skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It doesn't take much research to see this especially in the continental states.

The UK and some of the Nordic countries do have some new money in the UK it's mostly in the financial sector and rich individuals from the colonies moving into the UK.

And as far as the Nordics go historically the wealth was more limited than in the richer states, so the post war economy had greater impact on the wealth of those nations.

If you discount the wealth redistribution following WW1 and especially WW2 (like it or not Nazi gold is part of the economy today, as well as many other wartime confiscations) it would probably have worse wealth distribution than the US since it still has lower mobility and maybe even worse than some emerging and developing markets.
Do they ever close out their short positions? It seems like they'd quickly wind up borrowing too much for any brokerage to help them take on more...
> Now I'm dumb and worthless.

My thoughts are that to even have the job that you have now, your programming/coding skills are years above mine. You may feel dumb and worthless, but someone like me would be sitting there going "Wow, I wish that i could do that."

It's all about perspective.

> Death doesn't seem so bad anymore. Then I don't have to think about all this.

I used to be a full time tech support guy, then desktop support, then sysadmin. I felt dumb and worthless at that job most of the time. I made a complete career change into healthcare and made my sysadmin stuff more of a hobby. 10 years later, i make way less but overall I'm happier. perhaps some new hobbies will help? one of them might even lead to a new career.

along those lines, i'm a paramedic, and we see death from a way different perspective. I've been there just after someone pulled the trigger and have seen just how heart wrenching it can be for the friends and family.

Please talk to someone. I'm not sure where you are, but there are resources available. :/
The payload would need to slow down to be captured by the planet just the same. Normally you could try aerobraking and the like, but we are talking about relativistic speeds here.
Yes, the instructor's "school" isn't labeled in the video. That said, you have to admit the opening sequence shows misleading effectiveness much like that of (explicitly labeled) aikido. He's grabbing wrist control from people charging him and using the (similar?) techniques of aikido.

Aikido's heavily criticized [0] for using these attack caricatures both in practice and sales. In real life, you're not catching punches or twirling actors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aikido#Criticisms
I didn't read Linus's rant on CMOV, but whenever you see a CPU with CMOV, it is because the hardware has very good branch prediction, and the compiler has intimate knowledge of how the branch prediction hardware works.

Then the compiler works hard on determining if branches are highly predictable. Is the branch part of closing a loop? Predict that you will stay in the loop. Is the branch checking for an exception condition? Predict that the exception is rare. OTOH, there are some branches that are, in fact, "flakey" on a dynamic execution basis. Deciding where to push a particular particle of data based on it's value inside an innermost processing loop, for instance.

So... the compiler identifies "flakey" branches, it emits code to compute both branches of the if, and CMOVs the desired result at the end. That allows the instruction issue pipeline to avoid seeing a branch at all, thus avoiding polluting the branch cache with a flakey branch, and avoiding a whole bunch of pipeline flushes in the back end. At the cost of using extra back-end resources on throw-away work.

CMOV is in X86 for a reason. On Pentium Pro and later, it is a win if your compiler has good branch analysis.
Also at 10% the speed of light the probe zips by the planet in a fraction of a second. There's no slowing down in this scenario.
The Freakout is engineered to get people to support taxes on "carbon". It would be much more effective to ignore the existing industries and work on making them obsolete.

Firefly Energy [1] came up with a good-enough Lead Acid battery - "the energy of NiMH, for the cost of lead", fully recyclable with existing infrastructure, etc. Their batteries would have been perfectly useful for low-range electric vehicles like Postal delivery trucks (20-miles/day) and home energy storage (solar panels, shifting power use to off-peak, etc).

But they ramped up for production in the midst of the housing collapse (2006-ish?), and ran out of money. The government only gave money to "advanced chemistry" battery technologies. Firefly Energy had to declare bankruptcy, last I read an Indian company bought the IP... and it's gone nowhere.

