the materials is of log files, and that's my prime concern. Nowhere near the only means of access, there is no divide between technical and non-technical ceramicists. This is just a weird tool in a toolbox, an access method of many. I'd actually love to see what a ceramicist would do around a similar model.

I'm not reconciling any divides, if anything I'm drawing a arbitrary line in the sand when high tide is approaching. Inflammatory at best. What I do know is collage using textbooks, Model M keycaps, square bracket forms and pornography is fun and holds meaning. My engineering colleagues can understand the underlying language more clearly. Where does that come from? But there is a different logging mechanism in the world now that just makes the question `createArt(arg1, arg2) painting` exist, it's an option over doing it yourself but you're the curator. My friends work with IoT devices and collect some fun data, now they can pass it off to me pragmatically.

A few years of HN got to me. But it is modelled after other SASS startups, the model works and I don't have to invent the infrastructure, that's what other services are for (boxes all the way down). But BlackBox is a service, and operates as such. I'm undecided on if this a credit to the work, but it damn well is a property. It's not the first time I've reached for a similar method of expression though. A few years back I created http://projectexas.appspot.com (oh god it's a broken mess) just to showcase/contrast that data. Perhaps this is a extension of that mindset? Thank you for pointing that out, I had not actively noticed! But is it viable? That act of capitalization funds the whole show after all. Operating entirely in the interest of sustaining the practice and possibly finding a market. That's a comment on startup/capitalist culture if I've ever seen one. A few projects have had publicly available APIs [1], but I'm not sure something like this exists.

Seriously though, try asking someone overtly to send you logs/resources, It's kind of hard. I really just want some newspaper clippings and posters from the insides of servers. I really want to be called, to be a funnel for curated data another side effect of a giant mechanism. And if you're reading on Hacker News, there's a good chance you can understand that desire. And I want to talk to you via walls.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Feel_Fine
I didn't read the article, but based on the title alone: It could just as easily be the other way around: taxing humans to do what ought to be a robot's job. There are so many shitty jobs in the world that robots should be doing instead, thus freeing two important human resources — emotions and creativity — for better use.
> Situations like this are exactly where nested functions can be helpful.

Indeed. When I'm writing Haskell, I'm using a lot of nested functions in `where` blocks, sometimes cascaded down.
Urbit is MIT-licensed. Even on the unlikely assumption that Urbit turns out useful for anything ever, why use this rather than an alt-Urbit? The same way altcoins do an end-run around limited numbers of bitcoins.
Visual Studio. The grand tool the author is thinking of is Visual Studio. It is light years ahead of anything vim and emacs can do, though I concede that basic text entry and editing is slightly more clunky in it. Then, at the really high end, you have tools like Intel's VTune which let you profile your application in ways you never could with only Visual Studio.

The author's gripe is pretty much that professional tools have free versions for the home tinkerer and affordable licenses for the lone professional.
To be #1 like Tao requires being a born genius -- recognized as a prodigy by the age of 5, extremely well supported by ambitious parents, and having a lifelong insatiable curiosity and work ethic.

It takes a bit less to be an average mathematician, though.
Latex does not belong on the list. I have not been using it as long as many, but it does not meet OP's description at all. It's entire premise is to put the focus on writing, but at that it fails miserably.

Left to over 30 years of growth outside of its intended use case, LaTeX proper does nothing you would need it to, and the packages that you use with it are horribly fragmented. Maybe Latex is good at the things it sets out to implement, but those things aren't what I or anyone else uses it for (creating publication-quality documents). So in considering latex we are forced to also consider the environment of libraries it exists in.

LaTeX brings all the problems you had in the Windows 2000 era of programming into document creation. All your favorites like misleading compiler messages, dependency hell, choosing a compiler, knowing whether or not you have run the compiler enough times to produce a final document (!!!), bad compile environments, inconsistent naming, inconsistent syntax for passing parameters to library calls (!!!), GOTOs.

There is no way to write semantic latex for most documents where you would need it. Here's a fun project: find a way to reference the same footnote or endnote multiple times throughout a document in a way consistent with how you reference anything else (that is, using \label and \ref). Some arcane technicality in the way the counter is set up prevents you from doing this. Instead, you have to create your own global counter, write a function to maintain it, then use this function in lieu of LaTeX's implementation of footnotes.

