skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I'm pretty sure that if someone had the numbers, the marginal energy/environmental externalities of a bar of home soap compared to that of industrial soap + transport + packaging would be miniscule[1].

> [1] Q: But what if everybody did it? A: Perhaps it would add up in that world. But we don't live there.

If you're comparing like with like, that shouldn't make a difference (unless you claim widespread small-scale soap production is somehow actively hurt by more people doing it).

> To look at it from a different angle, I'm also pretty sure it is more energy efficient to cook large batches of food than small. Do you suggest single people and couples not cook at home so as to benefit from the energy-saving-economies of scale?

You're talking about solving a huge coordination problem. They're talking about keeping on using a solution to a huge coordination problem that already exists.
I have a great deal of respect for Rand and her ideas, despite not agreeing with them.

However, her status as an intellectual heir of Aristotle is highly debatable. She's as much a disciple of Nietzsche as anyone.

Meanwhile, metaphysics is a subject that stems directly from Greek philosophy: specifically the subjects addressed in Aristotle's work Metaphysics (literally "the book that came after Physics"). Spinoza's theory of monism is itself a metaphysical theory in this sense.

Perhaps by metaphysics, you mean to certain metaphysical theories, such as the Idealism of the 18th century?

edit: missing punctuation
And a perfect illustration of why "I'll just leave this here" is so much worse than a simple description of the link target.
"yes we can!" built the atomic bomb.
What a strange thing to do. Is this due to some C-style string handling? Why should any hashing function treat input as text?
Yes, I do think it's a stretch considering their agreement with OEMs requires OEMs allow for diabling SecureBoot and require allowing users to enroll their own keys.

The PC market and mobile phone markets are very different, with a huge precedent already being set that mobile ARM devices are locked down. Are you equally upset that iPhones and virtually all Android devices also have locked down bootloaders?

On top of this, Microsoft cross signs the keys used to sign the Linux bootloaders so that they work out of the box even on computers that have only the default MS keys enrolled.

Considering that most people fail to grasp those two salient points when presenting their conspiracy theories... yes... I feel comfortable dismissing most of them out of hand.
The asset manager in question, Mattias Westman, wasn't Norwegian.

> there are US based asset managers with private funds that generate 20-30-40% per annum, for over 20 years.

That seems extremely dubious. Do you have any sources?
Version 1.5.1 was released yesterday: https://github.com/libjpeg-turbo/libjpeg-turbo/releases
>leaving me looking for a new job while on a work permit as a single mother of three

Uh...
I wouldn't know, but from what one can hear from prominent Apple pundits and podcasters, Apple is not doing great at all in this regard, to put it mildly, compared to Google (and other data vacuumers). Examples: Google Photos is running circles around Photos, and Alexa around Siri. People who love and live Apple admit Apple is pathetic in this space. I doubt it's because Apple is incompetent. These problems require huge amounts of data and processing power. You can't do that locally on a mobile device (or even a PC class computer).
I feel really happy for all those high end Mac users stuck with the Apple Garbage Can.

You're right, they seem entirely disinterested. They tossed it over the fence three years ago.

And to rub salt in the wound they still charge the same price now as the did at launch for Ivy Bridge processors!
Do more like these! I like how the questions and responses weren't about being women in tech while raising unique experiences

We would all love to get to the point where it isn't a noteworthy discussion, but for now allot of people need the SEO of women in tech so they can find something relatable
It's not post facto justification at all I would suggest.

The wording of "secret conspiracy" was inspired by the original posts this morning on this exact subject which cast the matter as exactly that, and it was those posts to which that comment was referring.

The idea that a single customer support representative would know something which was previously unknown and unstated across the positions of two of the largest corp's around seemed unlikely.

What I've been trying to suggest to multiple posters here (and apologies if you think the arguments are circular but people seem to keep bringing the same points up repeatedly) is this.

which is more likely, a mistake from one low-level employee of Lenovo or a deliberate plan by two large corporates to secretly (the use of secret is justified by the fact that it's not their stated position) use the disk driver configuration of a laptop to block alternate OS installs.

really which do you think is more likely?
> Not sure why there is a lot of negativity here.

