skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Very difficult to find a counter example" =/= "unprovable"
No, these are not mathematical models used for forecasting. In this context, "financial statement forecasting" means making up financial statements. Something like this:
https://mycourses.aalto.fi/pluginfile.php/144740/mod_resourc...
The issue is that unlike music, the market for research papers isn't anywhere nearly as widespread, so average people don't have any incentive to seed research papers, whereas they do have an incentive to share blockbuster movies and music albums.
It is depressing to see such cavalier attitude towards backwards compatibility and older devices (flagships even, assuming you are talking about Snapdragon 800 devices).

This is planned obsolescence at its worst .. :/

(At this point, Android management seem to be thinking "What are the other alternatives, Windows 10 Mobile .. haar, haar ..")
Defeating modern facial recognition using public photos [pdf]
Operation HEAR
> I don't think about this a lot, but I assume that all of the interesting ways to distribute power from a single engine to 1-4 wheels are, all of them, inferior to having a dedicated motor for each.

While off-roading it's not uncommon to completely loose traction on two wheels (search for cross-axle articulation for a way to mitigate this). I've also lost traction on three wheels during steep hill climbs, rutted, muddy traverses, and on sand.

In situations like that locked differentials are vastly preferred as you can transfer the majority of the car's torque to 1-2 wheels. A motor for each wheel (or each set of wheels) would not be preferred as 1/4 or 1/2 of the vehicle's torque is often not enough to maintain forward momentum.

The challenge is that the axles of many stock vehicles are not designed to withstand all that torque, so breaking your vehicle's axle when all the torque is transferred to one wheel is a real risk.
> SpaceX's Dragon is the only cargo carrier in use that can return gear to Earth.

Don't they mean the only American cargo carrier? I thought the Soyuz was the only capsule ferrying Astronauts to and from the station, at least until the Commercial Crew program gets to that point.
If you're looking for a fun, substantial introductory Z3 project, try writing a program to compare two sets of firewall rules for functional equivalence. Stated another way: does there exist a packet which is accepted by one firewall but not the other?

I was lucky enough to be tasked with solving this problem in Azure! We were changing the method by which node firewall rules were automatically generated, and wanted a way to verify equivalence between the old and new versions for each node. The brute force approach was clearly out: we'd have had to check 2^72 IPv4 packets (32-bit source address field, 16-bit source port field, 16-bit destination port field, 8-bit protocol field). I bummed around trying to figure out a way to transform the firewall rules into some kind of minimal normalized form for direct comparison, but the Z3 approach turned out to be shockingly simple. When Z3 is really well-suited for a problem, it feels like straight up magic.

If you want to spoil the implementation details for yourself, it goes like this:

1) Set up bit vector variables of the proper size for each field in the IPv4 packet header.

2) Encode each firewall rule as a restriction on the variables from (1), then conjoin them to form a logical representation of a firewall.

3) Task Z3 with finding values for the variables in (1) for which one firewall is true, and the other is false.

Here's a simple example which you can run directly in the linked demo page, using two integer fields (source and destination) for simplicity:

(declare-const src Int)
(declare-const dst Int)
(define-fun matches ((srcLower Int) (srcUpper Int) (dstLower Int) (dstUpper Int)) Bool
(and (<= srcLower src) (<= src srcUpper) (<= dstLower dst) (<= dst dstUpper))
)

(define-fun firewall1 () Bool
(and
(matches 0 10 20 30)
(not (matches 5 10 25 30))
)
)

(define-fun firewall2 () Bool
(and
(matches 1 10 20 30)
(not (matches 5 10 25 30))
)
)

(assert (not (= firewall1 firewall2)))
(check-sat)
(get-model)

This finds the model [0, 20] - a "packet" which is accepted by one firewall but not the other.

In practice this solution ran very quickly - less than a second for firewalls with hundreds of rules. It also gave a counterexample if the firewalls were not equivalent, which could be matched with offending rules and was very useful for debugging.
Very true, but you're overlooking the fact that England of the 1700s was in the 1700s.
The same as US students: lower grades, bad interpretation, not making oneself understandable.
Lets say you run a large company, and you are about to make a big purchase from another public company. Lets say you are planning on increasing their sales by some non-trivial amount like 20%.

Is it legal to purchase shares in that company before you make the purchase? You are leveraging private information, but not information gleaned from insider knowledge from the other company.
So get that tool in China today because you need it today.

The article was about the future. All signs are pointing to that tool costing you ~7.5USD in the US in the near-term future. With better shipping, support and logistics. The price differential is going to, at some point, matter way less than those other considerations and you may well decide to eat the entire $7.5K switching cost just to get access to them. I buy all my iPhones retail, for full price, from Apple.

