skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
(long)

Thanks for the interest. It is quite an odd career trajectory.

I was torn about physics vs engineering when I went into undergrad - and the advice I got was one led to more certain income - so engineering it was. However, I always felt I had missed out on "cool stuff". After working for two years, my wife decided to go back to grad school in Kingston (2 hours away) - after a year of long-distance marriage and frugal living, I quit and took a year of random physics courses (basically third year physics). I managed to get a summer job with a GR prof, who wanted me to write some Maple code - this became an an early version of grtensor.

At this point I had finagled a spot in the Master's program at Queen's, but my wife was accepted into a Phd at McGill/Montreal - so we went there. I took another term of undergrad courses (4th year phys) and found a prof who needed a student who could code - and I was accepted in the Master's program at McGill doing experimental particle physics linked to an experiment at Fermilab.

After a year at McGill, spouse decided her supervisor was not doing the work she thought and she wanted to head back to Queen's. I scrambled to finish my MSc and then went to Queen's to start a PhD in general relativity.

In a weird "Forest Gump" moment - the time at McGill attached to the CDF experiment at Fermilab means that my name is one of the 500+ names on the paper announcing the discovery of the top quark.

At Queen's I studied GR and astrophysics, leveraging my coding ability into making tools GR researchers use to this day. After the PhD, we had a young family and didn't like the look of the post-doc grind and the constant moving/low-pay that it entailed, so went off into the high-tech world.

I've spent 20+ years in hi-tech s/w. Joined yet another startup two years ago. It's still really fun. Thinking about physics is also really fun - so I try and keep a stream of physics-y side projects on the go.

Maple has since evolved and GRTensorII has gotten stale. One prof has been staying on an old version of Maple since he relies on GRTensor - worrying that when his computer dies he would have to stop using it. I figured it was time for a fix up. This is what I am doing now. I recently took a "sabbatical week" to jump start the exercise. Hopefully it will be public by the end of the year.

There is some background on how I have approached the math in a blog post I wrote last year: http://nbodyphysics.com/blog/2015/02/28/learn-physics-with-t...

For me the take away is something Scott Adams once wrote about. Either
1. Become the best at one specific thing.
2. Become very good (top 25%) at two or more things.
(http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/07/care...)

I chose (2) and it allows me to wander through both engineering and physics.
Sounds like Polywater:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywater
One of the foundations of democracy is "secret ballot". If it's possible to algorithmically deduce who you're going to vote for, a tyranny can easily take you down or try to influence* you in ways you shouldn't be.

I think you have no idea about what you're taking here. Other option being you benefitting off of surveillance in some form (Don't want to be rude, only addressing the concern.).

* We experienced this first hand in the 2016 elections -- which is why it always felt weird to most of us all the time.
If you read through their conclusions, they suggest that there may be a quantum vacuum capable of transmitting oscillations and this vacuum is what this this device pushes off of leaving a wake behind.
I don't agree at all: being so quick to dismiss energy-momentum conservation is pretty much the same as anything goes. Noether's theorem runs really deep. For an example of an existing (non-crankpot) effort, have a look at the attempts to find Lorentz violations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_vi... That's more like what it looks like when people try to do it seriously.
This gets brought up every other thread on the subject of 'registries' for minority groups, but if you haven't you really should read IBM And The Holocaust:

The upshot is that Germany used their census data to figure out who is and isn't a Jew, but they also used records from synagogues, surname analysis, and other pre-war 'big data' sources along with incredible amounts of IBM equipment to compile their list of undesirables.

https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corp...

With the NSA, Donald Trump will have access to more information about the demographics of American populations and who comprises them than the Third Reich ever had about its own citizens. There will be no registries. And in the throes of a national security hysteria comparable to the fears of influence from anarchism in the early 20th century, there will be no internal will at these agencies to oppose him.
Conservation of momentum is something 'tested' throughout physics. It's not like we're short samples and it will turn out it's 99.9907132% conserved.
Julian Assange Status – Time since last proof of life: 46 days
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/198800...
4 space indentation and not tabs. What would Hendricks say?!
New Concentrated Solar Plant Will Power 1M Homes
In the UK all the GPO and later BT had contingency plans for nuclear war

https://londonparticulars.wordpress.com/tag/british-telecom/

They are also name checked in the laundry files.
A kilowatt is comparable to a space-heater or an insane gaming rig. A Tesla burns about 20kw for normal driving.

Now, a Newton is the amount of force it takes to hold up an apple (or accelerate it at 1G). So a millinewton would be the amount of force it takes to hold up a blueberry.
The Grand Tour – One Man's Review
And may those scientists who devote their life to stuff like this, but who will never find a solution, be (y)our heroes as well!