Because there is a widespread dislike of Zuckerberg on HN and most other similar discussion forums. Happens in every thread about him. He's an uber billionaire that got rich serving ads on a social network that couldn't be any more mainstream at this point. Facebook is viewed mostly as a privacy invading corporate monster now by the crowd that dislikes Zuckerberg. He plans to donate all of his wealth and what you mostly saw on here in discussion was venom and conspiracy theories about how it was nothing but a tax dodge (which only betrayed the vast ignorance on tax laws).
Because Anton Zeilinger has proven in his experiments that "teleportation" can happen faster than speed of light. It's what Einstein said was "spooky" about "quantum teleportation" that it contradicts theory of relativity.
for DICOM, don't you need some way to do segmentation to get to the data that you actually want?
5/5 in 35 seconds. It's mentally taxing. Some I wanted to reject, but i had to think of fairness. If I rejected everything I agreed with, I would probably have rejected them all. I would have to be paid at least $350,000/yr to do that everyday for hours. I would still hate my life.
Companies are typically beholden to shareholders and customer reputation, which in this instance is pretty strong.

You could just as easily argue that it's better to have a few gatekeepers with a strong reputation for security than a proliferation of many gatekeepers with little history or reputation, because the latter increases your chances of showing up on haveibeenpwned.com.
You just laid out YOUR version of a perfect company. There are, of course, plenty of people who disagree with you.
Well, to be fair I am responding to the grandiose statement that he made, not the more reasonable one that he could have made.
Writing gives me a reason to live. Programming gives me an enjoyable means to live.

A bit of a hyperbole but there are things in my mind that can only be acceptably expressed and understood by others when I write them as fictional worlds. Things programming can't express.
No, it's because a comment like yours doesn't add anything. For one, you're factually wrong. The article called out their lack of actual success and it wasn't because of the guy watching them.

But even if that was it, it'd be like going into an article about a rape and saying "Well, he was horny. Not justifying, just explaining..." Of course the rapist was horny, and of course the police were annoyed at having their authority questioned. But offering these explanations when they aren't needed is explaining-away their crimes.
... and the inhabitants always lose
Unfortunately the requirement of "one that runs all of their software" is the one that means that most new os's are posix/unix clones of some variety. There is too much human effort invested into the posix userspace for us to start from scratch. In fact even Microsoft seems to be struggling with this inspite of their entrenched position.
> Here’s the program written in Python. I used it to find every Munchausen number less than 500,000,000. After thirty minutes or so of intense computation, it turns out that the only Munchausen numbers are 1 and 3435.

This is an awfully long time to wait for something that is very clearly optimizable. If we are searching for Munchausen numbers, then we are probably going to do so in a brute force way. (We could optimize this with various symmetries, such as digit permutations, but let's ignore this for now.)

If we are going to brute force it, then we are probably not going to exceed 64-bits, which means we can avoid using bignums altogether. Written correctly, this would be extremely fast in C.

With this code [0], on my machine, with only meager optimization effort (not thinking too hard about things other than data types), I can go through 3 billion in less than a minute:

> (time (find-munchausen 3000000000))
Computing all Munchausen numbers below three billion.
Evaluation took:
57.087 seconds of real time
57.059879 seconds of total run time (56.840355 user, 0.219524 system)
99.95% CPU
159,836,797,604 processor cycles
401,488 bytes consed

(0 1 3435 438579088)

The assembly code for the Munchausen test is relatively tight (though not at all as good as handwritten, of course), which makes evident why we check so quickly.

