skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
First of all, the top 10% is nobody's definition of "the wealthy" -- that's what, ~100k? That's a single professional salary of someone who is doing well. That's a double-income family, where both parents have middle-lower class jobs depending on the area.

"The wealthy" that everyone refers to are the 1% -- hedge fund managers, CEOs, not doctors and engineers. Certainly not 100k/year households.

And the article and your argument both miss a fundamental point, which is not simply about income, but about wealth. The top 1% in the US owns 40% of the wealth. And for the ultra wealthy, much of their gains are not through income but rather through capital gains which are by comparison almost entirely untaxed.

The 'perception' comes from reality: you shouldn't frame it as if there is this false perception that exists and ask us to help you find out why, assuming your position is true and moving on without argument -- it is a true perception, it just isn't only based on income and on that arbitrary cutoff.

Also, "mid-2000s" (the graph that you linked) was a long, long time ago in terms of wealth inequality. It was before the great recession which devastatingly altered the inequality landscape.
"That's Frahnken-steen!"
> At this point some of you may argue that the whole idea of Big-O analysis is to abstract architectural details such as memory latency. This is correct - but I argue that O(1) is the wrong abstraction.

No, your model is wrong. Others have already pointed out some issues with the author's understanding of Big-O notation. However, this is a fundamental misunderstanding. Big-O is a tool to analyse some function's asymptotic behaviour, i.e., how it behaves when the input parameter grows versus infinity. You have to put your model of cost into that function. If your measure is time, and memory access doesn't take constant time in your model, then you have to account for that in your cost function. You can just as well use Big-O notation to describe the asymptotic space complexity of an algorithm (how much memory does it need?). O(1) has no special meaning - it's just the set of all unary functions whose value stays below a constant, no matter how large their input parameter gets.

The author is literally blaming his tools for his own misunderstandings.
He needs a diode between the two batteries in parallel. Otherwise slight differences in voltage between them causes them to cyclically charge and discharge each other, wearing them out and wasting energy.
Re-read the "The theoretical limit" section in part II. His arguments depend on the physics in this particular universe, not how computers happen to be built.
Having `git status` in a window-based UI is very nice. In magit, the window is divided into two sections horizontally: unstaged changes and staged changes. Each section contains multiple changed files that can be folded or expanded, and individual lines or hunks can be staged/unstaged as needed in order to prepare a commit.

While it is an emacs extension, non-emacs users can start it with a one-line command and treat it as a standalone application, e.g.

https://github.com/dandavison/emacs-config/blob/master/bin/e...

I know at least one non-emacs user who uses it that way.

There are some videos on youtube showing the magit UI. It would of course look more modern were it not an emacs extension but, emacs lisp programmers being as they are, I believe it is the most fully featured and powerful graphical git UI in existence.
http://chrisseaton.com/rubytruffle/deoptimizing/ mentioned above gives an excellent explanation. I was completely confused by the name.

"In Ruby..." [we could have]... " deoptimization. It allows us to reverse the just-in-time compilation process and go back to a simpler interpreter where all the checks Ruby needs are explicit, all the objects really exist, and we have code paths to handle anything."

It seems like Ruby has a whole lot of features that actually make optimising it very difficult (monkey patching et al), and this is their attempt to work around it.
Everyone was SO excellent in that film!
Ugly that lasts is still ugly. In fact, in a way it's even worse.
Urgh, double-post and no edit or delete options - thanks, HN.
Eh, your library seems to have a very poor use of floor space. Place the shelves well and you will definitely have something that can store books proportional to the area of the library.

Hint for more efficient placement: You can put shelves away from the outer wall in arbitrary positions within the circle. At that point, the assumption that the librarian can reach any point in the circle at constant time is blatantly false (as the books closer to the centre will generally be faster to reach).
The thing about chromecast is the need of a local wi-fi connection. Which I don't have. It's a shame bluetooth isn't more capable in this department.
Ask HN: A public transport service that adapts your context
As I’m a guy that is a lot in public transport, I’m always wondering if there exists a service that at every station checks if this is the most preferred travel journey, especially with an eye on disruptions, and gives an alternative journey if needed. Nowadays, if I’m in a disruption I need to plan my whole journey again.

Why isn’t there something like the car functionality in Google Maps which redirects you in case of a traffic-jam?
I'm gonna be "that guy" and ask - have you tried psychedelics? If so, what was the experience like? I have no good advice to offer since clearly everyone else has that covered, but I am genuinely curious about how you're wired.
The author argues that a random access to memory is not O(1) but instead O(root N) because of distance.

The easy reactive response is that with respect to algorithm design the size of RAM, N, is a constant.

On the other hand for very high scaling factors, as input size rises the size of RAM must also rise. In this way N can be thought of as a variable and that seems to be what the author is thinking. Different algorithms will behave differently as they are scaled to infinity and beyond.

