skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, on second thought, I was mistaken. Stock shorts do counter the instability of stock purchases.

I suppose the real problem, then, is that stabilizing the stock system would require perfectly counterbalancing the two, which is infeasible in the real world. Stabilizing the system requires a financial damping friction.

For the same reason, I didn't see how traditional CDS's could realistically stabilize the system. I only saw how they could only change the oscillation period.

However, if the CDS's were issued by a central bank, which I now understand was the original author's suggestion, I do think I understand how they could play a fundamentally different role, i.e. the role of a financial damper. If the rate of issuance were properly controlled to be close to the critical damping condition, then I suppose the central bank could use such an instrument to stabilize the monetary system.

It might be an interesting research project to determine how the instruments would need to be priced to provide the desired damping.
I came across this a few years ago watching an interesting documentary about surfing and Papuan culture called "Splinters". Even taking into context cultural differences, this can be considered nothing but horrific.
I'm ~2 years into my own very similar transition.

Be wary of too much value being placed on benefits packages, and be aware when you are signing yourself up for golden handcuffs. Also, signing bonuses can tie your hands, so review the terms and be conscious of what you are signing yourself up for.

If you are evaluating whether or not this is a good idea, think about your existing customers and which ones you would like to work for and which ones would hire you. Those are the people who know you best - your work ethic, your potential, etc. You might want to go outside that bubble, but the process of evaluating will make you more aware of the details about your desired environment.

As a business owner, you are used to making decisions. Many individual contributor roles don't have a decision making component. It's something to seriously consider when evaluating positions.

As far as the finances go, it's a whole different ball game. My health insurance costs were night and day - although the whole once-a-year chance to make changes is frustrating. Employee and group discounts can be significant. But if you aren't going to take advantage of them, you have to leave that off of your evaluation.

I found online paycheck calculators pretty good at estimating income for budgeting.

There is a certain level of stress associated with being self-employed and that's gone for me now. Some of it has been replaced, but overall I'm a much more relaxed person.

Good luck!
I think what he's getting at is a valid point. It won't just be rebels against the military. If the rebellion or revolution picks up enough steam, significant elements of the military will likely defect to the other side and in a very real way the war would be the US military vs itself. Ex-US soldiers, officers, generals, with clandestine support from foreign powers like China and Russia, would be taking on the remaining part of the US military.

Or the US splits and the revolution is turned into a North vs South, East vs West, type of civil war.
She did good by not using the word "boffin". I cringe every time I read a tech article by the British press when they casually roll out such snide commentary. It's one the same scale of disrespect as "egghead" or "mad scientist". She needs to get the message out to her colleagues to start doing the same.
Who knows. I lose interest in anything if I do it for a while, or if I'm obligated to do it.
No, your suspicion about the subtext of my comment was legitimate. I do think that.

Like you, I've spent a lot of time looking at crypto implemented both by experts (or by teams that include at least one expert) and by non-experts. The conclusion I've come to, quite firmly, is:

* The kind of expertise needed to build secure messaging systems is extremely rare, far rarer than expertise with cryptography.

* Without expertise in cryptography, the likelihood of implementing a secure cryptosystem is very low, and almost entirely determined by the simplicity of the system.

* Secure messaging systems are deceptively complex, even more so than secure channels, which is a problem that has bedeviled software security for more than a decade.

I agree: you can't learn cryptography without writing code. But there are lots of different kinds of code one can write. One can invest time in implementing cryptographic attacks, or one can join a project lead by experts and ask lots of questions. But almost nobody does those things, because they aren't splashy.

I'll put it to you this way: sci.crypt had long had a norm that amateur efforts to design ciphers were not to be given significant attention. Those ciphers were always inferior and usually comically broken, and spending time on them wasn't just a waste of time for the cryptographers on that newsgroup, but also for the people designing the ciphers. Was that norm "shooting them down before they even get started"?

I would like to see a lot more amateur attack code, and a lot less amateur end-user crypto. Not just because the amateur end-user crypto almost invariably puts people at risk, but because designing new end-user crypto tools is a waste of time for the implementors.

Again, though: I don't even think the author of this package thinks you should use it. So my real point is just: if you're going to look at an ECC-based GPG-alike that you're not going to use anyways, check out one written by an expert.
At least they didn't have a sodium fire. Monju (Japan) and Clinch River (US) both had sodium fires.

The U.S. Navy tried sodium reactors in the early days. In addition to Nautilus, the first nuclear submarine, they also built USS Seawolf, with a sodium-cooled reactor. Seawolf worked, but was enough of a headache that its reactor was replaced with a Nautilus-type pressurized water reactor. The US Navy didn't try sodium-cooled reactors again. Rickover on sodium-cooled reactors: "expensive to build, complex to operate, susceptible to prolonged shutdown as a result of even minor malfunctions, and difficult and time-consuming to repair."

