skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's hard to say. Industry experts like Scott Aaronson have gone back on forth with regards to whether or not it's 1) truly a quantum computer and 2) capable of real improvements over classical computers for anything nontrivial. Point #2 is perhaps more important for practical purposes.

I down-voted this. I have only a layman's understanding but from what I have read particularly #2 is demonstratively false, D-Wave has not achieved any improvements over classical computers for anything (including it's very own domain problem, which Alex Selby's classical algorithm outperforms D-Wave on). [0][1]

[0] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=2555#comment-974407

[1] http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1400
> It's a programming abstraction, to create your own "implementation" of the API you still have to use code that is identical to original.

Not if you think of it like this really rough analogy: if the software product is a closed box, the API is the different configuration of holes cut in the box, and the code is whatever is inside the box. So you can imagine that boxes, despite being cut with identical holes, could hold different things within.

Going a bit deeper would be to consider that software with identical API, and different implementations may have different run-time characteristics between them. That is, the same API call in one implementation may take twice as long to execute than in another implementation. Further, depending on how explicit/rigid the API spec is, a call in one implementation could have some "out-of-band" behavior (e.g. affect another software system unbeknownst to the calling routine; or every API call may be logged in one implementation, but not logged in another).
I've had to use a few parts that claimed to follow a standard footprint, but where subtly off. Another part I've used if you read the datasheet carefully you ended up with a completely different footprint than what first glance would suggest which is my biggest problem with upverters part concierge as they helpfully "fix" my footprint to the incorrect one.

Will we be able to comment on the footprints or leave reviews on how well that footprint worked?
Their audience still has tons of 20-somethings [0], and a lot of topics on HN are catered toward startups, which are (like it or not) biased toward 20- and 30-somethings.

[0]: http://www.recode.net/2015/3/26/11560724/heres-the-chart-tha...
Yes, I agree a philosophy scholar would do that but what about economists? And is it leisure for economists to read even a few of the classics or is it work related? It could be both I suppose or maybe anything's leisure that doesn't move the ball forward on the current project they're working on. Fair enough if that's the case.

BTW, is a quant a practitioner of applied economics? I do know the trading related work they do at least the popular perception of of the work they do.
> The "split token" password reset is snake oil.

One of two things just happened:

1. You're being intentionally offensive where it's not really warranted
by calling this proposed strategy snake oil.
2. You don't know what snake oil means.

I'm going to assume the latter. Here's the thing:

- Hash functions are deterministic. You'll make timing attacks more
difficult, but you aren't removing the underlying timing leak.
- You database engine almost certainly doesn't compare strings in
constant time in SELECT queries, so there's almost always going
to be a timing leak in SELECT queries.
- Separating the timing leak from the authentication (and making the
latter constant-time) properly alleviates this risk.

Other solutions (relying on the avalanche effect of hash functions, using a random sleep, or sleeping until a minimum amount of time has passed) are brittle and harder to reason about than solving the problem directly, which is what the article proposes.

See also: http://stackoverflow.com/a/28486617/2224584

You might disagree with the technical details and arguments laid out, but it isn't snake oil.
Download the PDF, they are quite readable but not very interesting.
Rdio had significantly better "play random songs I probably like". And you could select the level of discovery vs. familiarity you wanted. The only reason my Spotify discover weekly is good is because I made sure to save all the songs I had previously saved with rdio.
How some French companies reward long-term shareholders: prime de fidélité
Because you can get achievements/levels/points. I think you underestimate the allure of something that has been well gamified. Especially as this is done somewhere the gamer already spends time, and may have a noticeable impact. It grants "power".
> What do I want to do with my phone that I don't yet know I want?

Untethered VR and AR. Rendering views in stereo for an extremely pixel-dense screen (>4K) at the highest frequency possible (>90Hz) while processing camera feeds and depth sensors for positional tracking (>90Hz).
How to Turn Frustration into a Million Dollar Software Business (Part 3)
Maybe you're right but I haven't heard of any sensible alternatives.
21 has some fun tutorials.
https://21.co/learn/

The intro to bitcoin concepts is great place to learn about blockchain.

https://21.co/learn/introduction-to-bitcoin-concepts/#introd...
Forget Virtual Assistant need online data collector
It's more exhausting than creepy. Being filmed all the time, anywhere and in HD.
I would have preferred the 2 clause BSDL myself but they were free to choose CDDL.
I do hope they scan before administering.
That's Chaos Monkey.
base64 is just a data storage format and something that is required if you want to push data via GET. They're talking about pseudorandom numbers using a CSPRNG, with appropriate length, that's normally adequate for this scenario.

Can you explain in more detail why base64 makes you "cautious?"

> Just store the hash of the token (ideally stretched like any password) in the database

That's actually LESS secure. Their scheme has an ID (or "selector") and a hash ("verifier"). This means you can limit attempts against a single ID/account and also aren't going to compare a hash entered to every record in that table.

