skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not that great. Chrome still crashes beyond 50 tabs and/or eats up a lot of CPU slowing the system while I easily have 150 tabs on FF.
If you are going to be running a team, I would recommend the people who will be reporting to you should be factored into the decision. Do you get to hire them or are you coming to manage an existing team?

Also, just in general, since you mentioned "less cash, more equity". More equity shouldn't be considered a balance to earning less cash in evaluating a job offer. Equity has an expected value based on probability of success. For startup employee equity I've heard people use an EV of ~$0.00 as safe rule of thumb. I'm not a fan of that approach but at the very least "more equity" at the worse of two companies is often worth less or worthless. Up to you how much this matters, if at all.

Hard to answer this with info provided, but I wouldn't take either at this point unless you have to. Kick the can on the offers or get more info from each company that will help you decide.
The problem is that it is almost impossible to be good at politics while maintaining the intellectual distance required by science.
That pretty much sums it up.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. It makes some sense on product line delineation. Not sure MBP15 owners got screwed or are crippled though. All the criticism of the new MBP shows how awfully spoiled people have become. There's really not much more you could do there to improve on the best constructed laptop anyone has ever created.
So data as employed by DL plays the same role that it does in Brooks' subsumption architecture -- grounding and shaping the knowledge model -- but now doing it emergently, albeit requiring a lot of parameter tuning from the human-in-the-loop.

An interesting prospect for the evolution of software developers.
In Rust, you don't get buggy behavior in this kind of case: your program fails to compile.
Are you number of acres is the metric that matters because if we looked at the total number of fired we'd see they have dropped 75% since the 1960s? I don't know which metric is more important, and I'm not sure you do either. But it is a useful link because it shows how easy it is to take good data, and tell whatever story you want with it.

The key point here is that you and I should be able to openly debate acres burned vs total number of fires without me trying to track you down and get you fired, or you having me banned from HN.
There's still tons of work in Rails, but I think you'd be better served by becoming an expert in what you already know than knowing another language, unless you're targeting the lower end income-wise.
I'm a backer, and I don't care as long as they ship the promised product. And if Fitbit acquisition is going to help Pebble continue developing THEIR technology but under Fitbit name that's ok for me.

I would be upset if Pebble's products get phased out the market because no other smartwatch offers what they do.
I was saying people escape their situation either with violence or by breaking the law.
In fact this is why I take the fear mongering around climate change with a pinch of salt.

I agree with Popper's definition of science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

A discipline is scientific if it is possible to challenge it, if it can be proven wrong (it doesn't mean it will, but there is a way to prove it wrong).

If the discipline is using political pressure to prevent anyone from doing so, it cannot be called science anymore. A political movement would be a more appropriate term.

And more generally, my profession (finance) is making extensive use of mathematical models to model something too complex to be understood perfectly (financial markets / the economy). But we know our models suck, because we could do experiment on them, we can test them against reality. We know we can build models or investment strategies that do great in back-testing but fall apart as soon as they go live (I have seen that so many times first hand). I give very little credibility to someone who comes up with a complex mathematical model that pretends it will predict the climate in 30 years, knowing that we will only know if his model was reliable in 30 years, we have no way to test it now. Therefore it cannot be falsified and therefore I don't think it is science.
What the the tweet mentioned is GC pause time, not GC time.
Year in Review: Deep Learning Breakthoughts 2016
The debt incurred in a wasted PhD is not monetary; it's lost time.
Overcoming the Challenges of Mentoring
"Although it is too soon to tell how the Trump administration will engage the scientific community"

I'm gonna go out here on a limb and say Trump hasn't done a good job so far. He's claimed that vaccines cause autism. Something that's been debunked over and over. Skeptism about vaccines has made things much more difficult for immunocompromised kids. My friend's kid had cancer and the low rates of vaccination in town made things much more dicey for them.

The second is Trump has claimed that China is responsible for making up global warming.

Right now you've got the house committee on science tweeting out brietbart links.

The key will be funding. Will he continue to fund science? Science in many ways is the new manufacturing. Research universities are among the largest employers in the Midwest. It's not all white collar jobs. There are many different types of jobs that work towards creating knowledge.
Is there anything untrue in that quote? Don't we accept that stopping carbon emissions now won't do anything to the climate for at least a few decades? He clearly says "manage the immediate effects". Are you disagreeing and saying that reducing carbon emissions now can effectively manage the effects in the next few decades?

