skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there's some good info in this article covered by various degrees of misinformation. For some reason, the article starts off with this totally wrong definition of big-O, and proceeds to make conclusions with this wrong definition. Let me provide the accurate definition:

The statement "f is O(g)" means there exists some input, call it t, such that for every x >= t, it only takes some constant multiplier M (i.e., constant in x) to always have g absolutely no smaller than f. In notation:

|f(x)| <= M * |g(x)|, where x is at least t.

This bit about "x is at least t" is very important and notifies us that this is "asymptotic behavior".

It does not make a difference how wacky or weird f is compared to g below t. It can contain all these crazy memory hierarchy artifacts, it could contain a short burst of exponential slowdown, it could contain anything.

Furthermore, according to the above definition, big-O has nothing to do with any tangible quantity whatsoever. It's a method for comparing functions. The functions may represent whatever is of tangible or intangible interest: memory, time, money, instructions, ...

Big-O analysis usually posits that the details below t aren't the details that matter. (Of course, there are situations where they do, but in such you would not use big-O.) If you want to have some analysis that is global, you don't need asymptotic analysis (though it might help as a start). You can just talk about functions that are strictly greater than or less than your function of interest everywhere. But these analyses are difficult because a much higher level of understanding of your function of interest is required.
Could you please link to one of those posts so that we may read one?
O(log_b(n)) is the same as O(log n). With O(sqrt i) memory accesses you still have a constant factor separation between the absolute time performance of the two.
That's the case with virtually every Lucasfilm game I've ever played, including Indiana Jones: Fate of Atlantis, Full Throttle, and Grim Fandango. I believe you can die in the climaxes of those games, otherwise you just get knocked unconscious at worst.

That feature was a nice reprieve after playing the Sierra-designed games. Though sometimes the abrupt endings in the Sierra games had their point; for example, forgetting to secure your weapon before taking an inmate into jail would result in a game-over scene in Police Quest 1. Not sure how that could be resolved the LucasFilm way.
That's great, but if you really wanted to clear up any doubt about your credibility, could you provide an estimate for how much it would cost an adversary to crack a 1024 bit RSA key within 90 days? You seem to suggest that's a significant threat that has to be addressed before anyone uses DNSSEC.
> However, once people realize they can pay $35,000 for a killer car that can earn them $30,000 in a year by simply pressing a button and telling your car to go pick up passengers for you while you work or sleep

Long before that is the case, there'd be no incentive for the manufacturer to sell the car at all; they'd make more money just pushing the button themselves the minute the car rolled off the assembly line.
Are they separable in France?
Ask HN: What's the easiest way to write a bot to read articles and learn?
I am learning more about bots and machine learning and want to write a bot to read articles and use machine learning to "learn" from the articles. Any ideas how I might go about doing this?
Why is this wrong-headed discussion top-rated on HN?

And why is there so much misunderstanding on HN of big-O notation wrt cache misses lately?

All you kids, get off my lawn.
I think happiness is very well possible. But the problem is that, whether you want to blame social pressure, education, advertisement or something else, most people seem to think happiness means satisfaction of all desires and eternal feeling-good. That's not it. It's about finding satisfaction in and with yourself and not let circumstances tip your boat over. With or without kids, office job, park ranger or astronaut, married or celibate (or both), if you manage to derive meaning and satisfaction from the moment you'll be happy. You're probably somewhat right people confuse it with winning at life (my house has to be bigger than the neighbours, my job have shorter hours than my brother's and bring more income than my friend's, any my wife had to be the prettiest in town and our kids the smartest), but i think that just scratches the surface of the misconception. It's really about what happiness is and how to reach/keep being happy, and that the outside world or your possessions have surprisingly little to do with it.
Just out of interest - what were you doing?
Looking forward to some standardization/interop coming out of this. There's Presentation API[1], which spec's a web API, but that still leaves open the question of coordination between a controller (browser) and display. Chrome's working on it[2], and I'd guess would target Cast, so web pages might be able to request their own casting, but it doesn't seem like anything other browsers could compete/cooperate openly with atm.