What you're proposing is massively weaker than what they propose. It also has timing attack problems.
I am going to take a step back from the technical merits of this and say the whole thing seems sad. I don't need a need a dog collar on my neck or a badge on my shirt. Lastly, you know life is over when you spend your time talking and hanging out with a AI bot. Our society has become so isolated because people are on Facebook and Instagram instead of talking to each other.
There is a chaos monkey that does that: https://github.com/Netflix/SimianArmy/wiki/Chaos-Monkey
Nature’s libraries are the fountains of biological innovation
So classical liberal is where it's at foundation wise for the field of economics? In case it's not obvious I have limited knowledge of Econ. My formal training in economics consists of Intro to Micro, Intro to Macro, and a course in Political Economy.
You forgot one:

"Serverless" = server
I think the glasses are stupid, but then again, I thought the whole idea behind snapchat was stupid to begin with, yet here we are.

Obviously my finger is not on the pulse of today's youth. I don't think the kids today will be too inclined to shell out $130 for these gimmicky things, but my judgement on such matters is demonstrably terrible.
I'm not sure how to interpret the fact that you just typed this message into a textbox.
This is nice. Where I disagree with him is about "creativity being embarrassing" -- this might be true for some, but not all. I, personally, thrive on having someone else hear my idea, and at least say, "Huh," which gives me license to think further (rather than pause in despair, or remain stuck on that one, unarticulated thought).

Something along these lines that I have been thinking about, yours for a nickel, is applying some principles of evolutionary biology to other domains with a selection process, specifically business and innovation.

Species need to innovate in order to survive the vagaries of time. The process they use for doing this is selection, and the currency they spend is genetic diversity. The more standing genetic variation a population can hold onto, and the more freely it can move through the population, the more efficient selection will be, and the more easily that population will adapt and develop new features. These two quantities, the census population and overall population structure, are usually summarized in a single variable in many evolutionary models, the "effective population size" (which, for the curious, is usually measured as about 10,000 individuals for humans).

We might apply the same principles to an economy in search of innovation. In this case, our selection process is a bit different, since instead of "survival and reproduction" we have something like "attracts capital and grows", but ideas can also spread and grow via conversation, etc. In this way, they are not atomic and indivisible like genetic variation, and their segregation is perhaps subject to more than just a selection process.

The meat of the comparison, though, might hold true: we want both a large census population of innovators (to generate a large pool of diverse ideas) AND lack of "population structure", meaning things that prevent the flow of new ideas in the population (to allow those ideas to be excavated and exchanged efficiently rather than die on the vine unfulfilled). Monopoly is an obvious bad one; but so is orthodoxy of any kind. For example, if the sources of capital are highly constrained and are only willing or able to fund certain sectors, are risk-averse, etc., then innovation will be correspondingly constrained.

This sort of thinking appeals to me because it demands: 1) widespread education in order to increase the pool of idea-generating individuals and 2) easier access to capital worldwide. Racism or classism is an obvious kind of 'population structure' that prevents capital from flowing evenly to all corners, and if our goal is an innovative (and therefore healthy) society, we should remove these hazards.

Of course, this is only metaphorical and breaks down in many ways, but I find it a fun thought.
>We didn't just say "hey, fuck those nips". It was the best option for everyone involved.

It was the most politically expedient option. The US had the atomic bomb, but couldn't use it on Germany. Not using it on Japan would have been unthinkable, and impossible to justify to US soldiers and their families, in the face of the potential lives lost invading Japan.

However, I'm certain the US would have used the atomic bombs regardless of what atrocities Japan committed, or whether Japan started the war, or how Okinawa turned out. In the case of the US invading Japan, they would have used nukes to soften Japan up for the invasion, and still invaded.

I can't accept the moral justifications made for using the atomic bombs because I'm not convinced there was any scenario in which the US would have had them and not used them.
HP outrages printer owners after it blocks the use of cheap ink cartridges
I agree the term has become somewhat throw-away, but to be fair any AI system probably IS just ML/DL algorithms. That is, ML/DL are avenues to create AI. I think most people would agree that AlphaGo is an example of AI and was achieved via DL, so by that definition it's just some DL algorithms.
Well, you do live in probably the most Internet-hostile part of the world.
It is the most expensive Cities in the world. And yet our government is doing jack about it.
Sure. But one is a huge walled garden, with ambitions to eat up the rest of what we used to call the open web. The others are small fry, in comparison.
Really curious about how this will pan out as everything said in the article screams at me like someone has no clue how difficult making the device is going to be, regardless of how much ”AI” runs on it.

Hardware is really hard.
Yes. Here's an example of a part page: https://snapeda.com/parts/LTC6995HS6-1%23TRMPBF/Linear%20Tec...