Saying that accepted truth is "dangerous" is what religions do. We don't have to fool ourselves into believing things are worse than they really are. It's OK if climate change won't really end civilization within our lifetimes - or ever.
A lot more technical information over at Netflix's blog [0].

I'm unsure what to think about VP9 gaining some decent ground. Firstly, it's great that effort is going into more effecient video streaming, considering how difficult to compress and encode quality video can be. However, the chosen standard doesn't seem to be the best on offer.

Just sort of Google randomly choosing one [1], and Netflix hedging their bets that others will adopt if they do, so the codec continues to get improved, and they aren't left hanging with the bill if everyone else ignores it.

[0] http://techblog.netflix.com/2016/12/more-efficient-mobile-en...

[1] Not quite, Google developed VP9 themselves.
It's always worth to learn something new as long as it fascinates you and you enjoy working with it. Otherwise stick deepening your knowledge in the languages you are already know, as somebody else already said.
Don't think so, I am running 32-bit Windows on a x64-based processor.
I think that's too simple a reading. There is a whole industry of people whose job it is to create doubt about science so as to prevent action that might harm those who pay them. It started with decades of denial that cigarettes could possibly cause harm, but went from there:

https://www.amazon.com/Doubt-Their-Product-Industrys-Threate...

I'm glad that a guy with a political science degree is interested in scientific topics. But I think he'd be a little more sensitive to the broader problem of non-experts jumping in to an area that has become highly politicized, and where industry has such a strong short-term incentive to undermine the appearance of scientific consensus.
The increase in wildfires can be largely attributed to the increase in droughts in some areas.

The reason that droughts don't appear to be getting worse overall is that the rain is moving from one place to another. So some places that used to get more water are now getting less, and places that used to get less water are now getting more. But this is still a problem because it's very hard to move agricultural infrastructure to chase the rain.
Bathymetric Maps Web App
How to use Semrush’s new PPC keyword tool
nilenso | developer | bangalore | http://nilenso.com, remote, online

nilenso is an employee-owned software cooperative based out of Bangalore, India. We're looking for people we'd really like to work with, across all experience and expertise levels.
If you want to get some insight of ML tech, simply ask Thomas Furness (http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/person.php?name=tfurne...). He was the Prof. of the ML guys and developed many of the patents with them. He is a pretty cool guy (I'm not just saying that because he was also my Prof.) and easily approachable.
> I don't know which metric is more important, and I'm not sure you do either.

If what you care about is how many trees there are (and that's what I care about) then the number of acres burned is clearly the metric that matters.

The trend has been a transition from a lot of little fires to a few huge ones. One of the reasons that the number of fires has dropped is that by the time the mega-fires are brought under control there is nothing left to burn.

> The key point here is that you and I should be able to openly debate acres burned vs total number of fires without me trying to track you down and get you fired, or you having me banned from HN.

That is certainly true. But there is nothing wrong with firing an academic for doing sloppy and possibly politically motivated research. I don't know if that's what this was, but I do have some actual data that indicates that it could be the case. And this data is not obscure nor was it particularly hard for me to find, so it seems likely that when I have the bandwidth to do a more thorough search I might find more evidence that this guy's research was in fact sloppy and politically motivated.

The fact that he published this piece in the WSJ, whose biases are well known, is another indication that this is not a clear-cut case of political correctness run amok. It could be, but it's far from a slam-dunk.

[UPDATE:] More evidence of bias: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13099156
I believe we have a right to a government that does everything possible to support, cherish, protect and uplift its citizens -- whether by defending them from crime, or preserving their livelihoods.

Yes, I'm aware that this makes me a nutball -- some kind of communist or fascist or something. I used to be a libertarian, if that makes you feel better.

If horses were citizens, I'd definitely preserve the carriages. They're not, and the carriage drivers could become chauffeurs. Not that there was a plan, but that would have been a fine plan.

Sometimes things are going so well, you don't need a plan. Other times...
I just ordered my pebble last week from amazon.com and am expecting it today. I'm worried about say connection issues and support in the event of a faulty product being shipped from the factory.
Would Fitbit be legally obligated to honor pebble's warranties in the event of a takeover?
Thankfully he passed before IBM made him train his offshore replacement.
Yes, I think you have it in essence.

Motor control issues require web developers to cater to two groups: keyboard-only and mouse-only.

Palsies and missing limbs can require the keyboard-only input (careful hunt-and-peck with a controllable arm/finger or stick in the mouth for typing.)

