skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes but it's also a practical psychological question. A person can come to a mental state where nothing in life interests them yet they wish there was something they enjoyed.

So, although possibly mundane, there is a point of view where the question "does anything in life have meaning" is less interesting than the question "is everything ok".
Definitely but then is is still n * sqrt(n)? Do I have to add sqrt(n) to each n i'm processing? I doubt so.

I think the problem is that at each stage there is different component (sqrt(n)) that comes into play.
Chesterton wrote about the folly of globe-trotting:

"The globe-trotter lives in a smaller world than the peasant. He is always breathing, an air of locality. London is a place, to be compared to Chicago; Chicago is a place, to be compared to Timbuctoo. But Timbuctoo is not a place, since there, at least, live men who regard it as the universe, and breathe, not an air of locality, but the winds of the world. The man in the saloon steamer has seen all the races of men, and he is thinking of the things that divide men — diet, dress, decorum, rings in the nose as in Africa, or in the ears as in Europe, blue paint among the ancients, or red paint among the modern Britons. The man in the cabbage field has seen nothing at all; but he is thinking of the things that unite men — hunger and babies, and the beauty of women, and the promise or menace of the sky."

- http://www.ccel.org/ccel/chesterton/heretics.iii.html
It took me way too long for this reason. I got it instantly once I realized I had made that limitation up.

I feel like there is some sort of lesson, here.
The article demonstrates that memory access is an instruction that actually has O(n^1/2) performance.
There is a middle ground between tuning an algorithm to the exact memory hierarchy of the system it is running on and ignoring the problem altogether: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache-oblivious
Yes, and if I do this:

try:
...
except Exception, e:
return 200, "ok"

then I've completely eliminated the problem of 500 Internal Server Error.

Just because you redefine taking money you don't need from productive people as "entitled" doesn't make the problem go away.
> Now what about the kids of undocumented workers?

What about them? Those kids are themselves either citizens or (improbably) legal permanent residents (and thus, beneficiaries) or not (and thus not). This isn't rocket surgery.

> Will people in retirement continue to get their social security?

That depends whether Social Security is a replaced program or not (IMO, it shouldn't be, since its not a means-tested social benefit program.)

> How will we pay for all this?

With new taxes plus the redirected funds from replaced programs.

> Assuming 418M people

From a few different sources, I get that the US population is 319M, about 93% citizens and 3.6% lawful permanent residents. So, assuming 418M beneficiaries of a UBI is unreasonable.

> at $13K which I typically see mentioned as basic income

$13K/capita is a just about the point at which two-person household would clear the poverty line, so its not a bad point to consider a reasonably mature UBI; OTOH, I'd prefer to identify a funding mechanism that should grow with economic growth, and have benefits scaled so as to (in the long-term, smoothing short-term variability) follow that funding mechanism, eventually reaching such a mature level (and going to even higher levels with more growth) rather than setting a benefit level and then trying to fund it out of the gate.

And I wouldn't expect a mature UBI for a generation or so.
Wouldn't you often charge at night, when electricity is cheaper?
Dedicated Team of Problem Solvers Can Help Big Companies Act Like Lean Startups
I had a Singaporean (from Inida) "investor" sign docs only to stall, lie, and eventually fake wire transfers (also from wells fargo, which is ironic in this article). Tried to forget the guy, but think he first name was Sumanth. Be careful if anyone comes across this fraud!
FreeBSD Project: Under the Hood
I essentially have the same questions as you do. I'd like to evaluate Cloud Foundry, here, where I work.

I'll probably bake-off DC/OS and Cloud Foundry; maybe I'll also bake-off one or more of DEIS Workflow, SuperGiant, and maybe Apcera.

All of this is an eval for an enterprise-grade Docker platform, for development through production, including CI/CD.
The D Language Foundation is now a tax exempt non-profit organization
My thoughts on e-voting have changed as I've grown older.

In high school and college I said technology is the future! It's insane that we're still using paper and pencil for something so important. Computers are better at counting than humans. Yay e-voting!

Then I realized that you can't trust individual company or organization with that much power & any trusted e-voting software would have to be open source so that it could be independently verified by security experts everywhere.

Then I learned more about how many 0-day vulnerabilities exist and are being stock-piled by state actors for every layer of the stack -- routers, firmware, operating systems, browsers, popular code libraries, etc. It's all been compromised. You can't trust any of it. So you'd have to open-source the hardware too & probably keep the whole thing air-gapped from the internet. And still that might not be enough!