It's a game of big numbers, much (very smart) trial and error I suppose, and never finding something meaningful may result in much frustration. Still this has to be done because you simply don't know which path will lead to the solution.
I like to consider the difference between 'one','a couple','a few','several','many'. e.g 1,2,3-6,5-12,10+ respectively.

>Vagueness isn’t a problem about logic; it’s a problem about knowledge.

I think it's more to do with context. The transition from 'a grain' to 'a pile' to 'a heap' where those terms are actually useful is normally clear in the context of whatever problem we're trying to solve.

The confusion arises from the fact that 'a grain' is considered to be well-defined without context and that language refers to it directly. Thus we lament that we can't adequately define 'heap'. Whereas in fact all language is metaphorical and indirect, and definitions can't rescue us from this. So even the label 'a grain' is fuzzy if you look deeply and scientifically enough.
The Film J.D. Salinger Nearly Made
Step 1a) have a bunch of venture capitalists have you on speed dial.
Surveillance is not the same as transparency. In fact, the people doing the surveilling work very hard to protect their own privacy.
So who exactly was put at enormous risk? Which specific document put that person/those people at risk? They keep touting this out, but never actually manage to tell us which piece of information caused this to happen. NOTHING I've read so far would actually do what he's claiming has happened.

As long as we're going to talk about the death penalty for people outing spies, I assume he's going to personally see Dick Cheney held accountable for outing Valerie Plame, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair
I've watched The Daily Show from other hemisphere, growing up. Really love the dude. But please, he returned from retirement just to lambast a presidential candidate! Reducing his whole carrier of awesomeness to nothing more than being an agent of influence, media hitman for hire! And nowhere in his mind were the "let the people decide, they are not cattle". Yeah, he is charming, smart, did a lot of great things. But during those few months of presidential campaign he lost all moral weight he had in my eyes.

Trump is garbage candidate. Hillary is to blame you have him. In Trump vs Bernie race Trump would had a really hard time.
The NRA is actually a corporate lobby representing gun manufacturers heavily disguised as a "rights group for concerned citizens".

Point being that there is a strong profit motive for the lobbying and lots of ready cash behind it willing to fund campaigns for re-election.

For privacy groups there isn't the same kind of profit motive in favor of personal privacy.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

In the 3rd step.
I found my last job through Angellist (http://angel.co) Give it a try. Also, depending upon your technology, there might be niche job boards. For example, for laravel jobs there's http://larajobs.com
101010
You need a real hacker with discretion and top servicing to go to for all of your cyber issues, then pauleta.steelbreaker on gmail is the one you should consult or text +1 928-323-3115
I love this kind of discussion -- the danger of initial hiccups prejudicing people against the future potential of a tech.

If most cars are autonomous, then it seems pretty reasonable -- people will get used to them and I think we'll figure out standards of politeness. Like elevators: "Don't press all the elevator buttons, but it's okay to request your floor even though it slows down other peoples' trips."

But the tricky part is the transition period, where only a few cars are autonomous -- and I guess that's what this article is talking about. How can we help that transition?
Most alternate explanations make it not very exciting, though.

Assuming it is not actually violating conservation of momentum, it's pushing off something. Either that something is some part of the apparatus (in which case it's a boring old reaction drive) or else it's something environmental (in which case it's probably not going to work in the very different environment of deep space).

For this thing to be exciting as a drive per se, one of the following must apply:

1. Violates conservation of momentum, and like literally everything we know about physics is wrong.

2. Pushes against some kind of omnipresent ether-like medium, and darn near everything we know about physics is wrong.

3. Pushes against something in the device in some kind of very efficient way (ie accelerates reaction mass to a much higher exit velocity than conventional drives do), in which case why haven't we detected these high energy emissions?
I think I get what you were going for, but I think David Deutsch's idea[1] of "explanations that are hard to vary" may be a better metaphor. The basic idea is that we can come up with all sorts of ad-hoc explanations for any particular phenomenon, but if you can just arbitrarily change your explanation (the means) in response to events (data) then it's manifestly not very good at prediction (the goal).

Just to get back on track: The point is that we have a huge number of explanations, currently, which are "hard to vary". You need a commensurate amount of "hard to vary" explanations to counter that. That's why it's very hard to overturn e.g. the 2nd Law of Thermoses, erm, Theormodynamics.

[1] I think, from "The Beginning of Infinity"... Actually, I can't remember if he cited anybody else for this idea, but I can say that it's the first place I came across it.
For those who can't imagine how easy is to produce such an experimental error, the measurements are comparable to what's appeared "unexplained" in the case of the "Pioneer anomaly" until a very careful analysis was made:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly#Explanation:_t...