The USSR tried sodium-cooled reactors, with moderate success.[1] They had leaks and fires too. One big reactor had 39 leaks over the years, none catastrophic. In the last 15 years of operation, none. Eventually they found all the construction defects.

Basic truth: complexity in the radioactive parts of a nuclear reactor causes trouble. Sodium reactors have fires. Pebble-bed reactors have pebble jams. (There's one in Germany that can't be unjammed or decommissioned.) Helium-cooled reactors leak helium. The nice thing about water-cooled reactors is that the complexity is on the outside, where repairs are possible. This is why new fancy reactor designs are viewed sceptically in the industry. You can't have any problems inside the reactor vessel, because you can't fix them.

[1] http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/meetings/PDFplus/2009/cn176/cn1...
My point is that this is a factual claim about how humans actually behave. Such claims should not be believe based on argument alone.
I've worked for two startups.

In both cases, one of the defining factors in choosing the particular startups that I work for was that the founders were very employee-friendly.

In both cases, I was granted actual stock (ie. not options).

In my view, options (as typically offered) are basically useless as compensation. They have a strike price which isn't much lower than the price investors last bought stock at. Companies which offer these as a substantial component of compensation are essentially exploiting the naivety of employees and expecting them to value "ownership" more heavily than investors do, despite having much less favorable terms.

Risk appetite is not the issue.
I think there is a risk on the other side as well. If this sort of equivalency becomes common, it becomes easy to dismiss all sex offences as minor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbertese_language#Phonology

the "s sound" (IPA [s]) is essentially an allophone of their "t sound" (IPA [t]) before 'i'. Since they don't perceive them to be distinct phonemes, there's no need for a separate letter.
tl-dr; Google provide out-of-the-box solutions and mostly are free of charge. If you (general you) don't have time/effort/willingness/knowledge to create own secured solutions then they own you. It's something like a deal with the devil (hereinafter only "the deal"). He (devil) will give you everything...you give him your soul = privacy/life. Sadly, I also sold my soul (to Google and Microsoft) and several times, but i am trying to rescue myself.

Long story short: Few years ago I had same intentions. Get rid of every "collecting personal information in an effort to provide better user experience". I performed online test what is visible about my PC from outside.[1] After test I disabled browser cookies, installed firewall, disabled all ports except of https, installed software IDS etc, used text-base web-browser - lynx [2]

Usage of internet was terrible. I wasn't able read or use almost anything from web. (I those time I didn't know HN nor Github). I spent hours and hours researching and configuring own infrastructure - mailbox, calendar. But i gave up since it wasn't sustainable in hours of normal working man with other hobbies than sit front of computer. After all of this struggles I used (and still am using) out-of-box solutions from Google. Microsoft and Google are on the same boat. They know everything about you (general you).

Sad is that you can use alternatives but it's pain in the butt and they know it. And they build on it. Sometimes I need to have things done and don't wanna tweak how to the simple things. And this is exactly time where they are offer "the deal". Last few weeks I am also thinking how to get rid of all collecting of sensitive data. You can create fake profile, but it doesn't matter. In days of machine learning they can create personality profile about you. And this scare me the most of all. Maybe 3rd party dont know your name, but they know you live there and there, you have 3 kids, blond wife, migraines, mid-class car - 1.6 tdi, you are xy politically oriented, love rock music, voted for abc.

So what is conclusion? - my favorite phrase - "It's not so easy my friend".

My Corp. services: Windows, Office 365, Linkedin, Google search, Gmail, Translate.google, Maps.google, Youtube, Android

My alternatives in (parallel) use: Firefox/Opera, Elementary OS, DDG, small business mailbox at local domain registrator, Open-office

Mostly thinking about getting rid of: Android, Gmail

My lessons learnt:

1. Nowadays Internet usage of services from corps. like Google, Microsoft, Amazon is deal with the devil. Out of box solution mostly for free in exchange for your privacy.

2. Usage of alternative is pain in butt, on the other hand it worth, at least if you wanna save your soul and don't let it be subject of 3rd parties business.

3. Privacy is always questionable. Event they claim don't collect any sensitive data we can't be 100 % sure.

4. Usage of alternative solution require open-mind and persistence

5. Think what you really need and what is only crowd psychosis (everybody use it , i have to be the same). This require totally different mindset.

