skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not so much as stoicism itself, but a cargo cult version of it:
https://emotionsblog.history.qmul.ac.uk/2016/11/how-the-alt-...
Wait, what? You just described the benefits of Shadow DOM. Shadow DOM has benefits, but you could get those benefits without Custom Elements, right?

What can I do with Custom Elements + Shadow DOM that I can't do with Shadow DOM alone?
How many of these are hard technical problems vs. not enough time spent on UX?

At least most of these, with the exception of "connection issues" could be solved with better UX. Is it just a matter of time before the major providers start taking it seriously?
Quite a few countries are looking at it actively, some are even running pilots.

The problem is you can't rely on companies to do the right thing, it has to be something that comes from the government.
Custom Elements (also Shadow DOM) is a low level API that helps explain how an author can define elements that have aesthetic and functional parity with built-in HTML elements.

Custom Elements provides a lot of useful features, including: compatibility with "native" DOM APIs (e.g., appendChild); lifecycle callbacks (e.g., notification of being attached or detached); consistent timing for content distribution; the ability to "lazily" upgrade in place.

These features are generally useful regardless of the type of framework or style you may wish to use to write a component. They form a common baseline that moves the web towards a place where components (simply HTML custom elements) authored by different people do not need to be aware of each other's finer implementation details in order to be interoperable.
https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/stoicism-101/

https://philosophy-of-cbt.com/2012/10/18/the-system-of-stoic...

And "Stoicism and the Art of Happiness" by Donald Robertson is great book.
I could, but now I'm learning Golang. The sole purpose of this project is to learn a new language.
THis is in alpha on google
I read through the original paper (https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2016.10.027, paywalled).

In essence, an antibody called N6 was extracted from an HIV patient. The patient is a long-term nonprogressor who has had HIV for 21 years, but an exceptionally low viral load of <1000/mL and normal CD4 T-cell count. This indicates that his immune system has kept the virus at bay for all these years with essentially no ill effect.

HIV viruses have a surface protein complex called Env, which binds to the CD4 surface protein to gain entry to T-cells (part of the immune system). HIV cannot transmit without this protein complex, and so certain parts of the complex are very well conserved across different HIV strains.

N6 binds to this part of Env, in some sense "simulating" CD4. However, because it's just an antibody and not a cell, once Env is bound it cannot infect anything. This is what makes N6 a neutralizing antibody.

The thing that makes N6 special (more potent and more broadly applicable) is that it is able to avoid the parts of Env that HIV doesn't need for replication. Imagine Env as a wrench. The head of the wrench is a specific hex shape to mate with CD4 and can't change. Antibodies can grab on to the wrench handle to prevent infection. But the handle can change, and HIV regularly mutates this part to avoid being caught - adding side branches, changing the shape, and so forth. N6 is cleverly arranged so that it can strongly bind to the wrench without grabbing the handle too strongly - in other words, it tightly binds the head of the wrench like a person wrapping a thumb and index finger around it (this hand analogy appears in the paper). The result is that HIV has a much harder time getting out from under the antibody, since mutating itself to alter the head shape would also affect infectivity.

Now that larger HIV screening trials are done, and the technology has advanced to better detect such super-antibodies, more of these clever antibodies may be discovered. We may yet have a good shot at defeating this tricky virus!
Tetris demo – AnyTerm terminal emulator
Speculating about what?

If you are interested in cell to cell infections NIH has an article about it

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3587356/

There are quite a few other sources on Google, overall viruses are pretty sneaky, some of them even ask the cell politely to establish new cell to cell contacts to facilitate cell to cell infection.

You might also like to look up virus assembly and budding, since it's also a pretty interesting topic, you might have viruses that do cell to cell infection of their naked forms then the final polymerization of their shells happens in another cell and they might even do the final budding in another.

Expect nightmares tho ;)

P.S.

Cell to cell transfers might also be called exocytosis (sometimes also called reversed endocytosis) (exit) and endocytosis (entry) so if you are googling and can't find what you need might need to use the scientific terms.
The Wikipedia article is a fair summary I think: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism.

You could just try reading Aurelius' Meditations. It's quite a short book. There is an English translation at http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2680.

Not sure if it will change your life but it certainly brings some things into focus.
I guess it's only ok when YOUR GUY runs ramshod over the Constitution...

It's really telling about intentions, particularly in view of registries, or lists, where it's perfectly ok to keep a master list of gun purchasers, but not illegal aliens (or apparently, even visa holders). We were told "what's the harm in a list". Looks like we knew what what your intentions were the whole time for the list... Action against those people when possible or politically expedient...
What's Jango?
The problem is though that the companies that can't afford to invest in automation become less and less competitive and finally go out of business. There will always be craft industries, there are still car companies which hand craft their vehicles, but they will always be few and far between.
What Was the Nerd?
I really do agree with the advantages of Stoicisms ... and agree that they 'do it better in the East' ...

but to say: "No wonder the Stoic sage, in Western culture, has never obtained the popularity of the Zen master."

