skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
lichess.org and the corresponding open source project[1] are really quite something. If you're at all interested in chess or code, I recommend following it -- their great execution will inspire you.

[1] https://github.com/ornicar/lila
Einstein didn't look like a crank though. His papers are relatively short and are coherent, he either already had a PHD in physics or was associated with an advisor (I didn't find a good timeline; he was awarded the PHD in the same year he published his 4 big papers).

Cranks lack formal education and spew forth the gobbledygook in reams.
U.S. companies want to play China’s game. They just can’t win it
I, uh, don't happen to understand where... precisely, that real people paid with their lives, due to these leaks.

From where I stand, he released Power Point slides to journalists, outlining the broad strokes of some programs and projects.

He did so in a way that proved there were deep flaws to be found in the manner in which the NSA secured itself. Had he not proven these flaws by demonstration, those flaws would likely have persisted until, instead of merely having its pants pulled down in the middle of the street, the NSA might have been stabbed to death for its wallet.

Why listen to me though? This very document even says they still live with the hazard of another Snowden coming along and pulling another Snowden. It is, in fact, the conclusion of the document we are discussing right now.
You don't have to go that far.. Oracle Studio (nee Sun Studio) for Solaris doesn't support it.
I agree with you that it isn't practical right now to get rid of billionaires. However, I don't think that it's some kind of economic theorem. The reasons that socialism failed are complex, and pure capitalism failed as well (think Gilded Age), which is why everyone lives in a mixed economy. It is reductionist to say that the 1976 IMF Crisis was caused by the tax rate instead of excess spending, monetary policy, and structural aspects of the economy. As a counterexample, postwar US had a 92% tax rate and did OK: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_best_pol...

IMHO, most economies aren't able to raise the effective tax rate because the wealthy can add loopholes or shuffle their wealth elsewhere. This isn't an economic problem, but a political problem. Is there a political will to close loopholes and restrict the movement of wealth? Do people frame wealth in terms of freedom or in terms of societal obligations?
So from a security standpoint, it's actually a good idea to do it like this. I mean, provided the games contact the internet in any way - for purely offline games it doesn't matter.

By separating the owner and the account running the game, you can ensure that local write bugs cannot affect the executed code. Not a huge issue, but if you can prevent that at close to no cost, then why not? (ideally we should have simple user-accessible sandboxing instead, but that's not always easy at the moment)
Yeah, I think something like dlopen/dlsym, but stand-alone, and supporting ELF/PE32+/Mach-O binaries (both objects and binaries, shared objects, PIC and non-PIE) on any OS/architecture could be very useful. Even foreign support (i.e. load x86 obj on MIPS), as it could be used by emulation engines.
> You don't "need" matrices, they're just one way to represent linear functions

Is there another way?
#pragma once is great. I use it in new code. Clang and GCC both support it, don't know about other compilers.
Well if you payed attention to my wording you would have noticed that I was talking about the intention of the people visiting the website. Also people don't make money from uploading pictures to pinterest.
The purpose of the question, "Would you post answers for your own site?" - being I don't understand and/or would be interested in the answers to the questions before for RealIdeas.site:

What's the problem?

What's the solution?

Why would anyone pay for that?

How would you reach your audience?

Are there other solutions out there?

How is your solution any different?
Because it's clearly not both.

If I say "your house is on fire!" and you rebut "no it isn't" and I respond "well, your shoelace is untied", any reasonable observer will conclude that you've conceded the house fire.

If my house was really on fire, you'd say "no, really, look at it! Flames are shooting out of the bedroom window!". If your strong argument was valid, you'd restate it, perhaps with additional evidence.
Same for me. I think small talk is draining because it lacks authenticity and the possibility of a real exchange that allows both party to understand themselves better.
Why wouldn't it if it is able to? It doesn't have to "want" to self-improve, it only has to want anything that it could do better if it was smarter. All it needs is the ability, the lack of an overwhelming reason not to, and a basic architecture of optimizing towards a goal.