[1] https://www.w3.org/TR/presentation-api/

[2] https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/list?q=component...
It seems to run on the Kindle browser.
Browsers are broken, but nobody cares. All it took was 1 line of code to fix it
Seriously. I get that's it's good for business - but it's like mobile apps. I only have the capacity for a few, and all others are past saturation point.
Even if you solve the synchronization problem, you still have the main problem with power beaming of the massive sizes needed of the transmitter and receivers at space scale distances, thanks to diffraction.

Microwaves need prohibitively large transmitter/receiver arrays if you go beyond LEO (drag is an issue in LEO). While putting a kilometer^2 scale transmitter in orbit isn't a problem, putting the similarly sized receiver for it on the ground is. At optical or smaller wavelengths, the arrays can be much smaller, but they will still be large structures.

Disclaimer: I worked with a company that does terrestrial optical power beaming.
Tower is pretty similar as well.
I feel like a lot of the people who are against carbon taxes have little to no empathy for those who live in areas of the globe most likely to become less hospitable to life in a few decades.

And that's a lot more people who tend to be much poorer than even the poor rural Americans.
I've been using Amplemarket's Slack integration for about a month and have been very impressed. It's basic, but very useful.
NYT hasn't been.
We actually had roughly the same set up in college, using DC++ instead of Emule. Connections within the university weren't limited, but connections outside were. So one person would download it at limited speeds, then spread it around at unlimited speeds.
The fallback is to be configurable, but breaking the entire UX is not desirable when a full recursive resolver is unable to function. Personally, I would like to see some indication as part of the GNOME Network icon whether the resolver is secure or not, but I have a hard time determining what that would look like and how to implement it without giving users false assurances or worrying them if they don't care.

It's a tricky problem to solve, but Rome wasn't built in a day either. I'll probably disable the insecure fallback myself and only turn it on when I connect to my work VPN, I already don't trust public hotspots so unless I can connect to my OpenVPN server at home I don't use them.
It is not "imagined", it has very real consequences.

Just because the consequences are real, doesn't mean the predicates or hypothesis on which those consequences are based are real. For much of the history of the US, opportunities for men of African descent to fight in the armed forces were limited, justified by various notions of racial inferiority. This is not to make a moral equivalence in the two situations. However, it does point out that the reality of the underlying predicate is different from the reality of the consequences. (i.e. "The Map is not the Territory!")

Just because the prestige exists doesn't mean that the prestige itself is based on something real. Prestige is a social construct. A different and better system of disseminating scientific publications could exist. There are a number of compelling reasons to believe a more modern system would serve the public interest far better.
That is only going to be a problem if they do not upstream the changes to Chromium.
NYT/WSJ are understandably biased towards east coast markets and typically pessimistic of silicon valley as a whole.
My main concern is that there are few investment avenues these days that provide a decent return without being extraordinarily risky. Stocks are stagnating. Bond yields are so dismal you have to invest in places like Turkey to see any sort of return - if it even happens.

That pretty much makes Silicon Valley the default place to get any bang for your buck. Investors in VC funds want to see returns. VCs want to keep investing in winners, getting more investment in their funds, and making good money along the way. People want to turn their sweat into gold so there is no shortage of aspirational entrepreneurs.

So it seems to me that if there is anything that could turn a cautious slowdown into a full-blown crash, it's a scarcity of decent investment options.
HacBook Elite is a fully-functional Mac running OS X. For 1/3 the price
So you want to add a private notebook that the warden can't read. Further, left vs right does not help if the table is in the middle of a room and people are entering from random doors.

AKA, the solution assumes a lot of information not explicitly part of the original wording.
One Scientist’s Crazy Bet to Save the Bees: Join Monsanto
I understood that.