I think is pushing it a little far.

There are a lot of Christian Monks - now and throughought the ages who would be borderline stoics. And many big thinkers as well.

We (Westerners) just didn't define it very well :)
If you've been beat to the press, you might as well release your paper to salvage something from your sunk costs of time/effort/GPUs. It's inefficient because in solving almost the same exact problems, they are duplicating each other's work instead of sharing the intermediate steps. If there were more sharing of low-grade information, along the lines of 'I'm working on a lipreading CNN, it's going pretty well' 'oh hey we're working a lipreading CNN too!', then the datasets and GPU clusters and math could be pooled and better single results released quicker. As it is, now you have to read two different papers about lipreading CNNs and puzzle over the differences and two different papers about the concrete distribution trick, and they probably all came out a month or two later because everyone had to redo work for their separate system & paper.
Is there a spot instance-like mechanism with google cloud? I regularly request high memory spot instances (r3.8xlarge) on AWS for 1-2 days processes (genomic analysis). With spot-pricing it can be pretty cheap.
Sorry @grecy, I wasn't really talking about you - just a note in general and to myself as much as anyone else. :)

We can say that people are backwards looking but we don't really understand their circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of hurt is going to come and a lot of people are not going to be happy. Expect a continued wave of conservatism, because change is scary.
As soon as I saw the title of this post I thought, "somebody is going to take a jab at Millennials in less than an hour."

Was not disappointed.
Do your eyes still work when you drive through the mud or it's raining hard?
On GCP, you create a separate Project entity that can have any number of Google Accounts linked to it. In that way, the actions of your personal account don't affect the GCP project (and vice versa).

If you're worried about access, you can establish a service account with Owner level access. Or you can add other Google Accounts to the project. (Here are the docs on that: https://cloud.google.com/iam/docs/overview)

I personally have all my Google stuff separated into 3 accounts (work, personal email, and personal Google-y things). My work account has access to the projects on GCP, along with some coworkers. That puts up enough of a firewall between various services so that if Google throws down the banhammer, it's not totally game over for me.
This. I don't want to end up pleading like a beggar to the google reps (or chase and plead to google employees on endless forums) to enable my sites (or worse, my clients' sites) which are disabled by google because their algorithm detected some "suspicious" activity on my gmail account.

With google, you have to be extremely cautious (no pun intended), especially after they have become big. AWS is far more reliable in this sense, and even Azure may seem better.
not for a stock OS that hasn't been updated yet (let's say you install from a CD or re-install from an hidden partition)
Collaborating at work
I'm with you. When you are doing things as your day-to-day learning the syntax and gotchas associated with whatever language are pretty easy, but when you come at it every once in a while working with Octave or Matlab are so much easier.

I can see the benefit that tooling provides, but from a getting-started standpoint, reducing the complexity makes you significantly more productive. You can concentrate on learning the concepts and not the language nuances.

For someone who already knows and works with numpy or r, Octave might not be necessary. Then again, it's not like its particularly hard to pick up Octave and be able to work with it.
You can actually do this by assigning another email as project owner.
> If one company has expensive treatments for a disease, and another company has a cure for it (at any price), which company is going to make more money? The one who has the cure, I'd say.

That's not quite correct. The company with the cure will make more money going forward. But not necessarily overall, and the difference there is important.

Let's say you're a venture investor in biotech, and you're thinking about whether to fund the development of an HIV cure or a better HIV treatment. Both will completely replace the existing market in HIV drugs. When you do the net present value calculation for the treatment however, you'll see that you have some probability of people staying on it basically forever. That means that over time, you can extract more money from it, which means of course that you ought to be willing to invest more money in developing it.

It is through this completely rational, non-evil mechanism that treatments may receive more funding than cures. Nobody here is suppressing anything, it's just that one of them will receive more funding than the other because it has a greater potential ROI.
In western civilization, marriage is the structure of procreation and has been enshrined in the law since the 1200s, notwithstanding any religious beliefs. Procreation encompasses many facets: sexual selection, child rearing, passing property to progeny, recognition of the paternal family line. All of these are governed by the state through marriage laws in order to further the policy of procreation, the natural survival of our species.
Good to see old stuff still useful. Up here in Seattle we use old M60 tanks to shoot the mountains for snow clearance in the winter.
> This is often brought up but having had some experience in the field this does not happen.