Of course China is going to win a bunch of price races today, it's like competing in swimming vs. Usain Bolt as a varsity college swimmer. Sure, you might win the first few races. But once Bolt gets serious, he's going to be able to level his skills up way faster than you will, even given your 5 year head start. His genetics are simply better.

The US just has better DNA for commerce. Other countries can win battles, but never the war.
Traction does solve all the problems. This is known.
Thank you, Bayh-Dole Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act
Cyanogen have reverted the commit dropping 801 support for CM14.
> I'm not especially interested in whether or not it's cosmically fair when deciding whether or not it's deserved.

The argument about the "risk-tasking investors" rightfully owning the work of the "risk-free employees" is an appeal to fairness (the investors could lose their investment while the employees still gain their salaries), so by the way it does seem that you are interested in that.

Early efforts in organizing the company and navigating difficult waters are work and those employees should be compensated with ownership. I don't think that subsequent work by subsequent employees should not be compensated in this same way. Mark Zuckerberg and half a dozen friends created a company valued at $98M by Accel in 2005 and enjoyed ownership of that. Today he and 15,000 others create a company valued at $360 billion, of which he enjoys 25% ownership while the combined ownership of the rest is miniscule.
Robot Babies Not Effective Birth Control, Australian Study Finds
At least a link to GitHub in the unsupported browser page would be nice.

Edit: nevermind, README has no info anyway
H+ Weekly – a free weekly newsletter about robotics, AI and transhumanism
This doesn't work on Mobile Safari on iOS9.
What is your target audience?
No proof physical music prices went up ? shrinking market => less economy of scale => higher price (my eco-noob POV)
Be honest about what could happen vs. being delusional about what is wanted to happen. Basically, a variant of hope for the best prepare for the worst. Sarcasm is a great way to do that.
One motor per wheel, in the wheel, is an old idea. It's been used most notably on LeTourneau heavy equipment. The usual problem is too much unspring weight, not a problem for giant earthmovers but bad for fast cars.

Michelin was pushing it for cars, with their "Active Wheel" concept, from about 2003 to 2012.[1] That seems to have disappeared. Siemens has demoed a motor-in-wheel unit, and Volvo and Nissan have fooled around with this. Protean, in Shanghai, is trying to sell their wheel motor. There are others. Nobody has shipped production cars yet, though.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=383607
The "service scripts are simple" belief is not borne out by the reality, as I reported in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10357589

As you can see, one doesn't actually need to keep all of the rc.d scripts. I manage well without any of them, in fact, including running desktop GUIs on PC-BSD under service management.

logind is a much misunderstood part of systemd. It is somewhat difficult to state that it is "broken", given that there really isn't a spec for it to be compared against for conformance, and it is largely the only implementation in existence. It's what Ian Sutton reported as being the most difficult part of SystemBSD, as noted in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10176275 and as I said beforehand in http://jdebp.eu./FGA/debian-systemd-packaging-hoo-hah.html#s...

There are a few things about it that can be stated to be wrong, though, inasmuch as they interfere with the operation of the services that service management is supposed to be managing. The limits on the number of threads that database services and suchlike can run are a largely unreported problem, for more on which see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11675129

And as I pointed out in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=825394#221 the problem that did reach the news is something that one fixes properly by correcting the incorrect behaviour of logind.

Personally, for resolving proxy DNS service and content DNS service I use modified versions of Bernstein's dnscache and tinydns. The modification involves my own well-known, and years-old, patches; and making dnscache and tinydns capable of receiving their listening sockets as already-open file descriptors, via the LISTEN_FDS protocol, making it possible to integrate them with UCSPI-style tools that open the sockets for them.
My claim is very specific. If you tell an algorithm to predict loan default probabilities, and you give it inputs (race, other_factor), the algorithm will usually correct for the bias in other_factor.

I claimed a paperclip maximizer will maximize paperclips, I didn't claim a paperclip maximizer will actually determine that the descendants of it's creators really wanted it to really maximize sticky tape.

Now, if you want an algorithm not to use race as a factor, that's also a math problem. Just don't use race as an input and you've solved it. But if you refuse to use race and race is important, then you can't get an optimal outcome. The world simply won't allow you to have everything you want.

A fundamental flaw in modern left wing thought is that it rejects analytical philosophy. Analytical philosophy requires us to think about our tradeoffs carefully - e.g., how many unqualified employees is racial diversity worth? How many bad loans should we make in order to have racial equity?

These are uncomfortable questions - google how angry the phrase "lowering the bar" makes left wing types. If you have an answer to these questions you can simply encode it into the objective function of your ML system and get what you want.

Modern left wing thought refuses to answer these questions and simply takes a religious belief that multiple different objective functions are simultaneously maximizable. But then machine learning systems come along, maximize one objective, and the others aren't maximized. In much the same way, faith healing doesn't work.