I think the author's argument is interesting but maybe it's better to make new models for time complexity analysis. I think Bob Harper's students have done good work on this.

In addition to distance there is also the cost of selection, namely the muxes and decoders, which would multiply the cost of access by log N.
IIRC it was a small business which didn't do stock/option grants. Actually I can't remember if it was even incorporated.
It looks like he took a ferry:

http://theroadchoseme.com/panama-to-colombia-vehicle-ferry-x...
Anthropic O(1) argument: An algorithm will either finish before all humanity dies, or it won't. If it does, it's bounded from above by a constant. If it doesn't, it's completely irrelevant to everyone. So for all practical purposes every algorithm is O(1).
A lot of it wasn't so much design inexperience as an intentional difference in design-style due to those factors B and C.

Where today we speak of "replay value", of games that you finish and then want to play again, no such concept existed back then. Instead, it was assumed that a game that was "beaten" (let alone "mastered") would be put away, and so a game should resist being beaten for as long as possible to make it "more worth the money."

This was partially the quarter-eating arcade-game philosophy leaking into home-console gaming, and partially the knowledge that parents want the $50 they spend on a distraction for their kids to stretch as long as possible.

In the 80s, since games were size-limited (small tapes/cartridges and low memory headroom), this translated to games that were preternaturally challenging to stretch out their play-time. This is the classic "Nintendo Hard" game-design philosophy; but it's also responsible for grind-fest RPGs (another way of taking a small amount of content and padding it out.)

In the 90s, with lower size-limits, we instead saw the temporary emergence and flourishing of the really long game—everything was advertised by talking about how expansive the world was, and how many hours of content there were to get through. We still look back on this era as being responsible for the creation of many classic action-adventure and adventure-RPG games for this reason.

All this stopped when we hit the 3D era and art-asset production became the overriding cost of producing a game. Games weren't limited in "content" in the scenario/script sense, but they were limited in "content" in the unique-things-to-see sense. There was a temporary burst of interest in exploiting this divide directly (some early PSX games fiddled with procedural generation to overcome the problem), but this was limited to a few minor studios; the majority instead moved their games toward being increasingly high-production-value cinematic affairs.

With a fixed amount of stuff to see, getting the player to care about looking at it all more than once became the overriding concern; thus, replayability rather than difficulty became the goal. (Replay-value was always part of the design philosophy of some studios, but now it became part of the basic culture of the industry.) This is when you start to see things like "missions" and "achievements" emerge, that give you many things to do within the same few set-piece areas.
Argon2 password hashing function compiled to WebAssembly
It's probably featured in the Previous Contractor's portfolio though.
Building the structure itself isn't too hard as it will be mostly empty space. For microwave it will be an area packed with odd looking antennas, optical is basically an off the shelf solar farm (though the cells should be tuned for the application rather than general sunlight).

The hard bit getting all the regulatory ducks in a row, as you will need ground->space no fly zones, environmental approval, not be sited near anything else in case of alignment/focus/astigmatism (side lobes for rf) issues, etc. Generally out in the middle of nowhere there is some endangered animal (or its migration pattern) that will cause no end of issues regulatory wise for something this big/dangerous to wildlife unless you keep the energy density down below that of the sun (at that point you might as well use normal solar). You will also need controls to rapidly shutdown the system (or shunt to new location) in case an aircraft violates the no fly zone or another satellite is about to pass between the transmitter and receiver.

> That sounds fascinating. Could you elaborate? What's the power level and the application?

What they did when I was there was fairly diverse. The biggest was delivering 1kw at a distance of 1km with ~5-10% plug to plug efficiency. The primary application for that system was inflight refueling of electrically powered drones. They normally do much smaller/simpler (10w over dozens of meters) systems for oddball applications (eg: sensors that are sitting on something charged to 500+kv, etc) and power over fiber-optics.
> Is there any way to generate energy there and get it back to earth?

Not only nuclear, but space is a great place for solar as well - 24-hour sunlight, with no clouds or rain. That said, it's pretty prohibitively expensive unless we can build them out of silicon-based asteroids.
> "Do you guys mean template/rule/pattern based when you write AI-powered? Once in a while someone posts something AI-powered and I will immediately check is there any breakthrough in this field, after testing product will get disappointed. ... And all of them should be in automated/intelligent way, not ..."

On this note, I can only mention the so-called "AI-Effect", to which many people are apparently susceptible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
> Likewise, just because the outlook two months later doesn't look dire, that doesn't mean the UK won't suffer long-term economic consequences from the vote.

Also, maybe if the economic consequences had been really bad after 2 months, people would be trying to avoid Brexit in the first place.