That's not entirely true. When Hillary Clinton was running health policy in Washington, the white house threatened to impose trade sanctions on India and South Africa if they manufactured generic drugs to treat their citizens with HIV. This was before it had become an epidemic in those areas. And now that it is an epidemic, the pharma companies get tax writeoffs by working with the Clinton Foundation to provide treatment in those areas at 'reduced cost'.
Amazon does everything wrong, and Google does everything right (2011)
Startup founded by and about sysadmins. Invitation list is open for beta testing
Maybe it wouldn't keep a cure, once discovered off the market, but perhaps it could reduce investment in trying to find a cure to begin with? I can imagine that this wouldn't require much collusion, and there's nothing illegal about not investing in finding a cure. Even from a moral standpoint, it's a tougher argument to make.
I'm not sure I'd agree that Google has a broad spectrum of instance types. You can boost up individual components, but for example if I wanted an EC2 instance with as much local SSD space as I can get I could have 6.4 terabytes, while on GCE I could have 3 TB. If I want memory, Google's willing to give me 200GB, Amazon offers 10x as much.

My impression is that Google has a first class general purpose instance but you don't really get the breadth of options that EC2 will give you.
Thanks! Not sure how I missed that Amazon page. I'll get in touch with them since having access to Postgres via RDS is very appealing.
You really should have noted you were using on-demand pricing at the beginning of the article.
The reflection itself becomes easier and more automatic with practice.
I think it's safe to wager that the original purpose of marriage was indeed procreation, curbing reproductive fraud and providing stability for families. Then it got hijacked by religions and then by countries and what it is today nobody even knows anymore...
In that case, do charity organizations that collect money to cure specific diseases or cancers actually make a difference, since their donations are supposed to go to research for cures?
I think if you generalize the concepts behind each bullet point you'll find that her concepts are much more broadly applicable than at first glance.

1) Don't get coffee with VCs -> Don't spend time on things that don't accomplish your objective, even if they seem like they're 'progress'.

2) Plan your tasks. Context switching is hard, if you have a pre-planned task you can work on things in smaller gaps without having to figure out what needs to be done.

3) Ask for help when you need it, let go of things you don't have to do. Long before you get employees you could ask your support structure to help lighten the load for you.

4) Ensure feedback you receive is actionable. Don't accept broad statements, get specific details about what you can do better. Even at normal companies this can be taking a manager saying "I wish you'd demonstrate more leadership" and holding them accountable by asking "what are specific instances where I could demonstrate leadership that I did not and what actions would you like to see me taking in these instances in the future?"

5) Hold yourself to a high standard but be realistic about where it matters. Some things just need to be done, not everything you do has to be building a Stradivarius.
An earlier antibody in the same family, VRC01, is in Stage IIb clinical trials for the treatment of HIV. Medical science is slow and extremely methodical, but it can produce practical results. You just have to have patience.
I assume that there are a huge number of situations where "quietly pull over and let the human drive" is impossible.

I'm not talking about "oh hey, here's a situation I can't handle" and more "take over now".
That would have to be worth the increased confusion in communication between experts using these different languages. Furthermore, given that the physics of the "pilot wave" are not significantly different from that of the wave function it seems unlikely that it will lead to any new intuition.
Great startups.
Show HN: How much do you know about startups?
Thank you for this elegant summary!
Now, If only I could use it in the UK.

Seriously. Every time I sign up, I have no option to sign up as a individual, only company.

Friends in other regions of the world can sign up as individual, but it appears google ( in the UK/EU ? ) as decided for whatever reason ( I assume VAT calculation ) they won't offer it.

I can sign up to and use AWS ( as much as I really don't really want to ) as myself. Yet there are all of these really nice things coming out of GCP that I can't use because I simply can't enable billing. (that being said, I do use google app engine for my blog, and it's fantastic)
Amazing the things that the OpenPandora/Pyra projects have motivated ..
Maybe 50-50? Things like minimizing your own video are certainly not hard technical problems. But some apparently UX issues could become hard tech. For example, analyzing mic signals to detect speech vs. background noise to make the experience more comfortable?
Reasonable. Maybe a perception that they're lower, not middle class? Much of the rhetoric from Trump voters in this election revolves around how poor they feel/hard they work.
No joke, scientists from Canada. I'm a Mathemstica fan myself, but among scientists from Canada the Maple/Mathematica split seems roughly 50/50. I'm guessing it is popular in Canadian Univerisities.
I get my news from the following sources

- Hacker News for technology related news

- Reddit : You can customize what you see by choosing subreddits that you find interesting

- Google News : For everything else
> with only 8 of 1455 especially significant

This. It doesn't matter how clever you make the alarm. If it mostly goes off in the absence of real danger, you are teaching people to ignore it.
Yes, I agree that I should have a separate account for business. But my concern was that Google has a lot of products and services that I'm not sure where I might tripped the trigger that got my account suspended.