Every time I want to do anything other than add words to my document, I have to think about whether I want to use Latex's meager facilities, facilities that I had to write, or facilities that someone else invented, then worry about all the quirks in them. If I want to add a table to my document, I need to decide whether it should be a `tabular', `tabular* ' `tabularx', `align', `array', `eqnarray', or `matrix'. Someone has told me once that one of these is very bad and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, although he didn't tell me why, and I don't remember which one. If I want to make a cell span two columns, I have to remember whether that is the `multicols' package, or the `multicolumn' package. If my table gets too big, I now have to hard-code a split myself, or repeat the entire process and convert my table to a `longtable'. I hope I don't have to wrap anything in a `minipage'.

It baffles me that thinking about these things is prerequisite to creating a document.

The attitude that 'LaTeX is easy' is perpetrated loudly by people that haven't had to use LaTeX very much. It is only tentatively saved by the comprehensive (sometimes, if you're lucky, even readable) documentation of all its quirks.

I am not going to stop using Latex, but no one will ever get me to say that it's easy.
The whole canary thing is "hacking around" legal system.
Latex does not belong on the list. I have not been using it as long as many, but it does not meet OP's description at all. It's entire premise is to put the focus on writing, but at that it fails miserably.

Left to over 30 years of growth outside of its intended use case, LaTeX proper does nothing you would need it to, and the packages that you use with it are horribly fragmented. Maybe Latex is good at the things it sets out to implement, but those things aren't what I or anyone else uses it for (creating publication-quality documents). So in considering latex we are forced to also consider the environment of libraries it exists in.

LaTeX brings all the problems you had in the Windows 2000 era of programming into document creation. All your favorites like misleading compiler messages, dependency hell, choosing a compiler, knowing whether or not you have run the compiler enough times to produce a final document (!!!), bad compile environments, inconsistent naming, inconsistent syntax for passing parameters to library calls (!!!), GOTOs.

There is no way to write semantic latex for most documents where you would need it. Here's a fun project: find a way to reference the same footnote or endnote multiple times throughout a document in a way consistent with how you reference anything else (that is, using \label and \ref). Some arcane technicality in the way the counter is set up prevents you from doing this. Instead, you have to create your own global counter, write a function to maintain it, then use this function in lieu of LaTeX's implementation of footnotes.

Every time I want to do anything other than add words to my document, I have to think about whether I want to use Latex's meager facilities, facilities that I had to write, or facilities that someone else invented, then worry about all the quirks in them. If I want to add a table to my document, I need to decide whether it should be a `tabular', `tabular', `tabularx', `align', `array', `eqnarray', or `matrix'. Someone has told me once that one of these is very bad and should be avoided (unless absolutely necessary), although he didn't tell me why, and I don't remember which one. If I want to make a cell span two columns, I have to remember whether that is the `multicols' package, or the `multicolumn' package. If my table gets too big, I now have to hard-code a split myself, or repeat the entire process and convert my table to a `longtable'. I hope I don't have to wrap anything in a `minipage'.

Someone told me once One of these is very bad and should always be avoided. It baffles me that thinking about these things is prerequisite to creating a document.

It is only tentatively saved by the comprehensive (sometimes, if you're lucky, even readable*) documentation of all its quirks.

The attitude that 'LaTeX is easy' is perpetrated loudly by people that haven't had to use LaTeX very much. I am not going to stop using it, but no one will ever get me to say that it's easy.
I automatically skip any product where I have to speak to a human at any time
I want to run the Elm compiler in a Lambda, and maintain persistent environments so that subsequent builds can benefit from keeping the libraries and intermediate files available.
I also use naked scope blocks sometimes. To me, their main purpose is to make temporary variables go out of scope, to clarify which variables are still intentionally live beyond the block.
SQLite is probably a contender, but think a pretty good case can be made that the JVM is the best software ever written.
There are dedicated journals for negative results actually.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Negative_Results_in...

* http://www.pnrjournal.com/

* http://www.jinr.org/

* http://www.psychfiledrawer.org/journal_of_negative_results.p...
Ask HN: Why is applying for jobs such a pain?
As someone neither in SV nor a programming wizard being constantly headhunted with good offers i wonder why applying for jobs is such a pain.

There are multiple job boards where you have to create email alerts. The same jobs are posted on multiple sites and reposted by recruiters. Some jobs don't even exist in reality or are just published for policy reasons. Some are never posted publicly as it would be a sign of weakness in certain roles to apply to job posts.

When you finally find something interesting and want to apply you have enter all your data in a custom form on a custom website and upload a PDF motivation letter.