The solution here is to actually answer the uncomfortable questions and come up with a coherent ideology, not to double down on faith and declare reality to be "biased".
From the 6.0 CTS:

> For device implementations supporting full-disk encryption and with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) crypto performance above 50MiB/sec, the full-disk encryption MUST be enabled by default at the time the user has completed the out-of-box setup experience. If a device implementation is already launched on an earlier Android version with full-disk encryption disabled by default, such a device cannot meet the requirement through a system software update and thus MAY be exempted.

This doesn't refute your point, just illustrating the previous requirement for FDE. Curious to see the 7.0 CTS standards when they're published.
Perfect. Tnx!
Finally a startup visa proposal that doesn't need Congress
Those commercials seem pretty tone deaf to me. I mean the one where his friends don't think he'll still be a programmer because he's working for GE, or the one where his dad doesn't think he can lift a sledgehammer. I get that they're trying to be funny and poke fun at themselves, but there's an undercurrent of condescension and patting this kid on the head that is very off-putting to me as a software engineer. After reading bradrydzewski's comment about the culture at GE it's making a lot more sense. GE just doesn't get software engineers.
Do you have any evidence that he was naked short? I can't think of a way how this would be acceptable from a regulatory perspective. I think a lot of his short exposure was through derivatives rather than cash anyway.
Yes, but you'll have to find a niche where gcc or LLVM don't make sense. Intel has a huge compiler group and insider architectural knowledge, and icc has a minuscule market share. I don't see a viable business targeting mainstream processors.

I was co-founder of a compiler startup that targeted high-performance, cost- and power-sensitive communications processors that were idiosyncratic and hard to program (e.g. split-phase memory accesses, explicit hardware threading and cache control, non-interlocked pipelines, massive SIMD and VLIW parallelism, etc.) Existing compilers for these architectures, if they existed, had abysmal efficiency of generated code.

I'm a little out of touch, but I don't know if this market exists anymore. I think the FPGA tool space is interesting and high-level synthesis tools is one direction to take compiler technology.

The other place compiler development makes sense is inside hardware companies doing new architectural development, e.g., Tilera, Adapteva/Parallella, etc. I ran into Andreas about a year ago and he said they were looking for someone to work on development tools.

You can think of query optimizers and schedulers for distributed computing clusters as the data center evolution of compiler technology in the Barroso, Hölzle warehouse-scale computer sense. I think there's definitely opportunities to innovate in that market. See, for example, the recent post about Baidu accelerating SQL queries with FPGAs:

http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/08/24/baidu-takes-fpga-appr...
While it may be far from ideal, I know a lot of academics who would be willing to pay a dollar for access to an article their library doesn't have access to instead of going to Sci-Hub, but when the only option now is to pay $40 per article or obtain it through more questionable means (whether through SciHub or Reddit/Twitter or friends at another university), people don't really have a choice.
There are thousands of accredited registrars out there[1], how is that going to improve anything? I don't even want to get into the fact that the majority of them are not ones that I would call infosec companies.

[1]: https://www.icann.org/registrar-reports/accredited-list.html
I apologize for seeming vague. My father was one of the first Westerners to learn Tai chi so I grew up with it. Knowing something so intimately and being able to thoughtfully articulate and teach it are often totally different skills.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12347278
I was hoping to get at least within 60 km
> If you have a motor for each wheel, the max output on that wheel is the max output of that motor, and theoretically, you can distribute more than 1/4 of the single engine to that wheel with differentials, so ... maybe that's a very big deal ? Do 4WD vehicles often send 70-80-90% of output to one wheel ?

The situation that leaps to mind would be an especially muddy, low-speed, off-road terrain where the differential is keeping three wheels from spinning. The neat thing about that situation is that, in spite of having at most 1/4 of the vehicle's power available, electric motors are still probably a big win, even if you're towing something.

That's because with electric motors you've got almost all the motor's torque available at low RPM. With a gasoline or diesel you've got to get RPM up a bit before getting the power you need. Getting the vehicle moving and balancing RPM and wheelspin and everything is a goofy exercise that would be seem to be made a lot easier by just being able to just gradually bring up the throttle, which you can't always do with a ICE motor.

And more to the point, 1/4 of the total available torque is still more than you're likely to get with even a good diesel and a good automatic transmission that deals with everything gracefully at low-speed, low-RPM. Maybe I'm wrong about that last part: all the off-roading I did was in a primitive Jeep with a manual transmission.
There is Gentoo/FreeBSD project[1] too, to provide portage tree on top of FreeBSD system.

[1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_FreeBSD
Just bought the book. He has a few paragraphs on the cover image and states "Many thanks to NASA/JPL for allowing reuse."
It's very close to mechanical optimization. Basically you want to move as efficiently as possible.

Tai chi is a series of movements that alternate balance and weight between your feet. You always end up with your weight on one side or the other, or you are in the process of shifting your weight to one side.