; 8E2: 4C8B05A7FFFFFF MOV R8, [RIP-89] ; #(0 1 4 27 ...)
; 8E9: 488BD9 MOV RBX, RCX
; 8EC: 0F1F4000 NOP
; 8F0: L0: 48BA9A99999999999919 MOV RDX, 1844674407370955162
; 8FA: 488BC3 MOV RAX, RBX
; 8FD: 48F7E2 MUL RAX, RDX
; 900: 488BFA MOV RDI, RDX
; 903: 4883E7FE AND RDI, -2
; 907: B814000000 MOV EAX, 20
; 90C: 488BF7 MOV RSI, RDI
; 90F: 48D1FE SAR RSI, 1
; 912: 480FAFF0 IMUL RSI, RAX
; 916: 4829F3 SUB RBX, RSI
; 919: 488BF3 MOV RSI, RBX
; 91C: 488BDF MOV RBX, RDI
; 91F: 498B44B001 MOV RAX, [R8+RSI*4+1]
; 924: 4839C8 CMP RAX, RCX
; 927: 7E0E JLE L2
; 929: B917001020 MOV ECX, 537919511
; 92E: L1: 488BD1 MOV RDX, RCX
; 931: 488BE5 MOV RSP, RBP
; 934: F8 CLC
; 935: 5D POP RBP
; 936: C3 RET
; 937: L2: 4829C1 SUB RCX, RAX
; 93A: 4885DB TEST RBX, RBX
; 93D: 75B1 JNE L0
; 93F: 4885C9 TEST RCX, RCX
; 942: B917001020 MOV ECX, 537919511
; 947: 41BB4F001020 MOV R11D, 537919567 ; T
; 94D: 490F44CB CMOVEQ RCX, R11
; 951: EBDB JMP L1

[0] https://bitbucket.org/tarballs_are_good/lisp-random/raw/mast...
And now it's practically useless. It's not a one-sided battle we're in, and we're heavily outnumbered.
Which is a remarkable scientific achievement, independent of its use.
A little over decade ago, when Norway's fund was called "the Petroleum Fund" and had "only" $147B, an article in Slate magazine explained what was special about it:

"Norway has pursued a classically Scandinavian solution. It has viewed oil revenues as a temporary, collectively owned windfall that, instead of spurring consumption today, can be used to insulate the country from the storms of the global economy and provide a thick, goose-down cushion for the distant day when the oil wells run dry."[1]

Since then, the fund has grown six-fold.

[1] http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2004/10/avoi...
MS doesn't write a lot of drivers for hardware. Even the stuff they provide on disk has a lot of drivers written by a third party. Intel's RAID mode is something that's not supported by default on Windows 10 even, which means you have to have the special RAID driver for even Windows to work on it. Intel has the driver info and isn't even releasing it to any OS makers as far as I can tell.
You're not seeing the big picture...

Microsoft is only supporting the use of Linux within their business model and nowhere else AFAICT. So they support things like running Linux on their cloud platform (they're getting paid... looks good) or as a client under their desktop platform (they're getting paid... still fine).

But when they get cut out of the loop, that's where their behavior is still suspect. For example: locked bootloaders where Microsoft effectively controls the keys to the kingdom via certs. Yes, you can disable this functionality (for now) on x86 but I don't believe that bypassing is possible on ARM short of exploiting bugs/leaked keys. Why is that? Because they can get away with it. No doubt they'd go the total lockdown route on x86 if they thought they could get away with it. Why can't they? Because the Linux crowd (a VERY vocal 1%) would blow a fuse and raise such hell that it might wake up the DoJ.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. It's not strange, it's a long and storied tradition... Microsoft has just gotten better at spin.
All disease with $3bn? https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-we-do/budget
I'm not surprised at all, though I personally don't understand the mentality. I see it all the time: "Microsoft has changed their ways! Look, they've released Powershell for Linux!" etc., completely ignoring 30 years of history plus all the very recent user-hostile moves in Windows 10.

I guess a lot of people are just really naïve sheep. Also, notice how others saying stuff like this here on HN are downvoted into oblivion.