Today I believe there's no way to secure a system (electronic or not) without publishing a log of every vote cast. This gets tricky when you have secret ballots, but there are a couple ways to handle it. The first way would to be to allow people to choose whether they want their ballot to be public or private. That way you'd end up with enough public votes that you should be able to tell whether the election was massively rigged or not (assuming you expect the private votes to follow the same distribution as the public ones). The second option would be to assign everyone a private one-time key when they vote -- a receipt they can look up later. Everyone can then look up the key from their voting receipt on the public log and make sure their vote was tallied correctly. The second option has the benefit of keeping secret ballots, but you'd need a separate way to verify that the number of lines in the public log is the same as the number of people who showed up to vote. That can be solved by publishing a list of who showed up to vote.

Of course, we can't know for sure that we've had a fair election while the NSA dragnet continues to exist. We would never know which candidates were forced to drop out from those in power using their access to surveillance intel to blackmail a candidate or leak their dirty secrets to the press.
I think you should consider the trade-off.

If you toggle visibility with CSS, you still have to put everything in the DOM. Sometimes, putting things in DOM can be very expensive. Consider a date picker, a fairly complicated thing with many sub-elements. If you have to put thousands of date pickers in the dom, that's going to take a lot of time. Especially if the user only sees one if they click on an event to edit it.
You keep asking questions implying that they're problems when in reality they're just really not that big a deal. Tax bureaucracies have dealt with exceptions since forever. Same thing with legal systems.

This is not the slippery slope that you're implying; you can certainly draw certain lines when the system that you're building has limited scope and leaves the outliers to other benefits systems.
This is indeed the standard solution. There is also a more difficult version: Every prisoner is required to have the same strategy (so you cannot pick a unique person F). (Every thread runs the same program, and threads do not have access to a unique thread identifier.)
this is true....and thankfully this technique is also being taught in some CS algorithms classes.
Mine is 2011 i7 2.8Ghz. I upgraded it with 16 Gigs RAM & Samsung SSD. It's simply amazing.

I'm really sad that those new models are not-upgradable. I was looking for a new laptop ( because my battery is giving up ) and I'm disappointed that Apple is soldering the RAM.

I hope if there are new MacBook Pro's they will also upgrade friendly.
It sounds like you are not happy. If that is the case, why not explore what opportunities you have for a better position (whatever better means to you)? If you find something that you are confident is better for you - then you should pursue it, after all you have decided it is better for you.

You might find in the exploration that you actually don't want to move on yet. Maybe you will miss the people, flexibility or sense of ownership. Maybe the kind of role you are seeking would require a move you don't want to make etc.

Alternatively maybe you find your perfect gig (great people/problems/pay/etc).
If you read the "Deployment Schedule" in that second link, you'll see "Sept. 20 [2016]: The first 2048-bit ZSK will be pre-published in the root zone."

Looks like the prosecution might only have a few weeks of rest. :)
Total aside and this may be too late into a crowded thread for anyone to notice this. But have physicists ever rigorously examined the idea that quantum "duality" is explained by computational complexity?

I know it's more metaphysics/interpretation, but that's what we're talking about here. I also know that universe-as-simulation is a very popular notion among laypeople (particularly programmers) who look at physics. I'm just wondering if any physicists have rigorously studied the idea, and if there are falsifiable propositions we could make about this.

In game programming, one often cannot compute every detail of every component of a simulation. So, what you often do is focus more precise computation on areas around a player, or what the player is actually observing. The rest are often modeled stochastically or via computationally efficient functions. This has always mapped well in my (very surface-level, entirely layman) understanding of QM and QFT.

Note that there are, in my mind at least, two different notions here. One is actually the concept of a simulation with observer-dependencies directing the fidelity of the simulation. The other doesn't imply a "simulation" nor is it directly dependent on any "observer": perhaps computational complexity is related to the fundamental physics of the universe and nature prefers to use imprecise probability estimates wherever possible and it is only when precise interactions need to be resolved that more precise or definite calculations are performed.

I know these are sloppy notions as presented here and I'm not taking the time to phrase these questions very well, or very precisely. Busy atm, sadly. Just wondering if any well-reputed physicists have studied this possibility rigorously, or if it has been rejected for an obvious reason, etc.
Murky US Rules Appear to Be Harming Cuba's Internet Access
Nuclear would solve a lot of problem if we are able to overcome power transmission issue. Not everyone wants a nuclear power plant anywhere near them. But oil would still be used for plastics, transportation (airplanes, tankers), heating, etc...
I find this really odd, it's not wrong, but it doesn't invalidate O(1). It's mashing two-things together that are unneccessary and can cause misunderstanding.

Big-O provides a decent tool for generic analysis and an understanding of access times of memory hierarchies. Since memory hierarchies can vary, they shouldn't be considered while doing generic analysis, much anyways.