I was just clarifying for obilgic by explaining that he wasn't mistaken until more recently when Google rebranded the API.
Caveat: novice programmer here.

Even Angular is still difficult for me to grok and sometimes I wonder if stuff that comes out of Google "suffers" (for me) from Google having unlimited resources and employing superior engineers? Would Google have a difficult time empathizing with "average" programmers with limited resources?
> it's not worth the cash

Well, it is free :-) (at least while in beta)
As I'm not a mechanic, I'd rather not deal with it. You sound like someone who enjoys tinkering around with cars. The time you spend keeping a car with 230,000km on it running, I am spending doing other things. And unless that previous owner was obsessive compulsive, it's certainly going to have some funk after that amount of time. I want a car to provide its purpose, with the least path of resistance.
Next time, try dropping jQuery, too, and just using vanilla JavaScript. Just for fun. Simple DOM manipulation is now as simple in vanilla JavaScript as jQuery, with the only big advantage jQuery has now is if you're animating. You may find you're not missing much. You'd have to get used to slightly more involved Ajax syntax, unless you can target only new browsers, in which case the `fetch` API is just as convenient as jQuery's Ajax.

Heck, if you can can transpile to ES6 or if you're only targeting new browsers, you could probably even drop the Handlebars in factor of template literals without losing too much convenience.
You raise an important point.

I imagine selling the cars externalizes the cost of financing the car and risks associated with the service.
The Fork developer is here. I received few crash reports today, fixing them right now.

P.S. I wasn't ready to be mentioned on HN today :).
> O(log_b(n)) is the same as O(log n)

Not in every abstract model. See other reply.
> A mature BI (one providing an above-poverty-line benefit) is an expensive proposition

That was below-poverty-line benefits as defined by existing law. Its $10k income with a $3k mandatory payment for the equivalent of Medicaid/insurance.

The poverty line at the moment is ~$11k + Medicaid.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FP...
A speculation I read often is that Tesla will continue offering free charges to Tesla vehicles and will pay for it by charging to charge (hmm, how to better phrase that) non-Tesla electric vehicles.
That was pretty awesome, I enjoyed reading all the way to the end.

I wonder how long it'll take him to regret the fact that his bed only fits one person in it.
"Graduation" doesn't mean success. It seems to just mean "it moved out of X", even though usually that's just to somewhere else in Google it makes no money and sells no products.

- Verify/Life Sciences is failing pretty hard and has failed to develop any actual products. https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/28/google-life-sciences-exo...

- Glass is an absolute failure. I own one, I loved mine. It's still a failure.

- Gcam went to... Google Research? It went from moonshot R&D to normal R&D. That's not success.

- Google Brain... went to Research as well. And really, it is likely just a rebranded version of whatever DeepMind was already doing when Google bought them.

- Project Tango went from Google's moonshot R&D to Motorola's R&D (ATAP) which Google kept ownership of. That's also not success.

Android Wear, Flux, and Project Insight (Indoor Maps) probably all count as actual successes for X, but that's about it.
Sounds like you loved working at the company and got a lot of responsibility. However in our field there needs to be progress, and it sounds your company is more in zombie mode. Have a heart to heart with your CEO and ask where he sees the company 5 years from now. The market is really good now and if you are just doing soso you will not survive a down turn.
Automation of Things nominated for startup of the year by Automation Alley
Amazon has no oauth to buying products, because it is not a supported feature of the API. So they would need your real Amazon password.
At least based on HN coverage there seems to be a recently a wave of stories about scammers and wanterpreneurs, some questions about "signs of failed startups", warnings about red flags and so on.

Is increasing scammer activity a sign of the tail-end of a market hype?
I'm a Tower user, not really seeing a compelling differentiator here (tabs look interesting however), but perhaps someone is seeing something I'm not.
It's still a toroid, regardless of the shape getting revolved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toroid

People generally say stellarators are harder to build but easier to operate.
Not sure how related this is, but my parents have a one or two year old Samsung "Smart" HDTV. It doesn't have Chromecast built in, but it does have Youtube, Netflix, and a few other "apps".