On this page, you'll notice the following:

1. You can upvote or downvote the part
2. You can leave a comment on the part
3. We have automated algorithms that uncover common defects in parts on the Validations tab. This is a patent-pending technology we developed that we plan to expand further to include more checks.
I should clarify - I agree with you in that #2 is demonstrably false. But Aaronson has gone back and forth on his skepticism for D-Wave.[1] He is now rightfully back in the skeptical camp, however.

My main point was that acknowledged experts have gone back and forth on this and there have been conflicting publications about D-Wave's computers. Now that I review the research again, it looks like it's been experimentally shown to have legitimate entanglement implemented in the computers, but the consensus is indeed that there is no quantum speed up or improvement or classical computers.

Thanks for the reply though, I've edited the original comment.

[1]: http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=639
Everything promised about the Itanium relied on a "sufficiently smart compiler" which proved harder to write than anyone expected. It's being kept alive now solely because of legal agreements (e.g. see the recent HP vs Oracle case). Technologically it's a dead end, I don't think too many people dispute that in 2016. It's just a shame that it killed SGI.
Nice!
Drip campaigns - https://www.sendwithus.com/resources/guide#ch2-drip

This is an example of a project that is not UI centric, has quite a bit of database integrations (postgres), mailer integrations (mailgun), scheduler (https://dzone.com/articles/distributed-tasks-execution-and-s...). It has also has a bit of math to compute stuff.

Even without a UI - it is something that could be very useful!
You're welcome! I wish more people would do retrospectives on their 'Show HN' projects a few years later. Especially if it went belly-up, because sometimes those stories are even more interesting and insightful!
Thanks. Will fix this next time we deploy updates.
All Nigeria Today's Newspaper Headlines [24 September, 2016]
He is like Jobs in the sense that he didn't invent Snapchat and he didn't code it. Maybe he articulated the philosophy of it being an anti-Kodak moment app.

The article quotes someone saying Evan's the "best product visionary" they had ever met. Give a smart kid a hot app, millions in funding and thus more smart minds, and great things can happen. But let's not overly romanticize it.

I am impressed by Snapchat's evolution, Stories etc but all that is somewhat obvious iterations on someone else's initial idea.

Snapchat is fun and sexy for a variety of reasons, none of which correlate well with people wearing clunky glasses. Spectacles aren't cool and won't be. It's a head-mounted camera. It needs to be more sleek, more expensive, and have some novel features to be considered a status symbol.
The suggestion to make password reset opt-in during signup will never fly. Useful advise starts from the actual behavior of today's users, not the hypothetical behavior of a perfect user.
Also:

d) The recommendations algorithm is one of the primary ways that YouTube users find videos to watch. No matter how bad its recommendations are, a lot of users will still act upon them, simply because the recommended videos are so visible. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: videos that are frequently recommended are viewed many times because they are seen so often; the high view count on those videos makes them high-priority candidates for recommendation, and so on.
Base64 is an implementation detail so it is kind of strange to see it mentioned here. It also obfuscates things so you often see it used in insecure solutions.

That is why the use of base64 makes this look suspect even though on close inspection the ideas are probably valid.
Yes, that's why it's different. People aren't ready to commit to wearing technology on their face. This is more like a costume or a party game, something to try out briefly in a friendly situation rather than commit to as a serious part of your look. It would be more popular if it were cheaper, but at least people can pass it around.

It reminds me of the difference between Google Cardboard and real VR in the level of commitment required.
> Trust me when I say he's intelligible.

I shouldn't have to trust you, his writing should speak for itself.

There are multiple reasons to write. One is to, you know, actually communicate ideas. I guess that wasn't his goal.

Another reason is to virtue signal. "Hey, I know more big words than you do and can string them together, therefore I am cultured." Maybe that's his motive. His essay reads like every single post-modern paper that dresses up simple ideas in big words to try to make them seem profound.

Like putting spinning rims on a Toyota Corolla.
I highly recommend the Princeton book and associated video lectures as a place to get started. It does a great job of framing things in the context of the wider fields of cryptography and distribute systems research.

http://bitcoinbook.cs.princeton.edu/
What the F#
Hopefully this kind of problem will be solved within a decade, do you think that's a reasonable time scale or is this problem even unsolvable?
Not a kid, but I absolutely love the idea of a camera at eye level that can capture what I'm seeing. Many times I've missed random animal sightings or funny moments because I didn't have a camera at the ready (and sometimes it takes a while to dig out the phone).
Interesting. Thanks, you've given me a few things to read up on.
While the Manchurian offensive was big and very successful, the Red Army was massively more effective than they were in 1938-9 when they'd previously stomped the Imperial Japanese Army, they simply didn't have the resources to seriously invade the home islands.