[1] http://fireflyenergy.com/

> CO2 is something we can control. If it isn't the whole answer, then we're screwed anyway.

A friend has told me of the 'Maunder minimum' [2] phenomenon, and that our Sun might be preparing to reduce its output for 30-45 years. If that happens, all efforts to suppress CO2 will be for naught.

It is better to focus on the desired outcome than on the present problem.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum
Only the richest, elites. I say we ship them immediately! /s

Let's get real, they wouldn't go anyway. It's too good for them here where they have people to do things for them.
just curious but how would you even capture any usable signals when passing a planet at 20% lightspeed?
Bruce Lee's sidekick isn't from the Kung Fu he originally studied. It was taught to him by a friend studying Tae Kwon Do.

The idea that Bruce Lee discarded everything from Kung Fu as useless is an oft-repeated misunderstanding.

Many of the concepts from Wing Chun remain in JKD today:

- simultaneous attack and defense (why anyone would not want to do these simultaneously I have no idea)

- occupying the centerline

- forward pressure

- wedging and flowing rather than blocking

- using tactile reflexes as opposed to your eyes

Talk to any modern martial arts practitioner and they will agree that the above concepts are sound. BJJ is all about tactile reflexes, that's why you practice rolling all the time. You can't see what the other guy is doing because you're wrapped up like a pretzel on the mat, but you instinctively know what he's trying to do by how he's shifting his weight.

What he was against was restricting oneself to silly stances and not being able to flow freely. Unfortunately Wing Chun has a lot of that.
That doesn't contradict me; it's consistent with my claim, in that (some of) the post-9/11 countermeasures sufficed to raise the difficulty threshold. I'm trying to make the point that there's a difference between random and intelligent/adaptive causes of death. Thieves attack security holes once they're made known, while bathtubs don't somehow become "more drowny" after the first person drowns in one.

The argument I'm criticizing -- that you should change nothing merely because terrorism is a low fraction of deaths -- is actually rejected by the frequently-cited Bruce Schneier in the essay you linked. He advocated -- as I do -- that we change something in response to 9/11, specifically the cockpit doors and the hijacking compliance policy.

Next time, it might help if you put the argument your own words; when you only link to a massive document, I don't know which point you're criticizing and it shifts an enormous burden over to me without making it easier to identify the point of contention. Also, the headline is "terrorism is not effective", which is hard to reconcile with the several mass-kill attacks, and which doesn't appear to be related to the point you were using from it (that countermeasures are irrelevant in light of lack of motivation).

So I ask again, what are you criticizing? I agree that terrorist attacks are a small fraction of deaths, and most don't succeed. I am claiming it does not follow that nothing should be changed after an attack. If you have an argument against that, please explain why, as that would justify reversing the cockpit-door and passenger-noncompliance policies.

If you agree with those post-9/11 policy changes, you were agreeing with me the whole time.
That will take the New Horizons 73,796 years to fly by.
240km is also what's required to resolve a feature no smaller than 100km across. I'm no mathematician and I am not equipped at the moment to pretend to be one, but to resolve a feature an order of magnitude smaller, I suspect you'd need a much larger instrument.
right? I was like, "hmm, I guess we're talking about accounting firms today on HN. oh wait. wat."
The main thread is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12351739. I posted a link to this article in the comments there.
I got an early release of this, and it is fantastic.
Auto login with my face needs the camera.

Controlling my tv with my hand needs a camera.

But yes, overall the Kinect games are not numerous - what does exist tho was, when good, really good.

Also Xbox Fitness would not work well at all without it - and that's fantastic
Having grown up playing Sid Meyer's Alpha Centauri, this article is especially exciting
Well, they can stop at the spaceship on their way back and then... I don't know
What about a solar sail mixed[1] with, ion engine[2] and nuclear powered[3]? With all those things combined, you would constantly be accelerating for many years.