It's probably a tribal mentality: just like people become fans of some sports team (Giants vs. Red Sox) or car brands (Ford vs. Chevy) and develop a religious fanaticism about it, probably the same thing happens with Microsoft and Apple (we definitely see it a lot with the latter). Worse, with MS in particular, a lot of peoples' livelihoods are tied up in the whole MS ecosystem. So perhaps all the pro-MS downvoting and posting is coming from people who've bought into MS, especially for their careers (namely, legions of .NET programmers and MCSEs).
> 20-30-40% per annum, for over 20 years

It is impossible, at least continuously. Nobody has ever managed to do that. You'd be lucky if you could beat the market by a few points on average over a 20 years time period. Compensation well for good performance does not make sense when you aren't penalized for losses.
The libjpeg.so in Debian (from the current stable release onwards) and Ubuntu is libjpeg-turbo.
They already have lost the more price conscious consumer, and that's fine for them. You're not seeing the spread of more expensive places like Five Guys, In 'N Out, etc because price is king anymore. McDonald's can try an (realistically) $.89 menu I guess, but people seem willing to shell out a few more cents for the marketed illusion of quality.

In fact, they shell out far more already.
Thats Crazy! I was started at 5 IIRC.
So methylene blue actually does something? I was researching a lot of this stuff for my 60year old father. He recently experienced a psychotic episode. But now it turns out he actually has neurological damage (already sclerotic), most likely beginning of dementia. The doctor prescribed donepezil (aricept) and I give him some supplements: coconut oil, turmeric, alcar, b-vitamins, lecithin, omega 3. Now I'm trying to get my hands on Montelukast (asthma drug, needs prescription) and MB.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12548608
I almost agree.

I dislike the full screen overlay you get with the start button. I'm all for animation, but the fade and slide of all the windows is objectively bad. The full screen nature of the menu is also full screen metro levels of bad - and even MS ditched that.

I personally get "dash to doc", "activities configurer" (remove activities button), "pixel saver" + Albert - binding it to the start button.

This is the minimum I need to make it a functionally intuitive experience.
(slightly old) discussion here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11604922
I'm divided; I really want the article to be true, and for everyone to realise what a whole mistake we've been making all along... but, as the legions of us who don't adjust for gamma demonstrate, ignoring it doesn't make the world end?!
Venturebeat has been somehow obsessed with trying to make this bot a "thing". I read HN and many tech blogs, but venturebeat is the only site that's still talking about bots like it's the next big thing, when everyone else has moved on a couple of weeks after facebook launched their bot platform.

I'm fine with them trying to make this a "thing", but at least write a high quality article if you want it to be effective. Articles like this is nothing more than some meta collection of what's been regurgitated forever and ever (and most others have moved on because they don't have any more interesting narrative).
Yeah, the oil fund averages just 0.25% above index, and that's without the extra cost of being actively managed factored in (although its huge size probably makes it impossible for it to be passively managed).
The last time someone expressed this to me, I found out that he sells signed photos, and I bought one:

http://www.chuckyeager.com/right-stuff-store

Obviously I have no connection with this, but it cost me $250 to get a signed photo from the first person to fly faster than the speed of sound, which I really appreciate, and that opportunity won't be around for ever.

And no, I will never sell it. :)
The fake accounts generated $2m in fees, so $185m fine seems like a pretty high multiplier.
Toll booths are always bad, unless the human population takes a nosedive. The relative merits of getting a bill later are utterly obviated by not having to wait in traffic.
Why bad science persists
Wunderlist outage, six hours and counting
Are you so sure about that?

http://venturebeat.com/2016/06/02/google-news-starts-showing...
A DNS Primer
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11604922
Thank you! This is definitely one of those things where my understand was inaccurate and this thread has been immensely helpful to improve that.
Evolution doesn't decide of course, although your comment just brought to mind another thought:

Evolution exhausts the lowest energy possibilities first, before moving on to higher energy configurations. The surviving lower energy configurations are then in effect used as legos to create higher energy, more expensive configurations. If any of those building blocks are "deprecated", perhaps this effects things up the line, leading to the probability that cheaper, more basic constructions will survive longer because they have fewer steps in a given dependency chain.

Maybe this is obvious to people that understand evolution well, but I hadn't considered it that way before.