Paralysis and lack of fine motor control/accuracy can require mouse-only input systems (eye tracking, big trackpads.)
Any prediction requires us to wait to see what really happens. I don't think it's fair to say that 30 years is too long to wait and that it's therefore not falsifiable. Science has made claims in the past that took much longer than that to prove false, but we still accept them as falsifiable and that they were valid science at the time.
> How can we be sure what caused the increase in fires?

We can't be sure from this data, but there is a very plausible causal model that leads from drought to fires. It just seems highly plausible that drought over woodland would result in more fires. But I don't have access to that data at the moment. Anecdotally I can tell you with high confidence that the Gatlinburg fire, and most of the recent mega-fires in California, as well as the one up in Canada that made the papers a while back, were all associated with not just drought, but historic drought. That might just be a coincidence, but until someone actually runs the numbers you can't assume that.

In any case, it is pretty clear that something has changed. Do you have a better theory to offer?
Benefits of buying property in Dubai
You ignore here the army of lobbyists who are paid to put intellectual honesty aside in the name of convincing everyone not to worry because that protects hundreds of billions in revenue.

it wasn't the people who accept global warming as a reality who started politicizing this. It's unfair to blame them for getting political in response.
Cheap Christmas Gifts- 20 Impressive and Thoughtful Christmas Gift Ideas
My problem is that what people seem to be saying now is that "computers are smart enough to solve Go now, thanks to Google".

1) Too much credit is given to Google for this result. What I see as already a huge brain drain on society is only going to get bigger.

2) People are going to expect that if "computers are smart enough to play Go", they're smart enough to do ____. What goes in the blank? Very little right now, but I guarantee you investors and the public have a lot of ideas and think it's around the corner.

Hopefully a lot of good things will come out of this wave of AI, but who knows what or when. I think the point is that there may be a panic and contraction before anything really awesome happens, and a lot of that is going to be because of "stunts" (for lack of a better word) like this being overhyped.
Look at the top comments on that article and you can easily see why people want to avoid him. He may believe in climate change, but his work is being used to justify climate change denial.

That's like trying to convince people to vaccinate their children, but then giving a bullhorn to a guy standing outside the clinic screaming about possible negative side effects.

Obviously I support his right to publish his findings, but he's misconstruing attempts to stop the spread of misinformation (as in his work is being used to justify misinformation) as censorship.
> You are taking choice away from future generations simply by existing and spending resources; by living a cushy western urbanite life and participating in online forums instead of living an isolated rural subsistence life without modern life comforts.

You are right that by existing we are consuming precious resources. In fact, life (i believe) feeds off of some other death, somewhere, in the grand scheme of things. That said, i don't think we'll convince many people to stop existing for environmentalist causes. We'll have to find a compromise. One of those, i believe, is living a life with a small footprint (cycle don't drive, avoid air travel, go veggie where possible, eat local produce as much as possible). However, and i can't go into as much detail here as i'd like, it's not always practical to convince people to become vegos, only cycle, etc. I suggest interested people read the 98% Environmentalist [1], an essay i thought quite insightful.

However, regarding your second point, i think it is a misconception that an urbanite lifestyle is more wasteful of resources than a rural one. In fact, if we as a species are to become less environmentally impactful, i believe (perhaps mistakenly) that we should live in cities as much as possible: this allows us to use public transport (as opposed to wasteful single occupancy ICE cars), work from home or cycle to work, live more densely (= easier to centralise recycling, insulation and heating of buildings is more efficient in apartment buildings, etc.). As opposed to the rural existence where one is probably forced to drive to a nearby city for supplies one cannot grow (building materials perhaps).

Of course, i may be completely wrong. I encourage everyone to live as mindfully of the environment as possible, in their own way, without claiming to have a one-size-fits-all answer. I hope we don't, however, stick our heads into the sand and hammer the final nail into the climate's coffin during our lifetimes – i worry it may already be a lost battle [2].

1. still looking for the link :( help me HN?

2. https://xkcd.com/1732/
A serialisation protocol for Arduino, interesting.

But looking through the documentation, I couldn't find the two questions that immediately leaped to mind:

1. Who is using this in the real world? Or has it gone through 6 major versions without any adoption at all? (Doing so is fine... But may mean the entire project is full of wasted effort).