Both are important to understand. The key thing is setting your Big-O access expectations to the slowest level of your heirarchy. In that way, your expectation remains generic and still proximally accurate across the average cases.

When you consider them together, think of the heirarchy as a series of piecewise functions that modify the value of the constant time based on the speed of the bounds that fit your data.

This square of N notation falls apart in other cases. 128GB's of RAM would have roughly the same access speed as the 8GB's he had available, if he had that much in his system. But having 128GB of RAM would completely destroy the squaring by flattening an entire magnitude from his hypothesis.

But it is a nice display of memory heirarchies, IMO.
Stunning Arel extensions
Typically executive level hires negotiate severance from the start.
All in an effort to reduce its memory footprint...
To me, the number one sign is the deterioration of HR policies. Beyond late salaries, when they begin doing away with flexible work environment, like variable hours, and try imposing things and micromanaging, effectively treating knowledge workers like shop floor laborers (there isn't anything wrong being a shop floor laborer, I am just providing a reference), it is a sign of what is imminent.

I used to work at a place, a 10 year old established medium sized company, that was hit so hard by recession of 2009 that it disintegrated. The HR thing I mentioned is the period I can trace back to to say when it was the beginning of the end.
I hadn't heard of Zinc. Looks like a cool service.

Is it possible to collect Amazon affiliate commissions when "selling" a third party Amazon item?

I can't imagine Amazon would be okay with that, since every "sale" would come from the same IP of Zinc servers.
Python being or becoming the most popular introductory language for CS is irrelevant to understanding what graduates know. There's 4 years between their introductory course and their graduation.

A good CS program will introduce CS students to several (hopefully many) languages. Some form of assembly, imperative languages like C, something like C++/Java/C#, hopefully a "purer" OO language like Smalltalk, functional languages like the ML-family, and others. Ideally with a properly chosen language (or a couple languages) in each of the first series of courses, and leaving it up to the students after that for their 3xx and 4xx courses.

And any CS graduate who can't pick up a new language in short order has been cheated out of a good education by their school.
I asked for perspectives, I didn't make a proclamation that it was enough

A couple people have said more VMs, ok great, that is a valid perspective

It is interesting to see that this is on the path to confirming that there is no improvement in processing on the host OS at all then for even the edgiest of edge case developer users.
Benchmarks of FreeBSD 11.0 vs. DragonFlyBSD 4.6 vs. Linux Distributions
The article is conflating theoretical algorithm analysis and low level implementation details.

Big O analysis is a theoretical measurement of algorithm performance. By definition it ignores details like memory access speed, the exact instructions used, and other details of specific hardware architectures.

Real life algorithm implementations obviously need to deal with those low level implementation details, but that doesn't change the theoretical analysis. It's easy enough to find (or design) machines without cache where this difference in memory speed doesn't exist.
Is Spotify targeting Apple’s ‘exclusive’ artists?
Except that this brought a lot of bad attention to the company and the people who work there
The whole shipping industry would move an order of magnitude slower though: bulk container freight still moves via ocean, but inland? Rail could become much more valuable.
Maybe we could

1. take away all the existing CA=YES certificates

2. stop using SMTP for domain verification, and issue the certificate at the same place that a domain's NS records are set (i.e. in a domain registrar's control panel), preferably in way that clients won't accept certificates issued by unrelated (and there unauthorized) domain registrars.

As I mentioned the other day, nobody is talking about revoking ".com". We'd have multiple registrars under ".com", and if one behaves badly, revoke that particular registrar. Also, if ".com" itself is out to spoof you, then you have already lost as a .com domain owner, so maybe we SHOULD revoke all of .com if proof of that surfaces, so that everyone will know that .com can't be trusted at all anymore.
I think most people will have an intense emotional reaction to this point and suspect that you're either trolling or delusional. I don't think you are, but I think you're presenting a weak argument (that contains a few valid observations) in a poor way.

Maybe current SSDs are a little faster and maybe current CPUs are a bit better, but logically speaking, you're technically right that there's an argument to be made that most people won't notice a significant difference (if any at all) in performance today with an update if they already have a reasonably new machine.

The counterpoint to that logical point is that this won't necessarily be the case a year or three from now. Requirements eventually go up, things such as VR emerge that require a big performance increase. New OS-level technologies are released that take better advantage of things like more RAM, CPU cores, graphics cards, etc.