I thought it was really cool one time when I was visiting during a SpaceX launch and experimental sea landing because I was able to swap from watching live via Youtube on my laptop to casting it to their HDTV. That was just by pressing the cast button and selecting their TV, which was automatically in the list without me doing anything.

It's awesome that Google's made this more convenient and I think it'll be something useful for a lot of people.
I don't necessarily buy the notion that all companies treat their employees poorly. Start a company if you want to (I have before, and it was very freeing) but the world might not be quite as binary as you're seeing it right now.
I ended up reading the whole post - awesome story! Not something I could see myself doing, but damn does he look happy.
Should a wildly successful “solopreneur” start a *real* company?
I ran across this Ask HN from yesterday that has dropped far off the home page. Someone who is bringing in $2M/year as a one-person business wants to know if he should expand it into a bigger company. It's one of the best discussions I've seen here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12374445
We do this for a couple niche API users. We need the consumer's credentials--none of the retailers support OAuth with ordering permission.
This is how I would go about stating the proof.

1) The article shows that the time to process N datums of data is related to the size of the total data processed. And that as the size of the data set grows, the time to process it grows with the root of N.

2) Computational complexity's order of magnitude is relative number of datums need to be processed in order to complete the computation.

3) Less complex computations process fewer datums, fewer datums mean a smaller total memory footprint.

Therefore, processing fewer datums will lower your total memory processing cost which will lower your total time.
Q.E.D.
The library example is a bad one, since it leads to O(N) and not O(√N), a conclusion that contradicts the thesis.

"In general, the amount of books N that fits in a library is proportional to the square of the radius r of the library, and we write N∝ r²."

No, the number of books N is proportional to the area of the front face of the shelving, not the area enclosed within the circle. Assuming all libraries are the same height, that means N is proportional to the circumference of the circle, which is proportional to r, not r². Meanwhile, assuming that all books are reachable in the same amount of time by the librarian no matter their height on the shelf, that means T ∝ r (as before). Since T ∝ r and N ∝ r, that means T ∝ N or T=O(N).
Fwiw theoretical computer scientists do this kind of analysis as well, while the post makes it sound like they don't. The equal-cost model of RAM operations is only one model used in asymptotic algorithm analysis, and there are other cost models with other properties. The introduction of this paper gives a decent concise overview of some of them: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/papers/iolambda/short.pdf
I know it's controversial, but I think

Dos and Don'ts

as is correct English grammar and faithful to the author's title is strongly preferable to

Do's and Don'ts

(Apostrophe is never used for pluralization, although I know that "Dos" looks really strange). The other option is to quote both words and to put the apostrophes outside the quotes

"Do"s and "Don't"s
This is a very good point; I also found the submission enlightening for that reason -- because of the 'rediscovery' of jQuery, and how for simple use-cases, it's actually fairly palatable.

All solutions go through a maturity cycle where we invent an ostensibly "better" way of doing it because we're frustrated with the old way -- jQuery came about because early DOM selectors were lacking, Angular came about because people built complicated client-side spaghetti code state machines with jQuery -- but eventually a new wave of people comes along and the 'new way' becomes the 'mainstream way', and the like.

Like this author has done, it's interesting to go back and rediscover how things were done in the past, and in many cases you learn more about the problem domain or your stack of choice by doing so. My age is also showing that Angular no longer counts as cutting-edge, early-adopter tech, but firmly in the camp of mainstream ways of doing client-side code.
NASA Team Probes Peculiar Age-Defying Star
Hey Eva, can you pass some notes onto the team for me?

- OSX Desktop app is great. The "[+]" button to add new logins is in an odd location, but no big deal.