[1] http://www.planetary.org/explore/projects/lightsail-solar-sa...
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/about/fs21grc.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...
Magsails would work.
Well using laser propulsion, we might be able to get a very lightweight probe up to 1/4 c using technology that isn't too far off.[0]

Coincidentally, the group working on this will be presenting some of their most recent work on this at 2:55 EST today. You can watch that live here[2].

[0] http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/directed-energy-inter...
[1]https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2016_sy...
[2]http://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2016
It's not your fault. It's the blog's
> More than _one-third_ of Italy’s richest people inherited their fortunes, compared with _just 29 percent_ in the U.S

Garbage article
Yup, and dirty NIFs for long running(>1ms) are just around the corner in BEAM.
Jesus Christ...
Why are you asking that in a sarcastic, contemptuous tone?
Is Gracie jiu-jitsu really best for winning a fight, or just for the controlled environments in MMA-style competitions? I frequently hear Krav Maga cited as the most effective for real world fighting. Grappling with parties unknown seems dangerous.
Never said it was a good idea but it's shockingly common. Also passing an interview isn't hard. Especially if you know the right terminology and are personable.

It's the day to day on the job tasks where the lack of skill becomes really apparent.
Where do you work?
We'd also have limited knowledge of the system itself. Without more accurate data about its objects and their orbits, it'd be almost impossible to plan out orbit insertions even assuming we come up with a means of slowing a probe from relativistic speeds.

Even if your probe had the computing power to run orbital mechanics calculations, there's no guarantee that it'd be in a position to actually make it work when it got there. Of course, that's ignoring the mass constraints involved.

But that doesn't discount the value of even 'just' flyby missions. The scientific benefit would be, literally, incalculable. And the data could help with followup missions, assuming we develop a drive system that could get there and slow down.
> Don't become complacent.

See this advice a lot, are there any tips on this? make more to-do list? set goals?(how to know if goal is too high instead of myself being too lazy? etc)
"Detox" doesn't start before you ever take the drug, and continue long after you stop. Might as well say that diabetes is just insulin detox.
It seems like in any case, use of "server" is generalizable or stable over situations where we have "an entity communicating requests to another entity which is responsible for servicing those requests." The problem here is that the word is invoked so as to distinguish entities at different layers of abstraction (a physical machine, a "platform", a set of supporting libraries and runtimes, a process, a function).
I think that only scratches the surface of Tai Chi.
Do you have some other information you'd like to share about that? You've just said it's "garbage" without saying why.
I had thought s390x could be based on POWER8/9, but you're right, that doesn't appear to be the case. I apologise. Regardless, Go does consider S390x to be a separate port.
“F*CK TRUMP” – A VC firm starts covering the costs of U.S. visas
> For me John Reynolds' definition comes closest: "Type structure is a syntactic discipline for enforcing levels of abstraction." But that's rather a mouthful, and not a good introduction to what types are.

The nice thing about this definition is that it reveals why reflection renders a type system useless: it destroys the type system's ability to enforce abstractions.
A small previous discussion from 2012: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3622639.
Well, be sure to check out a COBOL compiler before you write it off. But it's certainly rare.

BCD arithmetic is an artifact of history. The 4004 was targeting desktop calculators. And IIRC all of the microprocessors in the 8008/8080 era had some support for BCD.
My god, how have I seen that error page a million times and never realized it was actually a video game?
Great. Now I've got more work too. :)
I work on a product that does reconciliation for finance: that basically means comparing two lists. Each list could have a hundred items, or ten million. When there's that much variance in n, it matters what the O(n) is for any code that has to touch this data.

Worst-case list comparison for two lists of length m and n respectively, is O(mn). For 10 million in each list, that's a bigger number than you can reasonably expect to iterate through using brute force. So brute force won't do: it is imperative that you understand how everything that touches all the data scales.

"Not doing obviously stupid shit" means understanding the implementation of data structures and how they scale, understanding how nested loops multiply runtime, how recursion levels multiply runtime. It turns out there's actually a 1:1 correspondence between knowing big-Oh and not doing obviously stupid shit.