It's much easier to produce "some results" then to prove that the researcher didn't fool himself.

Re Pioneer: "once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains."

Now from the EmDrive paper's conclusion actually confirms that not everything was proved to be "sure" even from the point of view of the authors:

"Although thermal shift was addressed to a degree with this test campaign, future testing efforts should seek to develop testing approaches that are immune to CG shifts from thermal expansion."

Why too much public attention before the whole thing is actually proved can be dangerous:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2014/08/06/nasa-v...

"When the results of the Cannae Drive prove impossible to validate (as will almost surely happen), it may produce an unjustified cynicism about how NASA has failed us once again."

It's just a very small team "devoted to exploring unorthodox propulsion ideas." "The reality is that space exploration is expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. Therein lies both its challenge and its glory."
No idea what their titles were but they worked entirely running manual tests. I ran some manual tests myself as an SDET but this was different.
Actually i have and gave up on it after 2 h.

Like it or not, i fight for the users! Better to bitch about things that could change- then instead of bitching about ignorant users not adapting to once comandline User Interface for Ecell . Because you wont train everyone into a coder.
The problem is that pedestrians on the sidewalk could potentially become an unavoidable obstacle at any time if they walk into traffic. For this reason there can never be a 100 percent safe system until vehicles and pedestrians are physically separated by barriers or separate structures which may happen eventually in some new urban designs.
If the phenomena is real then it means that some theory is wrong or incomplete, but not necessarily conservation of momentum. In the paper they give some ideas how conservation of momentum can be preserved. More research needs to be done for sure, but the phenomena being real does not necessarily mean a rewrite of physics. We have to wait and see if it is real and what the underlying physics is. Only then we will know how wrong/right our theories are.
Www.toxicwap.com Android Download /TV Series/Movies/MP3 /Videos
I cant think of any serious constraint solvers without some sort of optimization support, are there any?
YMMV (and this is my personal view, not necessarily Google's), but in general you want to have resources associated with active owners. Otherwise when Bob leaves, and his zombie solo project which you no longer have any control over gets pwned, you're going to have an even bigger problem.
The misery of one's life has no predictive power on the likelihood of suicide.
Its portably more a telco thing some of the uk's big telecoms buildings are butt ugly. Baynard House and the main lab building at martesham in particular.

One American burst out "its a f&^king prison" when he visited martelsham.
I'd think power is a problem. This produces a very slight acceleration with a kilowatt of power, while it looks like a 3U (triple stack) cubesat might produce ~14 watts.
There are bookmarklets for Vimeo, and a Firefox add-on for controlling all HTML5 video speed.
Sorry, I can be quite literal at times. It comes from decades of reading engineering specs.

I do however view "selection" as an act omission. And I believe in the context of presenting information citizens have a common interest in, omission is a lie.

A key selection in the coverage of the election was to avoid disclosing the relative sizes of the crowds at the campaign rallies of the respective candidates. Accurate information may have spurred some of the 46% of people who didn't vote to go to the polls. I'm strictly independent, but I believe more people voting is always better.

I also believe a lot of bias comes in with the analysis of facts or statements, which can lead to omission of important perspectives. And I do believe often times, these perspectives are shaped by the needs of the network's advertisers.
Agree with everything you write except,

> That this is being published in a journal which does not cover basic physics is not helping

AIAA is an extremely reputable journal and society. All the members are extremely familiar with conservation of momentum.

The observation of superluminal photons (later disproved) was published in reputable journals as well.

No scientist took either result very seriously. However, the observation of anomalous results is a result worth of publication and communication to other scientists and engineers.

As a practicing scientist, I can assure you that peer-review does not mean something is 'correct', but that is it not provably false, and that the results may be important to the community.
Ask HN: Which are the most secure domain registrars, in your opinion?
Sounds like CloudFlare might be a good bet, considering this: https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-cloudflare-registrar/
when you park it

"by your command"
The task is a point-and-click interface, for other tasks keyboards are not very useful of course, having only things to click on them and all.
That certainly is a cynical way of looking at it.

I want to own guns. The gun industry wants to make guns. Our wants align and therefore we are more powerful working together than working separately.
The guy who flashes them at the end of the production-line in the cheapest country available.
That's not a good comparison to make.
They're not even out of beta, yet; give 'em a bit of time first. :)

For what it's worth, I've been on the beta for a few months now, and have known Eamon for years. They're very good people, and I'm really stoked to see this out in the wild.
True, that could have been brought up with greater diplomacy.