Then you wait... and wait... no indication or transparency on status. After 3 months a standard rejection mail might come in after the position was removed or filled. Likely not with you because some intern or algorithm decided you don't fit the profile based on missing keywords.

I'm based in Europe, so maybe we suffer from increased bureaucracy here, but from what i hear it's not much different around the world.

Can someone explain why this is such a broken process?
Why didn't LinkedIn fill this role?
Why does every HR department re-invent the wheel?

I'm ranting but i'm also intrigued.

If this is solvable, anyone interested to work on a mobile-first lightweight solution?
Really, all we have is how well a model predicts the future. there's a fairly sucky model from the 80's, [1]. Maybe it's totally wrong. Maybe it's just overfitting. But it's got a good track record, if underpredictive. I'm all for the idea that co2 doesn't effect temperature. I just haven't seen any models that show that. Furthermore, i haven't seen anything with any sort of a track record. I'm pretty sure Hansen's paper is pretty much the root of all modern climate modeling. I'm totally willing to stipulate that the whole field is wildly off track, but there's no evidence of that. The only thing we have is 35 year old models that seem to work.

I mean, more specifically, aether was flat out wrong. it still had predictive power. Someday we'll have something more refined, or perhaps completely refuted.

[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evalua...
We actually do show this when the diff is too large, but we're improving this with GitLab 8.10. In 8.10 diffs become collapsible, so you can choose to hide / show very large diffs for performance reasons [0] or to make it easier to walk through diffs with many files.

[0]: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/14103
Maybe have her read a book or so on what it means to be a CEO?

Keep in mind that if things go pear shaped it is her head on the block, not the board, and she should act accordingly.
Rimworld is a very direct clone of Dwarf Fortress, but in a Sci Fi setting and by a professional game dev. Tynan Sylvester previously worked on BioShock Infinite.

It has proper graphics (though simple, it is a one man project). It includes utilities like Dwarf Therapist. The random events are not so random, but tries for better story telling.

There are some limitations, which might or might not be fixed. For example, there is no digging down, only one z layer, so you cannot build elaborate fatal traps.

Overall, I really like it. :)
Maybe there will be so much data, it will be impossible to paint a clear picture for any one provider, and the task of gathering and summarising all of it will be so expensive, that personalised advertising will be worthless.

Of course, the NSA will be able to do it, but the NSA doesn't care about regulations anyway.
Engelbart, not Englebart
Free udacity course: https://www.udacity.com/course/intro-to-parallel-programming...
Ha-Joon Chang at Labour's State of the Economy Conference
How many teachers "love teaching" VS "do teaching as a job"?
A security model defeated by a bonkers architecture.

I’m especially baffled that font processing is in the kernel. Allegedly, Windows 10 now moves non-system fonts into a restricted user-mode process, so exploits are a lot harder. But it still acts like the kernel is doing the processing, for backwards compatibility.
Never mind properly using the hardware and its capabilities. A headtracking VR setup has other constraints than a static rectangle. Arranging overviews, subpanels, minor buffers could probably be improved.

On the other hand, we still haven't escaped the VT100 in 99% of our IDEs so I'm not holding my breath for an ultra-immersive new-fangled "I can breathe code" style.
And I hope to be forgiven too for my poor wording, since I meant font readability :/
List of pocket door privacy lock
There is no name for this genre, though.

I'd try "survival sandbox". In Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress the initial goal is to survive. Later the game turns into a sandbox where you can build magnificent structures. For the sandboxing there is some complex simulation going on (biomes,fluid dynamics,etc).
How does it compare to mpv?
Actually, you could even mention it to the brothers, its quite possibly something they may eventually get around to fixing (if its a small enough fix).

Or you could wait till someone makes a web page which tracks and sorts all the goals into a readable tree, thus side stepping the issue all together.
Language-Integrated Quantum Operations (Liquid) Tutorial
I'm having difficulties understanding this. If Google receives a request to remove content from some specific country, I would assume they are doing this based on Geo-IP rather than based on the domain users enter. It wouldn't really make sense otherwise, as the link to the blocked content would not necessarily need to use the localized domain, so this would be ineffective. It seems like an unimportant implementation detail - one that seems to do more harm than good.
Por que no los dos?
Any Do New Tab Chrome Extension
I have no thoughts on DOpus other than: it looks horrible GUI-wise
Exciting and innovating as this is; this particular idea seems like it'd be more apt in an AR setting. It could address the issue of non-touch typists, those of us that use notebooks on our desk, also working in an office, being able to see people can be quite handy.
Agreed. I guess that he is not practicing basic software engineering. Developing code is not just updating code and then check it into version control with a helpful comment. They should be some documentation for the "what, how, who, why" answers.
I think you've answered your own question. Taking outside money will make life busier, increase pressure, and create investor expectations that may be different from your own.