The Brexit is something that will be judged in a generation.
Windows 10 added a built-in Miracast receiver, that works well with Android 6.
I almost went down the event delegation route. The only thing that stopped me was having stumbled upon a tactic that happened to work where I just attached individualized event handlers one at a time. I appreciate the input and will make sure to give event delegation a second look.
Special relativity is defined by invariants on the Minkowski metric ds^2 = dx^2 - dt^2 using general coordinates and setting c to unity. This is a generalization of the Euclid metric ds^2 = dx^2. (In Cartesian coordinates and in 2d, ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2).

Just as the Euclidean metric fails on a gridded plane where one would instead use the Taxicab metric (ds = \sum _{i=1}^{n}|p_{i}-q_{i}|), and the problem persists to higher spatial dimensions, the 3+1 Minkowski metric of Special Relativity fails on a discretized spacetime, and one would have to use a metric appropriate for whichever dimension(s) is/are discrete. Assuming it's not just the timelike dimension that's discrete, the Taxicab metric is readily generalized to small patches of 3+1 spacetime, just like the Euclidean metric.

The other part of Special Relativity is important here: the fundamental actions that are invariant under translations, rotations and boosts -- Poincaré invariance -- is impossible to fully recover from a spacetime that does not admit the Minkowski metric; the best we can do with a metric on discretized spacetime is where the discrete steps are extremely small.

The firm upper limit, from experiment and astrophysical observation, on discretization approaches the Planck length. [0]

There is plenty of literature about violations of the full Poincaré symmetry under discrete spacetime (especially violations of Lorentz invariance; the Lorentz group is a subgroup of the Poincaré group). example at [1]

Essentially, the problem is that in a discrete spacetime a boosted observer could see a Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction acting on the minimal length, further contracting it. The ways around that are either extremely shaky as there is lots of conflict with experiment (e.g. fixing a preferred rest frame) or extremely subtle (e.g., UV corrections to the smooth Lie groups of the Standard Model or replacements for them that reproduce existing IR results e.g. by replacing the metric with an operator (but see also [0] again vs [3]).

Some further detail on Sabine Hossenfelder's blog: http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/dear-dr-b-why-is-...

[0] http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9812418
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0112090
but for contrast
[2] http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2610 and http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405085 which shows that in a toy 2+1d model with a discrete spacetime, Lorentz invariance can be recovered by introducing non-local interactions; it is only suggestive with respect to our 3+1d spacetime, however.
[3] http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205108
IRS International Reserve System Дает з
Ok my terminology may have been wrong, fine. But this thread started off about quantum mysticism and whether or not physics or science could ever explain consciousness. I strongly object to that. And the people that promote views like that are the kinds of people that talk about "the hard problem of consciousness". Materialists generally don't talk about it or find it that interesting.

You're right that I don't have a complete explanation of consciousness, and of course no one does. But if we stop talking about the really crazy theories like epiphenomenalism, the answer must be that it's some kind of algorithm. A lot of people reject that idea completely with really bizarre arguments, hence my hostility.
Wherein is the basis to assume AGI is even possible? Isn't a fundamental faith that consciousness and insight is replicable a same blind faith that there is a God, for example? How is one more arbitrary than the other?
A Depression Switch? (2006)
Girlfriend? I don't know--maybe it gives off the right advertising. Meaning, if you don't want all the trappings of a conventional lifestyle; I'm that guy. A great opening line, "Do you want to avoid hiring a lawyer in the future to fight over assets? Do you want to avoid sitting in a cubicle the rest of your life? Do you want to never have this thought, "Would I be with him if we didn't have that house, and kids?" If you don't want to have a gaggle of kids because you were kinda pressed into having them by family, friends, coworker, societal pressures, etc., I'm your guy. (Yes, I know having kids is a wonderful experience. If I was this guy in this article, I would get a vasectomy, and freeze sperm. I don't know if you could live like this with a child, especially in an overprotective, fear for the worse, jump to the wrong conclusions, country like the USA.)

My parents fought over the house seemingly continually. The only time they didn't fight was when they left it on weekends.

My father wanted to do what this guy is doing now, but died before completing his van.

I think this is an untapped way of living, but society/cops seem to discourage it by ticketing excessively. That is my main concern. Towns, and cities have much made it illegial to park pretty much anywhere overnight, unless you pay a fee.
> He also combed through all records left by The Eight, basing patents, held as Shockley Labs' intellectual property, on any important ideas.[67] (Technically, in accordance with U.S. law, those patents were issued to the respective inventing employees.)

I'll assume this is true. My jealousy cup runneth over.
Betteridge's law of headlines applies to your linked article.

> The House unanimously adopted bipartisan amendments to H.R. 2685, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015.” And one of them specifically blocks training of the “Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitary militia ‘Azov Battalion.’”