That being said, I can understand the over-reaction, it is indeed frustrating to see relatively weak articles making front page because they originate from NASA when earlier, more thorough research did not get any attention because their authors were more careful with their claims.

Mind you, I am not saying the Eagleworks paper should not have been published; any data point is good as long as the experiment is sufficiently described for it to be reproduced or disproved, and in that respect I think it is OK. But very good it is not.
Wrong. This is a three year supply presuming you could extract 100% of the energy needs of the US from this singular patch, which is patently impossible. There is no feasible way to extract it that quickly.

Instead, optimistically, you're looking at this supplying 0.5% of the US energy needs over a span of 20-30 years at best.

To put that in perspective: You could shave 0.5% off of the US energy needs by pushing for more electric vehicles. Then you wouldn't even need this oil.
I get that use case, but is a slightly shorter query selector a good trade-off in exchange for introducing syntax that crawlers, screen readers, and other non-browser HTTP clients can't deal with?

Also, I don't know about the semantic markup bit.
"Semantic" markup (whatever that is) was the idea already when CSS was introduced. Now we need Shadow DOM, ie. additional markup, to make CSS manageable, which seems odd to me.

The "semantics" of HTML is really just that it's a structured document format with paragraphs, headers,
lists, links, and a couple other idioms with a more or less tightly controlled inner structure. Next to these, custom elements seem out of place, and more like a general mechanism for page composition.

As such, they're bound to evolve over time. For example, for web components it's not difficult to imagine that a "container" component (for aggregation of other components, say a tab control as a trivial example) would be a useful thing to have. But then this calls for a way to place web components into the child content of other content, something which I understand isn't possible right now. Basically, we're looking into a long journey to morph HTML into something else here.
"Graph theory" of the sort that's used in social network analysis will become the lie detector test of the 21st century -- junk science based on a poor interpretation of elementary mathematics applied to dubious data sets.
The prospect even more terrifying than a show-up-and-be-recorded registry is that governments and private companies already have all they need to secretly create that registry overnight.

Facebook already has all of this data, for users and many non-users.

Start panicking.
Sorry, should have mentioned that I skipped the NYT and went straight to that :-)
Ask HN: How do you hack your food budget without a full kitchen?
To put into proportions:
The radio isotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) of the Voyager spacecraft wheighs 37kg. So let's say we can build a spacecraft using this and the EM drive weighing a total of 50kg. The RTG produces 157W of power. This translates to a change in speed 30cm per day.

Bonus question: The power of the RTG halfes avery 87.7 years. What is the asymptotic speed the spacecraft will reach?
I feared so :) the unit looked so small and handy.... But does it have to take constant power?
1 frame takes 29 hours but they render frames concurrently (so the whole thing only takes a couple months).

See: https://web.archive.org/web/20080215205807/http://www.pixar....

Slide #13
New realities engender binary responses. We haven't had time to develop checks and balances on the seismic shifts in what's possible with privacy, and intrusions into it. I think we'll land somewhere in the middle--carving out privacy in some places, adapting to less of it in others. I don't think we can just declare "privacy is disappearing," full stop. It has always waxed and waned.

We don't have to look 1,000 years ahead to see the cost of lack of transparency though. False news and obfuscation of his ties to Russia are big parts of what got Trump elected; if there had been transparency about those, it might not have happened. It's connected to privacy--obfuscation is a form of privacy (maybe not in code, but in politics). Clinton's loss of privacy through hacked emails set up a false equivalence. Almost everything in Wikileak's release of the Podesta emails was either nonsense or small potatoes, but it got way more press than Trump's ties to a hostile foreign government--successful Russian maskirovka. That's totally nuts. And Comey's flip-flopping, in the name of transparency, was the coup de grace--there was absolutely nothing there, as he himself admitted after the damage was done. "Transparency" about the wrong things is a distraction and a weapon.

I couldn't agree more about the need for respect and tolerance.
A large number of computers in a cluster dedicated to rendering
With moore's law slowing/dying out, hard to blame intel for desperately trying to find new revenue streams.
It's a "celebrity" name for his public persona.
Doubt it, there's not all that much money in the gun industry as these things go.

As far as I can tell, which I went into some detail in a previous discussion on this exact topic (I'll find it if you want), is that the difference is gun owners were driven by decades of stark atrocities committed by government agents and agencies.

As of yet, in the US, we just don't have those. Heck, things like parallel construction to take down drug dealers no doubt have the support of the majority of the country, along I suspect pretty much every axis (it's frightening talking to a parent who is so terrified his kids will get on drugs that he prefers they live in a police state).

So as long as the government's visible use of surveillance doesn't result in excesses of blood and death, I don't think our example will be helpful in getting an anti-surveillance movement off the ground.