Resources:

[1] http://ip-check.info/

[2] http://lynx.browser.org
My point is, the inevitable march is driven by the market pipeline created by the Glaxosmithkline, Merck, and Amgen's of the world more than anything else. A good black swan event disrupts this to some extent, but not really. As long as there is a new MRSA, there is a host of new antibiotics being developed. This means there is always an arm race that requires lots of investment, but this pipeline we have set up today is far from optimal. Changing IP rules is a good place to start.
Bussard: A space flight programming adventure
Doctors are a bad comparison. They make tons more money than anyone else and have a satisfying job by helping people.

CSA's are different and most families I've met doing it quit some other job to do it. Hell if I didn't want a certain standard of life (one of MY choosing) I'd happily do organic farming and raise animals for food. But I work so I can be happy outside of work and have the freedom to do what interests me. Office jobs are easy, I've done shit jobs for shit pay and burnt out.
The dating of the Shakespeare plays is incredibly arbitrary and unknowable. Are you aware how thin an evidentiary foundation our knowledge of these issues rests on?

By "no one questioned" you mean "no one even referred to." Except for the preface of the First Folio.

A 16th-century alderman in Stratford is not an "educated" status. Most experts of any persuasion agree that Shakespeare's father was probably illiterate. He signed his name with a mark:

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/10-things-you-didn...

The classical education received by a top-tier nobleman of the time was far superior (at least in terms of Greek and Latin) to anything available today. The number of Englishmen who received this quality of education was incredibly small.

A better analogy might be, say, NFL quarterbacks. If I see someone who can win the Super Bowl at quarterback, and I'm not sure about his identity, I can be pretty sure he's spent most of his life training as a QB, was a high-school star and probably a college star, etc. That's going to be a pretty small set. If I have a data point that tells me that someone with a biography like mine was named Super Bowl MVP, my Bayesian trust in that data point is going to be pretty low.
There is a documentary from Vice that talks about the kind of fake funeral in more details.

http://www.vice.com/video/a-good-day-to-die-fake-funerals-in...

It is used and viewed as a therapy for a lot of people. I do agree that people should be given the choice to turn down it.
Maybe I'm missing something, but that doesn't really sound like a "thesis" but rather just an identifying mispriced securities ("arb opportunity" also works).

I agree with the latter that the late stage market for startup growth capital likely did not price this advantage in, and that the PE fund had an edge. But even at that stage there are winners and losers, and I would think that a thesis would still need to resemble the kind that Series B investors must concoct, and be able to sift out the winners from the losers.

In any case I appreciate you sharing this info. It's enlightening.
Cities use GIS systems for this type of thing. My city puts [some/all] of this data online. You can query street furniture, parking zones, water mains, city parks, ...
User Engagement Teardown: Peet's vs. Philz vs. Starbucks
I'm a bit late to the party here. I'm the author of the project and happy to answer any questions.
This paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19423830) tried to prove exactly what you talk about and called it free will, but they used the SPM software that was invalidated.
Plotly 2.0 Preview
Joanna Rutkowska has written about Intel based products that are possibly vulnerable to the Intel management engine code. Even if you run an open source operating system such as Linux or FreeBSD, there is still proprietary code in the management engine that you cannot look or verify that its secure.

Here is the paper http://blog.invisiblethings.org/papers/2015/x86_harmful.pdf

UEFI is another gigantic hide point for malware.

I think one could possibly run more simple platforms such as Raspberry PI, Odroid which may not have embedded management engines. That should be more secure than x86 platforms.
Caylent – DevOps-as-a-Service for AWS
> But if you're going to have to invest anyway, why not work for a company you believe in and have a chance at influencing the company's success as well as your own?

For one thing, it's fiscally unsound to have the majority of your net worth and your salary tied to a single investment.
>has been almost completely subsumed by marketeers and business hacks

Welcome to the least common denominator. These business practices serve the masses and raise shareholder value. If we as a society want to change, we should begin to question monetary inflation which openly encourages "shiny and new" investing and "better invest in anything before inflation destroys my life savings". This brand of economics actively pushes people to buy the "brand new" item and invest in the "brand new" startup with no concern for stability or reliability because the hype will raise stockholder value at least in the short term.

This mentality is seeping into every aspect of our society. Without constant updates or new and shiny objects coming out, stock prices plummet. Our entire economy is built on a rotten foundation (unsound monetary policy) which is manipulated to enforce "buy now, ask questions later" economics.
The odds for startups are a lot closer to a lottery than they are to blackjack.
If Apple were to release MacOS for non-Apple hardware I would upgrade to that in a heartbeat. If the Ubuntu 'shell' for the Windows kernel works out I might switch to that as well.
The list of common mistakes includes "Spending a lot of time trying to get a warm intro. You’re better off just following these rules and emailing me directly."