- The Android app needs a "Most Recent" view. I end up searching for the same logins, until I remember they can be favorited.

- When I re-install the Android App, it always prompts me to buy the PRO version. Takes a bit to resolve that it's already been purchased.

- Windows app is bad. Really bad. Recommended 1Password to a few friends, and had to later apologize when I realized they weren't in the Mac ecosystem. Slow, janky. Has a bad habit of locking up chrome when I first open the plugin.

- Lastly - yet another subscription service? I want you to be successful, but I likely won't be recommending 1Password anymore, or dropping if the standalone license gets feature locked.
> I imagine selling the cars externalizes the cost of financing the car and risks associated with the service.

Sure, and that makes sense in most realistic cases. A $35,000 car that returns an expected $30,000/year isn't a realistic case. Anywhere remotely close to that, and the case for selling the cars to consumers to realize (reduced) returns more quickly and insulate the manufacturer from risk just isn't there.

Heck, even if the company decides they don't want to be in the business of owning the fleet, the fact that it is expected to return $30K a year means that the price that can be supported will be much higher (or, conversely, the fact that the car can be sold for $35K will drive down the returns as more people buy the car, and supply drives down market clearing price for all the productive uses.)
Argument that "At the time, some 4–5% of users couldn't lookup that record; we assume because the network wasn't transparent to non-standard DNS resource types." doesn't make sense for DNSSEC, because it requires signed explicit information that record not exist. If server won't return it, then it is broken and needs to be changed.

Yes, there is HPKP, but it is "Trust on First Use" and adds entropy for browser fingerprinting.
Since the URL doesn't seem to be clickable, here it is again:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12374445
Back of napkin math... staying an extra year would be slightly less than 50% more (the second 25% of my largest grant would hit and I'd have half of it).

This is part of what makes the decision so hard. And it's worth noting the valuation of the company is not terrible. If I had this valuation after 4 years I'd be ecstatic. Problem is it's been 7 and I have a lot of sunk cost.
Still believing a transformative event is coming after a couple failed prophecies.
I already got that question today. So, I'll just repost my answer:

here are some differences from the top of the head:

* Fork has tabbed interface

* For each commit you can see not only changes, but also the whole repository as it was at the moment of commit

* Diff viewer shows exact difference between two pieces of code. For example, here are both SourceTree and Fork showing the same commit: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/fn9mzjmyvhec2sa/2016-08-..., In ST (on the top) you need to figure out what has changed, in Fork (the bottom one) you see the difference clearly.

* Repository browser shows you many details about your repositories in the similar way as Finder does

* Commit list marks commits which do not belong to your commit tree with gray color
No, he's right. If you abandon the notion that there's anything which possesses an intrinsic or higher meaning, it's almost inevitable you'll end up gratifying your most basic instincts first because they're the strongest. At least until they're sated.

The only thing I don't get is why more people don't do it. People walk around with all sorts of hangups and narratives about why they're denying themselves and they take these to the grave with them. I'd much rather overindulge until I'm bursting at the seams and then having learned where my limit is, dial it back from there. Much fewer regrets in the long run.
Yes, his company is the one that made the add-on; it was their first commercial product atop the open source project. Today they're a nice fat funded company, but then, they had little revenue, which really put me off.
Verifying based on DNS records is only a baseline. CAs can and do require more. If you want higher security for your domain, you can:

1. Make business arrangements with a handful of CAs to require additional verification when issuing certificates for your domain.

2. Use public key pinning to restrict your domain to those CAs.

3. Monitor certificate transparency logs to ensure that your chosen CAs are only issuing authorized certificates, and that other CAs are not issuing certificates for your domain. (CT does not have full coverage yet, but it has already done more to improve PKI security than DNSSEC has.)

If one of your chosen CAs violates your trust, you drop them like a hot potato. DNSSEC removes this agility, leaving you at the mercy of your registrar and every zone operator higher than you in the hierarchy.