You learn to "relax and listen"
Hi!

Good idea, I am going to add it. I am working an a static fallback using this library: https://github.com/RisingStack/nx-seo.

Sorry about the README, I decided to put everything into the home page, it might have been a bad idea.

Thanks for the feedback!

Edit: You can see the pure HTML fallback page by searching 'nx framework' and viewing the google cached version. I just didn't yet dare to enable it to others than spiders. Sorry for the inconvenience.
On the other side of this controversy are developers who want to use Vulkan and other features which require hardware support, and they are tired of dealing with runtime API capability checks (A.K.A. "fragmentation"). You cannot have backward-compatibility for these features if you require support for them in hardware.

This is more a cavalier attitude on the part of Qualcomm who do not support their own hardware for a reasonable length of time, and who do not foster open-source driver development which would at least allow the community to bring new features to older hardware in some cases (Vulkan being the prime example).
Uber Lost More Than $1B in the First Half of 2016
Most landing pages do have more info than yours, even when they are selling something familiar, like "do your job search with us." It sounds like you are offering something unusual. It is on you to communicate what that is and what value it would have for someone.

You currently have what seem like a bunch of empty catch phrases. That will not remotely be sufficient.

My impression is that you really have nothing to offer. This strikes me as a service no one would want or need.

If you actually have something of value to offer, you really need to find a way to effectively communicate it in a convincing, compelling manner. This teams idea seems very different from how hiring is normally done. Either it isn't done that way because it flat out does not work, or you are failing to communicate why this is a better way, at least for some people.

Getting feedback on anything is a huge challenge. I think you will need to get better at assessing feedback of the "vote with your feet" or "crickets chirped" variety. Actions speak louder than words. The lack of feedback may be a form of feedback.
Why do open source projects use emailed patches vs. published branches/PRs?
On the face of it the persistence of emailed patch work flows (e.g linux kernel, postgres, emacs) seems archaic, inconvenient and error prone. I wanted to try to understand why projects do this and what it would take for it to become a thing of the past. I've added some notes below which might help discussion but I know it's a fairly complex issue and the notes do not cover the issues. Can anyone provide any further insight into the situation and how we can get away from emailed patches (or disagree with that implied premise)?

I'm distinguishing the following three states:

1. email: contributors email patches to a mailing list

2. published branches: contributors publish branches containing their commits, but there is no code review / commenting interface (a "pull request")

3. pull request: a published branch with a code review / commenting interface

Reasons for/against published branches over email:

- Unmerged work might be lost, e.g. if a contributor publishes their proposed branch to a server hosted by a private company and both the contributor and the hosting company disappear.

- Email may cause character encoding issues, published branches do not have this problem

- The branch name acts as a tag: the patch set may be appended to or rebased while retaining the same name. Sending successive emails with different patch versions creates a mess. EDIT: Reword as: "The branch names acts as a constant label, referencing a changeset which may evolve during development and review"

Reasons for/against PRs over published branches:

- Inline commenting makes code review very convenient. The PR records the review, the responses and the final sign-off / decision.

- But comment metadata belong to whoever owns the server hosting the PR and therefore may be lost

(Emacs has recently moved to git and I believe the maintainers would ideally like to use published branches / pull requests.)
Latest Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Edge and Safari 10 beta. The reason is the usage of unpolyfillable ES6 Proxies. I know it is harsh, but I sadly can't support more without dropping some awesome features. NX really aims to be 'next gen'.
The idea of GuileEmacs is not to move away from the elisp language. The idea is to use an elisp implementation based on the Guile virtual machine.

Elisp will not go away. So any arguments for lisp and against scheme are void in this context.
AOSP directly from the manufacturer... Almost too good to be true. rubbing my eyes
Are they writing Vulkan drivers for the 800/801's GPU then?
You've clearly been there.
Bloomberg confirms.[1]

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-25/uber-loses...
I know it's not exactly "science" but ACM is part of the general culture.

The other day I was looking for an article my dad had written for the Linux journal and could only find bits and pieces of it (some as gists on github) before I was able to find it on linuxjournal.com I found a page from ACM.org trying to sell it for something like $15. He was completely unaware this had even happened.
Bah, you can still see the road in that video. :-)Not to one-up you, but rather to point out what's possible, your video is a not-uncommon regular winter storm in the midwestern U. S. I grew up driving 2WD RWD vehicles in that stuff, usually got home just fine. I did land my parent's full-sized van in the ditch once. Should have put 25kg bags of salt in the back end to add weight, but might have used said for the water softener, don't recall.

So you don't need 4WD (let alone a tank) if you have some sense. Which is why a lot of people buy 4WD vehicles, I guess.
> the old "s" which looks to modern eyes like an "f"

I always thought they looked like that because before modern dentistry, everyone spoke with a lisp.