> This is in addition to criteria established in an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, originally sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, known as “the Leahy Vetting Process.” The Leahy process consists of screening foreign forces applying for U.S. Government training and support to certify that they haven’t committed any “gross human rights violations.” If they are found to have done so, support is withheld.

So, no, the US is not intentionally funding neonazis and in fact, is trying very hard not to. They are providing training requested by the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior against a Russian aggressor that has shot down a civilian passenger aircraft, among many other crimes.
Really? So you call yourself Frowdrick Frankensteen?

No, it's Fredrick Frankensteen. And you must be Igor?

No, it's Eyegore.
yeah accurate, but if you take out the 'conflict' and 'WWIII' parts you'll see that it is a coordinated effort between all the major players to spur all the economies.

The central banks are all trying to get people to diversify into higher risk assets further up the yield curve, by pushing everything into negative yielding territory.

They are trying to spur the economy by getting everyone else to circulate money to groups that are marginalized out of low growth investment grade sectors.

No accident and no economic war whatsoever.

Pump further? As long as the marginally higher risk businesses don't default all at once, the central banks and everyone else will get all of their principle back.

Of the investment grade bonds being issued, it is largely no questions asked general purpose money for the corporation issuing it. They can use those billions to buy up startups all they want making all the laborers very wealthy. If they want.
In regards to "factory honey":
I've read a few blogs stating how the combs are pre-fabbed from plastic and something about hive scents and comb wall thickness being thrown off.. But I imagine that's something bees can adjust to.
How much are 100 calories in healthy portions of wholesome food
OT: If someone wanted to block connections to Google's DNS servers, can it be done reliably? Is there a known, static range?

AFAIK Android also uses Google's DNS servers, and it's hard coded into the OS, and the client pings the server before any software firewall can load at boot. (Allow me to reemphasize: AFAIK; if someone knows more I'd appreciate it.)
Just don't try this with a birth certificate.

Jokes aside, are there really places you can rent a screwdriver for a day? And is that really the appropriate solution?
When Billionaires Rule
Others have mentioned that LucasArts games in general avoided deaths and failstates, but just frequent death wasn't the real issue with the Sierra model in my mind. An immediate "Game Over" is not a huge deal, you just lose progress back to your last save (or less in today's checkpointed and autosaved games). It's like choosing the path with the deadly spiked pit in a choose-your-own-adventure book, and just flipping back to go the other way.

The much bigger problem comes when you can make the game unwinnable, but not actually lose right away (well, you've lost, you just don't know it yet). You merrily continue on for hours until much later you realize (if you do realize) that your mistake those many hours ago doomed you, and you need to go all the way back to a save from before then. Killing the player character right away (or at least soon) would be a much more merciful outcome than letting them blindly proceed down a path to nowhere.

I assume the dual intent of such dead ends were to make things seem more "realistic," as real-world errors are often permanent and aren't always immediately apparent, and also to extend the playtime.

Sudden brutal deaths are still a staple of many games and genres (even the new "modernized" King's Quest), but the silently-unwinnable state has happily fallen more or less totally out of fashion.
> and partnered with other manufacturers to make Cast-enabled TVs and speakers.

WTF? Just publish the damn API already.
Also bootstrapping here, but dont have infinity money, do you work full time on your project? What are you doing to cover burn?
That's even harder to do than vouchers. Instead of centrally managing certificates you have an entire country's worth of logistic problems. I can't even begin to imagine the government structure needed to buy store and cart Soylent from Puerto Rico to Alaska.

Let alone government built housing keeping up with population distribution changes.

I like how your proposal doesn't imply a big public -> private wealth transfer, but I think what you are suggesting is much, much harder than making it rain on everybody
Even still, that's just the completely wrong technology to use for something like this regardless of scale. It sounds like it's literally static content. Just write an HTML file directly if it's a single page, or use something like `Assemble` to get easily re-usable partial support if you have multiple pages that want to share a header and footer or something.
I think this is the cusp of a big change in America. As the physical industrial base evaporates, in return, many people may not buy into the classic "buy property" plan for their lives.

This is good for them. This may not be so great for all the people who bought property and expect it to always increase in value as there may not be as great a demand for it.
1. sell house

2. buy van

3. get someone to customize your van

4. ???

5. profit
What is BleachBit? Little-known tool at center of Clinton email controversy
We have proof that consciousness and insight are possible in nature - mainly us. We replicate it with each generation, and watch it grow as children age.
More than that - the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 are both being pumped up with QE. The cost to the UK in borrowing costs is already far more than the total historical contribution made to the EU.

And so on. There's more, but the picture is clear enough.

This article is either shockingly and unprofessionally misinformed, or deliberately misleading.
Me and my drone: how automatons are changing research
To Infinity and Beyond: 3D Printed Parts Made in Space
A Strong Signal from a Neighboring Solar System Has E.T. Seekers Speculating