That's why it's one of our in-person coding questions: after the candidate has written up a solution to the problem, they need to be able to analyze what they wrote and understand how it scales to different n. If they don't have an intuitive understanding of the performance of code, the chances are they'll do obviously stupid shit.

(Personally, I learned about big-Oh long before I went to college, and I believe it's probably the single most useful thing to learn in CS, right up there with compiler theory (my previous job was a compiler engineer, so I may be biased). With best practices / design patterns etc., it's extremely hard to substitute for experience; I see juniors misapplying software design concepts on a weekly basis.)
The most promising technique at this point is to use optical interferometry to resolve the surface of the planet. In this case, you will need two telescopes (likely in space) separated by a baseline distance, "d". The two telescopes will require extremely precise synchronization in both spatial position and timing so that the light they collect will interfere at precisely the right phase, but if this can be achieved, the angular resolution of such a telescope in radians is wavelength/d. An earth sized planet has a diameter of ~13,000 km. To "resolve the planet", we would need to be able to distinguish one half of the planet from the other, meaning we need to see at a resolution of ~6000 km on the surface. Proxima Centauri is ~4 light years away, meaning that this requires an angular resolution of 1.5e-10 radians or 30 microarcseconds. That's over 30,000 times smaller than the angular size of a human hair held at arms length!) To achieve 30 microarcsecond resolution with our optical interferometer operating at 600 nm (visible light), we need the two telescopes to be 4 km apart, which practically doesn't sound unfeasible.

Alternatively, you could construct a 4 km telescope, but that's far bigger than any optical telescope we have now or in the near future (the biggest telescope in the next 20 years will be 40 meter in diameter).
The problem with Martial Arts is that you can just blow someone away with a nine.
Is there a browser that supports a Blowfish ciphersuite?
The planet itself could slow the probe down quite rapidly. ;)
Since we're pretty sure FTL is pure fiction and not possible in reality, that likely won't be an issue. Just because we don't know everything, doesn't mean we don't know anything.
No, it's when you define "beautiful" as "equivalent to lisp syntax" that you are not taken seriously.

Which you did. So you weren't.
The StarShot probes are going to be about a gram. Not much weight to make a primary probe AND a payload.
For the sake of argument, would it be possible to use vacuum? Maybe some kind of spongy structure, with no single points of failure, but lighter than air by way of being mostly nothing?
Strictly speaking, 112 bits of "security" is "strong" enough. The problem is this is usually measured as the log (base 2) of the number of possible secret keys. It ignores:

- Block size <- YOU ARE HERE
- Cipher mode
- Cipher construction and integrity checks (for non-AEAD modes)
- Key exchange

You can break 256 bit AES if you're using 256-bit classical Diffie Hellman, for example. "But AES has 256 bits of security!" is somewhat silly to argue in such a hypothetical protocol.

This is one reason why you're better off ignoring PCI-DSS when it comes to cryptography guidelines (aside from maintaining compliance where you have obligations to remain compliant, of course).
The Case for a Logarithmic Performance Metric
Using sarcasm is one thing, but why not follow it up with points to counter his/her argument? How about giving examples of where it can be useful in real life?
Security blogs
OK, maybe the article is right and cyclists should be able to do Idaho stops. I'm open to allowing this if the available data says it's safer for everyone.

What I can't accept is some cyclists following the law and others not. Either everyone should do Idaho stops, or no one should. What settles that is the current law.

Are Idaho stops legal for cyclists where you live? No? Then until the law is changed they are not an option, period.
Today at 2:55 EST Philip Lubin, who is involved with the Starshot project, will present some work on the study he is doing for NASA investigating the feasibility of this.

You can watch it live here: http://livestream.com/viewnow/NIAC2016
If I'm not mistaken, congratulations on getting the capitalization just right there.
Good explaination! Thank you!