For example, if my business email were hosted with G Suite, and my admin G Suite account got suspended for some random reason.
> > When will AI systems become more intelligent than people?
> [...]
> Achieving [general-purpose AI with greater ability than humans] would
> require significant breakthroughs in AI research and those are
> very hard to predict.
> Most AI researchers think it might happen in this century.

Is the author projecting here, or is that actually true?
The distance from the that statement to "NASA turned to mathematician Margaret Hamilton, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, to pioneer and direct the effort" is greater than from the Earth to the Moon. The fact that Margaret Hamilton wrote code for the AGC, and led programmers who wrote code for the AGC, is not in question. However, she reported to, and worked under the direction of, several people who were in charge of developing these programs, among whom David Hoag correctly mentions Frederic Martin, George Cherry, and Dan Lickly. Her period of being the head of program development started after the software was complete.
> sessions in code blocks

I was going to ask for a little more information about this, but a quick google search led me to plenty.

This is eye opening. Thank you!
Once GC has a RDS like service for postgres, I will switch right away.
Trust me. Single sign on is awesome. You WANT to have single account to manage all of that, and you should enable two factor authentication on it.

The alternative implying 100 separate accounts is so much worse.
Okay, across the entire planet we're loosing hundreds of millions of jobs and creating hundreds of thousands.

In any of these companies we don't have hundreds of creative jobs, there are a hand full of writing, presenting, editing jobs, etc. Most work is in marketing, admin, and support. Service jobs which can be automated with some oversight.

What made you think this scenario is doom and gloom? I'm looking forwards to working a 3 day weeks as a software specification writer to supplement my universal basic income, while I sit next to a cabin by a remote lake using my SpaceX internet service.
Distribute a widget that others can use, or that you can use more easily in other contexts.
just film and show a complete flight from an airliner from the cockpit. flights are fully autonomous except take off and landing, which still are computer assisted.

all crashes occur when the pilot overrides the flight system or the runway has no support for computer aided landing (ils).

thats the only reason flying is statistically safer than driving.
Interesting response.

Really interesting given that white supremacists also tend to be anti-semitic, and most of the same tropes about Asians also apply to the Jewish community: Focus on education, low rates of crime, etc.

Maybe that's just a factor of how modern white supremacy came to be, though (i.e. Nazis).
I'm surprised HN doesn't automatically bounce green-bean posts containing the word "shill".

Arguendo, it's not clear what "Hill" partisans hope to gain by shaping this particular narrative. She got beat, again, she's done. Obama is probably concerned with his "legacy", so maybe there's some shilling to be done there...
> Alternatively never had this issue when I've COLO'd

Taking it one step further in precaution (and from experience): We have some servers colo'd at a small datacenter. We use it strictly for our operating website and don't put anything for customers in that data center at all even though it would be convenient and save money. The reason is we don't want any bad actors that we might have as customers potentially impacting our main operations. This is in addition to vetting customers as well actually.
yes. If Tesla really wants a good test, try autopilot in Morocco!

all at once: moped taking over from the right, in a round about, truck entering the roundabout without slowing down. donkey & cart on the side. woo hoo!
Gab.ai Founder Andrew Torbahax PURGED from Y Combinator for Supporting Trump
Custom elements are not related to templating. I suppose they did it this way because they were highlighting custom elements and not some templating thing.
One of the main problems I had as a startup founder with getting a good video conference solution for the team was setting up meeting rooms with hardware. There are very few good all-in-one solutions out there and most of the ones that do exists (Lifesize, Cisco, etc.) are really expensive and not a great experience either.

I've been fairly happy with Highfive[1], as they are the closest I've been able to get to "plug-and-play" video conference rooms. And for the most part the usability is good. The biggest problem we had was that the app would not work with some other companies we wanted to connect with because of their firewall settings, however they are now supporting WebRTC which means no app, no special firewall settings for guests in your conference. I have yet to try the new WebRTC stuff but overall I can highly recommend Highfive based on our first few months working with it.

[1]:https://highfive.com/
I'd say the big idea is to make using and reusing of those elements more declarative. With the Shadow DOM, you can also hide all the internal clutter, which is extremely convenient if you use some widget in many different places.

It's true that you can achieve something similar with templates (or partials), but those are tied to a specific platform or stack.

The <template> tag is also quite neat since the (inert) subtree is created immediately and then cloned when instantiated. This is quite a bit faster than creating HTML strings which are then parsed and finally turned into elements.
In many ways it's where we're at. The top 1% having the wealth of the bottom 50%, etc.