Bringing in an investor that would be willing to replace you with a new management team is a Bad Idea(tm). It's also a bad idea to try to mislead your investors and replace yourselves.

Outside money can be great if you want to build a really big business and need the capital to win the market. But there are tons of businesses that are better off using revenue as funding.

One of the drawbacks of the tech media is how few people talk publicly about the businesses where the founders would have been much better off if they'd only avoided funding.
I have an application where users upload hundreds of small (~10kB) files every day. We quickly realized that S3 was not an option, since you get charged per request. As a workaround we batched the file uploads by archiving uploads each hour, and uploading a single .tar.gz to S3 at the end of the hour. The aggregated data gets processed offline later.

We have N upload endpoints (as part of an autoscaling group), it's a bit of a pain to reaggregate the data since each server uploads its own .tgz to S3. I'm very happy to have EFS now! It makes scaling out our upload endpoints much simpler, as they can just dump their data into a common directory (which can still get archived and persisted to S3 later).
This mentality is not compatible with venture capital.

You want a life-style business. And that is absolutely fine. Investors want you to be very busy, scale the business and build a large company. Is the only way they can make their money back.

(I work for a venture fund in Dubai)
"Outside money is expensive" - http://nathanbarry.com/profit/
I agree that silicon valley technologists are not well informed about the problems of the poor (or other important problems) and too often use the rhetoric of doing good whilst not thinking carefully enough about how to actually do that.

But I don't think concentrating on local problems is the right solution given that there are much more important non-local problems to solve. Perhaps entrepreneurs should concentrate on profit and then donate what they earn. Alternatively, they could learn about important problems and partner with experts in those problems to avoid naively doing more harm than good.
From Losing Money to a Profit Margin in 5 Months
I've been playing with this sort of idea on the HTC Vive, and I strongly believe that this is the future. Unfortunately, none of the available VR devices have anywhere near the resolution needed for this to be a workable proposition. Give it another 5 years or so.
This is really important for people to understand. It's insane to agree to work for someone without at least seeing the contract. To put is a bit more clearly, compensation is also part of the contract. Would anyone accept a job without knowing what the compensation is? I suppose if you are desperate...

Personally, I love most non-competes. They give you leverage in salary negotiation. While the non-compete might be non-negotiable, your salary is. Or a signing bonus. Or a parachute. If someone wanted me to sign a 1 year non-compete it would be expensive -- enough to allow me to write free software for that time. But if they are willing to pay, I would be extremely happy to sign.

The key is what to do when people aren't willing to pay. You have to evaluate your situation. As they say "beggers can't be choosers". Try not to get in the "beggers" situation, but be realistic. If you need the job now, sometimes that's what you have to do. Just make sure to set aside enough cash to carry you through the non-compete.

As a side note, my current benefactor demands neither a non-compete nor an inventions agreement. They encourage me to write free software and even allow me to free up things I write at work. They don't complain when I hole up for a week to really understand the technology we are using. I give them a pretty big discount over what I would demand from someone who didn't give me these things. I think it's important to communicate what I value. I sometimes read advice for salary negotiation as "take what you can get and give nothing back because that's how you'll be treated". I hate that.
Adam Sandler as a young Linus Torvalds
Hi, the author of original submission here.

I like your idea, especially the number of servers you used. I'm only concerned that using a full HTTP GET to measure the latency (function request_image() in src/ping.js) makes the results possibly way more random than measuring the TCP/IP RTT server-side. That is, your method seems to measure the latency in higher net layer than TCP. Anyway, nice idea :)
Raising money will, without a doubt, make your lives more busy.

I've never heard of anyone successfully using investor money to hire people which replace them. Even so, hiring people is incredibly time consuming, and you will have to manage them.

If you're profitable and your goal is to reach financial independence, in this market I would not raise. If your goal is to make as much money as possible and lose all sense of work life balance, then raising money may be for you.
And so further turning the browser into an operating system.
The Catholic church for centuries now has employed an advocatus Diaboli, someone whose entire job it is to examine claims of miracles and make the argument that in fact they are natural phenomena. They are priests who have been trained in science (there's a perhaps surprising number of those).

I think this is a good thing. There should be somebody whose job it is to poke holes in the castles we build.
The price and the requirements, I guess?