2. What's the added overhead? Measuring SRAM usage can be difficult, especially with gcc-avr and its black magic optimisations, but is especially necessary when considering abandoning the builtin protocols.
There is real science being done, and there is journalism, doing a generally poor job of reporting the science. And then there is politics.

If you let the journalism blind you to the science, then you're going to be misinformed. Read the IPCC reports cover to cover, and then follow up with the references if you don't think there is real science being done.
>One of the reasons that the number of fires has dropped is that by the time the mega-fires are brought under control there is nothing left to burn.

Or, without little fires, flammable undergrowth accumulates that makes the fires that do occur even larger. Unlike most natural disasters, humans are very active in directly manipulating fires. This makes it difficult to attribute changes to fire statistics to underlying environmental changes, or fire control practices.
There is a Spanish blog by someone that managed to upload the hex over WiFi, using Python. An English write-up is here [0], and links to the original.

[0] http://hackaday.com/2014/11/13/programming-an-arduino-over-w...
Ghana security authorities shut down fake US Embassy in Accra
What sort of claim do you have in mind?

I can think of scientific theories that have been proven wrong after a long time, but they haven't been proven wrong because it was impossible to prove them wrong immediately. Only because it took so long to come up with an experiment / better theory which in insight could have been done on day 1.

This is not the same as telling everyone "I have a model, my back-testings are telling me it works, I will only be able to prove it right (or wrong) in 30 years, but you need to take actions now based on what this model says".
That is a fair point.
Although I've since read a couple of the articles the author complained about for groupthink, and they appear to have more credibility than him, however.
For example:
https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silv... which is quoted in a Guardian article posted in another subthread lower down here.
Fuck you, perfect post
You are totally right, and bad science should be vigorously debunked. But that doesn't justify the suppression of dissenting views. Science isn't static, there needs to be free debate.
Fortune's Global 500 top 10 is:

Walmart $482B in revenue a year
State Grid $329B
China Natural Petroleum $299B
Sinopec $294B
Shell $272B
ExxonMobil $246B
Volkswagen $236B
Toyota $236B
Apple $233B
BP $255B

Six oil companies and two car companies. Trillions of dollars in revenue every year, from oil and other fossil fuels. They have massive think tanks, government lobbyists, media and PR reach etc. They're the center of the world economy and world power.

Yet this climate denier ("I'm not really a climate denier!") writes for the Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch's financial publications are a great place for peer reviewed science - well this guy is a poli-sci major anyhow) about how he is being persecuted by powerful forces.

Please. These people are so out of control they're going to burn up the world. I see someone who mentioned the California droughts, Tennessee etc. was downvoted.

The inertia of these companies at the center of the world economy is to keep doing what they're doing, which is suicidal. Solar etc. has advanced to where changes can be made which are less drastic than expected, but not with this fellow and his supporters here.

As America is going to shit, it's expected that even the silver lining of Silicon Valley's vanguard here are blind to reality and swallow some poli-sci majors climate denial propaganda to Murdoch's paper instead of reading peer-reviewed scientific papers. It goes along with the downward trajectory of the US - the low US growth, crummy unicorns etc. Our incoming pussy-grabbing president used this assessment as his campaign platform, and I agree with him to the limited extent that America is no longer a great country.

I have to cast my eyes to the People's Republic of China to see not only robust growth, but the solar, nuclear and other renewable energy sources. Along with their enormous economic growth over the past few decades, it will be the Chinese who will save things for us, while Americans stumble into the muck of Trump, climate denial and what you can see going on here.
Just want to say I really admire your work. It's sad to see people trolling like this.
I agree, quite possibly, although not all developers are as competent as you'd hope / fear
Yes, that's true. The situation with respect to fire is very complicated. I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk either way. All I'm saying is that in five minutes I was able to find some evidence (not proof, mind you, just evidence) that droughts are in fact getting worse. That isn't proof of anything, but it is evidence that the evidence is not "scant". It is possible that in five minutes I just happened to stumble on the only piece of evidence, and that the totality of the evidence is in fact "scant", but that's unlikely. Much more likely is that there is in fact a lot of evidence out there, and when I have access to decent internet connection again, I (or anyone else who looks) can find it.
In any case, it is pretty clear that something has changed. Do you have a better theory to offer?

That's not how this sort of debate works. Not when you're demanding trillions of dollars' worth of global economic rewiring.
Food Sharing Startup Seeks CTO
Not only that, he also wants to do nothing about climate change progress other than put in place a small carbon tax to advance technology. This person is not doing any favors to future generations.