In this way, upon reaching some equilibrium where there are base features that reliably survive, evolution "decides" to try more complicated things. My abstraction could be totally off though, so feel free to tell me so if that's the case.
I can't speak for the past, but I think the big deal for the testing of the future will be shifting from "forty percent of the test subjects responded positively to the drug; none of the side effects were that bad" to "80% of test subjects carrying thought-to-be-marginally-relevant gene Y showed positive responses to the drug but none carrying gene Yvariant; those also carrying not-suspected-of-be-relevant gene X exhibited much stronger side effects"

That should make initial testing a lot more expensive, but in the long run launches of new drugs less risky.
Astronomy as a field has been relatively friendly to small collaborations, particularly when compared to its bigger sibling, physics. But the trend towards larger projects is real and can be seen in the authorship statistics [1].

But I feel that it is oversimplifying somewhat to compare big projects to little projects, as the two aren't necessarily in opposition. Oftentimes large projects are collecting data to answer a small number of important questions, but in the process of doing so produce data that is useful for individual astronomers. While those big, important questions may be useful for justifying the project to grant agencies, everyone knows that the real value is in the (unpredictable) science that the dataset inspires. SDSS is a good example of this. (In fact, my very first summer research project as an undergraduate took advantage of SDSS data.)

It's true that once those driving questions have been answered the big players look for the next big, shiny project. But the data is still there and is accessible to the community. That makes it possible for an astronomer to answer interesting questions without needing to expend the telescope time and money to collect data that are already there.

But not all large projects are like that. The risk is if the field moves away from large projects which are more or less glorified catalogs (e.g., SDSS, Gaia, LSST), towards large projects that don't offer much in the way of ancillary science to individual astronomers (LIGO and Planck come to mind here, but someone more knowledgable about those projects should correct me if I'm wrong).

[1]: https://orbitingfrog.com/2012/08/04/authorship-in-astronomy/
As soon as we stop calling categorization algorithms "machine learning". It doesn't help to not know what machine intelligence isn't.
Would it help to move away from print journals, to online journals with comments sections so the community can discuss any potential flaws?

Publishing the data seems like it would help, although might not be possible where there are privacy concerns.
The US would need 56 trillion to achieve the same level of per capita income
> Then there will be species conflicts. Merck people won't be able to mate with Novartis people because they'll be too different genetically.

I don't think this will be a problem if you get to the point of genetically engineering people. You just can't mate the old fashioned way, but if anything that's a benefit- free birth control. IVF + genetic modification of the egg cell, assuming your technology is that advanced, should be the easy solution.
Nowadays GPUs are able to convert between sRGB and linear automatically when reading and writing textures. There's no more excuse for incorrect rendering on modern hardware!
Yeah, maybe I do lack some perspective having never worked for a truly giant company. My parents both work at massive banks (in technology, in fact, my dad has almost the same job as I do), and a lot of what they talk about is how much politics they have to do on a daily basis that has nothing to do with their job, but rather just appeasing golden retrievers with treats and belly rubs.

But then, this goes even further to show how every situation is different and there's no umbrella of advice that works for employment.
Would be nice to hear how this is database-free. Is it a static site generator? Is it using files?
A Very Long Post About How to Become a Creator
If this initiative funds studies on non-profitable treatments (fasting, nutrition) or counter balance industry backed lobbying, they will earn my respect. But if its to dump money on AI, yes its just sad. Google and Facebook AI can't fight the most basic spam. Seeing the same tools curing cancer even in the long run is a little bit far fetched ...
Well, Slenderman had the video game Slender popularize the meme, so I would expect the trend to be dominated by people who came to the meme via that game rather than the organic growth. From that chart it looks to me like creepy started spiking around the same time creepypasta did. To be fair, creepypasta is the name of a genre at its origin source, whereas most people are going to see stories downstream of the origin and search for them with queries like "creepy black eye kids" or something.

I guess I would qualify that I think this meme is probably what caused the 2007 spike. Later growth in the creepy space is probably more due to online dating becoming popularized; this would allow creeps to be creepy with virtually no possibility of retribution.
> The particles when measured will result in the other particle ending up in the opposite of the measured state, and this inversion persists even if we do operations that preserve the quantum state.

This is the part that I don't get - what's the physics mechanism behind this? It sounds very Schrodinger's cat.

It also sounds like a great way to tell if your information has been unknowingly accessed when it's travelling between two supposedly secure locations.