That goes contrary to a lot of advice other VCs say, which is that getting introduced to a VC is the most common way to get funded. Supposedly most cold emails don't turn into VC funding. Is this no longer the case?
Ask HN: Question to self employed developers.Whats your gig?
Hello Self Employed HN users.
Can you please share your experience. Where are you located and what are your expertise? How do you get your work? How much you are able to charge (Annual compensation, or hourly breakdown) ? Any further comments on pros vs cons of working as self employed.
we've developed robots that will 'collect' biological matter (slugs) and ferment it into gases which can be used for electrical generation, but it's incredibly inefficient and likely not suited for aviation.

http://archive.wired.com/gadgets/miscellaneous/news/2001/10/...
hmmm, but surely if you are going to go to the trouble of keeping up a warrant canary, you're not going to accidentally take it down?
Because if altruism didn't exist, if you only received things in exchange for something, your life would be very, very different.

And if you appreciate that, you will at some moment give back. Not necessarily in the form of money.

Altruism does not need a religion. It also exists in the animal world.
Learn 101: Learn Languages
I'd really like to see a statue somewhere (not in the road) that'd show these changes over time.
The government created plenty of jobs through NASA, too.
Whoa, that's harsh. Actually, military abandoned one of ours leaving them to die despite excellent, decorated performance. Had to get home on his own who knows how through the Middle East. Others came and went the ordinary ways. Different soldiers in the family have different perspectives on the military. None are affecting what I'm saying except as anecdotal support about how loyal soldiers are to military during their terms & maintaining close relationships afterward in many cases.

Far as Constitution, soldiers all do swear it as they're told to. Some mean it, some don't. Yet, the liars that got more soldiers killed in Iraq than 9/11 are still alive and free despite all those soldiers' oaths about domestic enemies. Many soldiers continue to serve under these corrupt politicians and even hit new targets on basis of their word. More importantly here, the military and civilians working in the mass collection programs are all working hard at eliminating Constitutional freedoms in terms of 4th and 5th Amendment while watching their leaders lie under oath about it. Can count who came forward on one hand out of thousands to who knows how many. That's saying something.

The disconnect between that and you're statement is that you're ignoring that each member of the military has their own view of what doing their duty is which is usually highly biased. Most of them at least start with the one instilled in them by American culture (pro-military mostly) and military indoctrination. Guess what the military indoctrination didn't teach them? That secretive organizations in the military and intelligence sector are spying on all Americans' data feeding stuff to law enforcement and other groups that has nothing to do with terrorism despite what the law said about that. That they need to oppose or take out those organizations. Instead, they're told to believe and do what they're told by such groups even if it supports illegal SIGINT efforts. Most do at least for the duration of their service. Many will think of fellow soldiers as an extended family of sorts afterward.

So, believing the loyalty of military personnel is to the military is a suitable default. Unless we get hundreds of new leakers soon and all kinds of soldiers storming Washington for sole purpose of getting rid of corrupt politicians that have them killed for selfish gain. I don't see either. Most of them must be on military and politicians' sides in practice. Or just apathetic, which is its own danger.
Another very harmful and insidious consequence of tariffs: by preserving non-competitive industries that would not survive in a free market, tariffs delay, and worsen, the inevitable collapse of those industries.

By hiding behind tariffs, we delay the replacement of non-competitive industries with competitive ones. When we finally drop the tariffs and start developing competitive industries, other countries will have had a head start in doing so.

Our companies and workers will be behind their global competitors by years. The countries which declined protectionism and developed competitive industries when it first made sense to do so will reap the rewards.

Someone might point out that we could avoid this situation by simply keeping the tariffs around forever. But that never happens. Eventually, the tariffs will become unpopular because people will know that outside of this country, the same goods cost significantly less. That gap is likely to increase over time. The Oak Tree Capital article uses a hypothetical example of cell phones being kept at a $150 price in the domestic market by tariffs, when they are available at $100 in the international market. After a few years, they will still be $150 here, but maybe down to $80 in the international market. A few years later, they may cost only $50 internationally. They won't become much cheaper in the domestic market because manufacturers will have no incentive to lower prices, because they are protected by the tariff. Furthermore, if the domestic manufacturers were capable of competing on price, the tariff never would have been necessary in the first place. At some point, the tariff will be too politically unpopular to be sustained.

It's worth noting that one of the contributing factors to the collapse of communism in Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the obvious and increasing divergence in quality of life between the communist and capitalist countries, and that protectionism and anti-trade policies in the communist countries, along with attempts at central planning, accounts for much of that. They had a good run, but they could not hide from economic reality forever when their neighbors obviously had it so much better. That's why tariffs can't survive indefinitely.
"blasting"... what is this, buzzfeed? or some pokemon cartoon?.