That does explain it very well but I'd also argue that a syntax that requires that much explaining probably can't be called "elegant".

Powerful though? Yes. Lips syntax certainly is that.
Get a Random Video from YouTube Using NodeJs
Much as I'd like to believe it were true (my dad's niche is modular construction technology) I don't think there's any forthcoming bonanza for faster methods of homebuilding resulting from climate change. Land ownership, access to capital and ties to a particular locale are the obstacles to resettlement, not speed of construction. Finding the a suitable option out of an abundance of existing solutions for rapid affordable housing for various values of "rapid", "affordable" and "housing" is the least of concerns there. Humanity solved the problem of building housing that can cope with flood risk in preagricultural times as well, much as developers on flood plains like to ignore those lessons.

Solving regional water supply challenges (whether due to recent desertification, salination or frequent flooding) sounds like a much bigger market. Not to mention conceiving innovative new ways of building flood defences to protect the middle income people and the shiny villas they don't want to leave.

I still think the biggest climate change market in the near term is technology aimed at reducing human contributions to it, most of which also promises cheaper energy or less harmful emissions.
NodeConf Argentina 2016 Tickets Now on Sale
Just like "vale tudo" fights in Brazil before it became a sport.
Text Summarization with TensorFlow
That's a great list. Thx for posting this.
Taking stock of the new French-German encryption proposal
Still fiction; it relies on magic, i.e. things not known to actually exist.
Interesting, I would love to see a feasibility study done on this.
Why do they switch the units they use in the same sentence, except to obfuscate the fact that the two values are very close to each other? If they said 31 percent of italy and 29 percent of us, the case might seem weaker.
You got a problem with my farts buddy?
Change $190 to $500k and I think you just described venture capitalism!
Same here, after this realisation I was thrilled!
http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/stephen-hawking-r...

It says the probe would be able to get there in about 20 years, travelling at 20% the speed of light, that's around 37,200mps.

There's going to be a relativistic effect, I think 20 years from our perspective will be slightly shorter from the probes point of view?
I would file 240km under very do-able. It's nothing like, say, a solar system sized particle accelerator.
Under HoTT's take on propositions as “types where any two inhabitants are equal”, “types as propositions” is even less general than “types as sets”.

As I stated in a comment on that gist, what types denote varies from one type system to another: https://gist.github.com/garybernhardt/122909856b570c5c457a6c...
New Horizons is a traditional design with chemical propultion. Ion drives should hit ~5.5x that speed fairly easily. (http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/144296-nasas-next-ion-dri...)

A larger issue is RTG's are not useful on a very long long timescale.

ITER style fusion is likely the best power source for such missions and should hit ~1-10% of light speed fairly easily. But, building something that large is a major issue.

On the upside, we have already gone 18.1 light hours, 4.2 light years is not an unreasonable jump.
Because you have to press Space on that screen for it to activate.
Bluetooth headphones are pretty good at this point. And wire free. Do you really need a jacked in headset?
Lack of profitability isn't their problem, lack of ability to continue operating anywhere legally is.
The human brain is mostly a bunch of ugly wetware hacks, not a single coherent 'intelligence' that does all the thinking. If you attach enough single purpose AIs together you might get something much more human like than trying to create a single neural network that does everything.
How startups can generate leads
Vesper as the Canary in a Coal Mine
I must have thought the word 'can' and didn't type it because it doesn't read right as it is. I do that sometimes.
> Since P6, Intel's CPUs have used a RISC like core with a very heavy decoder that translates x86 CISC

This get repeated often, but it is actually wrong. First of all RISC is a property of the ISA, not the microarchitecture: CISCs have been breaking complex instructions in micro instructions well before the RISC/CISC separation were even conceived.

In fact modern CISCs try to not to break instructions until they reach the execution units so that less resources need to be spent tracking them (uop fusion). Some even try to fuse multiple instructions (macro op fusion, many RISCs do it as well).