But really, you're ignoring the human and emotional aspect to this. People feel like crap when they buy something and the new model is released a couple weeks later. When people are paying that much money for a machine, they're expecting to get the latest and greatest that will last them as long as possible. I don't think it's hard to understand.
Catalog Your Books Online
The CEO blamed ADP for the payroll being late. When you combine that with the lack of paystubs, if alarm whistles aren't going off, you are just not paying attention.
I would say it differently: you absolutely should trust big O numbers for data structures and use that as a major guiding principle in terms of how to structure a program ... and you should require extraordinary evidence, like a surprising result in a performance test, before navigating away from trusting the big O analysis.

What this all says to me is that for an extreme claim (e.g. using an array and doing a linear search will be faster than a hashmap lookup) it should require equally extreme evidence to substantiate it (e.g. the results of performance tests that stand up to heavy scrutiny).

I feel there is a trap in which someone might look at this sort of thing and say, a-ha I don't actually need to care about big O reasoning or standard understanding of data structures at all! That would be a tragic misreading of this sort of example.
That doesn't seem to work for me. http://imgur.com/1iVDjnJ
> Accusing someone of using a classic Soviet argument tactic is a classic Ad Hominem tactic.

This.
model as in 3D model
Brussels ruling could hit Apple with billions of euros in back taxes
FocFoc — A Lovely Collection of Things That You Can Get for Free
My tl;dr layman's understanding is that in CA, missing a payroll equates to the company is no longer a going concern. It's a serious problem to miss a payroll, and this is a good thing. If you are responsible for payroll at a CA company, you need to see a potential shortfall coming well in advance and respond preemptively by negotiating [hopefully] temporary salary cuts with your employees or preparing the team to go on unpaid leave (this is legal - you should continue paying their insurance premiums though).
XSS flaw in D-Link NAS devices allows attackers to mess with your data
Ha! Let's see those gerrymanders in AZ try and redraw the lines around Chelyabinsk, eh Komrades!
The styles on this page looks like a fanpage for britney spears in 1997
It is better in that we're eliminating CAs and limiting possibility of issuing malicious certificates to root domain owner.
Does anyone know what about this is using AI? Seems like it's just using their Midas product and then sending emails to contacts using uploaded templates.
slowly but surely we'll get the first Math built.
I like this idea! In my research we deal with relatively large amounts of sequence data, all of which needs to be associated with geo (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gds/). While geo is in many ways a good thing, it is not the most pleasant to use - I would love it if we could use something like torrents instead.

I feel like there is a danger, however, that using torrents would facilitate the thousands of nonstandard (often redundant) formats bioinformaticians seem to create.
> Here's why we don't: YOU CAN'T.

But that’s one of the main points of the article: You don’t have to. Asymptotically, you won’t be better than O(sqrt(N)) because physics does not allow it. You can put all the different caches in you want, you can buy the most expensive RAM there is, you can buy the best interconnect systems for the fanciest NUMA cluster you can find: You won’t beat O(sqrt(N)) if you wish to go to arbitrary N.

Of course, if you bound your problem size, you may well get O(1) access times and for some applications, it may well be sensible to consider the coefficient associated to the square-root scaling small enough to neglect it, but if you truly want to talk about algorithmic complexity (and not just the scaling of one particular implementation for one particular range of valid N), you should take that additional square root into account.
Whiz App – Have your questions answered by real people in real time
> That is a worry of mine, that 7 years at this company looks bad on a resume.

7 years looks solid & respectable in a space where there's 100% churn every 24 months. You've got a great story to tell.

Relative to negotiating your departure and future compensation, Stuart Diamond offers excellent advice> http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8095067-getting-more
Well done, simple, informative.
Other replies were a little salty, and I can only say from personal experience------- but the awareness that you're out of it takes away some of the sanctuary of being high... especially if you're even moderately comfortable (in life, in mind, etc). Feels like you didn't come by it honest, and ruins it some.

On the other hand, if you're stuck in a shithole with a metric tonne of inner demons, it's pretty much tops.

Contentment, opiates.
Happiness... like that innocent 'AHHHHH TOMORROW'S CHRISTMAS!' joy, I'd say MDMA instead
Instead of income, what about necessities for a modern life? Shelter, safety, medical care, nutrition and internet access? These could be provided at a minimum instead of the income (ostensibly) designed to be used for these things.
I think it's housing, although there's a big hurdle to make it valuable since you need stuff for people to do first.
Brooklyn Bridge Venture’s Charlie explains his thought process to entrepreneurs
It does not do that. This is a misconception. It is not a little bit false; it is totally false. We will not stop having 1035 CAs if DANE is deployed. We will have more: one new one for each of the TLDs, plus a new one at the root.
How I Built a Custom Camper Van (2015)
Interestingly, Coursera uses these timings to authenticate that it is really you taking a quiz for one of their courses.
VMware's next play: Managing all clouds for enterprises