At "best" they would have been able to take a port in northern Hokkaido, which would have been terribly obnoxious after the war, but not by itself strategically significant after they'd taken so many of the islands to the north. Details about this, and the massive resources that would have been required by us to take just Sapporo, can be found in the highly recommended Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) I recommend elsewhere in this subthread.

To imagine this was a major factor in the decision, when e.g. Truman's ship to the Potsdam Conference crossed the path of 4 US divisions being shuttled from the ETO to the Pacific is ludicrous. E.g. we're still issuing Purple Hearts from the initial lot MacArthur ordered, which was estimated to be 1/4 of what would be needed for Operation Downfall. This was also not long after the survivors of the Bataan Death March had been rescued, we were very much in a mood of revenge, see Grove's autobiography for a direct citation of this in reference to the bombing of Hiroshima.
These don't look comfortable at all.
This is effectively what China is currently doing in the South China Sea [1]. These also happen naturally from time to time, see Surtsey [2] and for that matter Hawaiʻi.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_wall_of_sand

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtsey
The other post that was linked in the snippet that mentions base64 is far more likely to make people nervous: https://paragonie.com/blog/2016/06/constant-time-encoding-bo...

It's about an implementation of RFC 4648 encoding (including base64, base32, etc.) that doesn't index based on secret data.

Consequently, if a practical cache-timing exploit is ever demonstrated in existing implementations of encoding functions, the open source library we wrote will be immune.
Pictures are only 1ms. Nobody had problems with it. More would make you a journalist and trigger people privacy alarm completely. The snapchat lockin is "bad" in theory, but snapchat is leveraging its market/brand/whatever and to their audience it's a no brainer.
That's not ESR's point. It's shoplifted from Brooks.
Ah makes sense. Thanks for the info, will look into this.
from my exp in the us this is extremely close correlated
The two cases are great examples of democracy. People want to elect a president that other people (like you) greatly disagree with. People want to vote for an amendment to their state constitution. (It was later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but before that it had been ruled constitutional by the state supreme court in Strauss v. Horton, so there seemed to be legitimate room for debate.)

California Proposition 8 passed the public vote with 52% in favor, and Trump consistently polls above 40% today. Do you support boycotting every company where at least one executive officer belongs to a 40%+ part of the population? Do you really expect that, if applied fairly, this wouldn't result in boycotting almost all companies in the market? Would you support policies routinely vetting the private behavior of company executives? Are you alright with the other camp boycotting companies whose executives hold opinions you support?

I believe that people should be able to employ, be employed, and not be ostracized, regardless of their private strictly legal and in fact mainstream political opinions, however odious those opinions may be to a subset of the population. Quite apart from morals, it's the only workable equilibrium in a politically polarized society.
Fuck off, Snapchat
These products draw a lot of attention to the cameras, even the black model where they could have blended in they're outlined in yellow.
Bit harsh to describe the Millenial generation as "tools".
I guess it's a matter of what "want" means. People might want it in a few moments, and some see it as obvious but the actual people are not "in the mood" right now. Basically, what you just said (I only read the first sentence before typing heh).
That depends on your threat model and your audience.

If you're building a typical e-commerce platform, no, it won't. That's why the recommendation is so watered down with "if reasonably practical" and has entire sentences dedicated to "it's OK if you default to Yes, but please give them a choice".

But if you're building the next Silk Road? You should default to opting users out unless they check the opt-in box.
That's how I feel. Then again, I'm a college student who can't afford one sadly.
And he matched that by action, delivering the results of his radio-chemistry masterpiece (e.g. getting results from just a few thousand atoms!) first to his exiled colleague Lise Meitner, which follows a very straight line to the scientific success of the Manhattan project through her nephew, who did his Christmas vacation with her when she got them, and then in England with Peierls figured out the fast fission path to a practical device, and then on to America.
What about the problem of some people freaking out if they feel like they're being filmed?
The possibilities are endless. What if the AI you're looking for is spirit? :-)
Awesome! Making footprints is the single most annoying part of PCB design. Looks great!
I love the mental image of you playing with your daughter wearing garish sunglasses
His "fault" a very direct way: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12568722
Why is this innovative? Can't you just zoom in the video to get the same effect
Your SaaS' text to background contrast is quite low in some places, makes it very hard to read even with good eyesight
I spoke to a few people from UK, and my guess is that people who voted for Brexit will have a better understanding of it.
No one is against the trade and economic integration, but they are against the political integration.

Then there is the languages. There is a different trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin as well, and trying to get everyone to speak Mandarin Only, while actively trying to kill Cantonese.

I really like the word Genocide used in this thread. It sorts of describe what is happening.
Why California's Property-Tax Regime Is the Worst
Is this where people should go to make a production level PCB's for products that are prototyped on something like a raspberry pi? Or is it serving a different market?