If you knew an asteroid would hit the earth 1 year from now, and you had the ability to push a button and become 100,000x smarter, I would hope your values would lead you to push the button because it gives you the best chance of saving the world.
Isn't that more niche than embedded toolchains?
Progressive Web Applications
Standing in the Shadow of Giants: The Frontier in Open Source
FWIW, I've had a few friends receive entry level offers (as software engineers) recently and they all had no deadline to accept
Old Friend
It's also a perfectly apt description of, say, certain areas in academia—one that I'm pretty sympathetic too after seeing postmodern research programs in action! Hell, postmodernism is a bigger idea that eats more people than superintelligence could ever hope.

And yet I suspect that many of the people swayed by one application of the argument won't be swayed by the other and vice versa. Interesting, isn't it?
I dunno, so much of the IO Monad is specific to Haskell and lazy evaluation. Generally I think of it as Haskell's quirky way of handling the real world in a pure lazy mathematical construct and not something fundamental.
David Ferrucci lead the team who built the Watson research system that won at Jeopardy. He left for Bridgewater in 2014, before the IBM Watson unit was created, and way before Dalio came back to run Bridgewater.
If the SECOND SENTENCE of a comment is a factually false statement, I'll still honor the effort and respond with more accurate (even if imperfect) information ;)
I would object too, but I don't see how that could be confusing moreso than any whiteboard "you get what I mean" pseudocode.

The reader's walking in with knowledge of the product-based construction of N-dimensional space, and we readily admit that "R^2" is (a set literally, but) taken to mean the space equipped with whatever operations appropriate for whatever algebra.

I'm being kinda sophist on this. "G^2" isn't meaningful. I agree. But given the convention of naming a set with the implication of whatever topology/metric/norm, the notation is already under harsh torture, right..?
Making it top front page: Uber and AirBnB are likely the two startups that most people are waiting to see IPO (Dropbox like a year or two ago). Any of these companies is bound to garner attention when something big happens.

Uber is also aggressively recruiting. Many people on this board probably have been contacted by them or have been made offers by them. For what their comp promises, this would be very important for them, especially if they didn't do their due diligence on the company's financials and how their stock awards were set up.

I agree that very few people know how their stock works. To the valley's credit, a lot of places do RSUs which is a simple matter. But I definitely spoken with folks that didn't realize their exercise rights had expired.
Solid start. I'd strongly suggest adding some Bayesian modeling books; start with Gelman.

If you look at the academic lineage of many of these authors, it will also help you understand how they get stuck into little biases.
Unfair pressure?

They have some obligation to other startups to keep valuations low, for what purpose? Are other VCs going to suddenly put irrational expectations on the companies pitching them?

Any VC/company that engages in some unrealistic valuation pissing contest deserves any big expensive failure that comes to them. Otherwise they can prove people wrong at their own risk.
I see this misconception all the time -- a teacher of mine (who is generally reputable) was absolutely convinced Snowden had given the documents to Anonymous. I wonder what's caused that.
I guess it depends. I see other people saying that's the quality they've come to expect of the company and it's software.

I've never used the software, nor dealt with the company, so I have no frame of reference but...

If they were a great company and had one bad accident, then yeah, I'd feel sorry for the co-owner. But if the company had a choppy reputation to begin with, then I don't feel so bad
An alternative to using LD_LIBRARY_PATH is to bake the rpath into the executable. It's a little nicer for the user, IMO.
Increasingly popular are the "single header libraries", which were popularised by Sean Barrett[0]. It's as simple as downloading the header, putting it somewhere in your tree and #including it where you need it. It's especially useful for redistributing libraries, but I've also found it useful to create these in my own projects.

[0]https://github.com/nothings/stb
Due to the nature of this type of damage you likely won't hear any evidence for many years.
Making small talk is a skill, just like any other. You don't need to skip college to figure out how to small talk.

but the rest of the article is pretty interesting: the sense of entitlement, the one dimensional view of intelligence, and the SAT and prep track required to get to it all.

Somehow, this article reminded me of Catch in the Rye - especially the main character and his experiences in a prep school for college.
I think there's a significant idea hidden in your question. Seeing your username I hope that was intentional.

How about a self-surveillance platform to measure your footprint?

The idea is basically an automated network-level CTF. Get as much data out as possible, then report back with the results. You could do this with a group of friends (feed all your friends data into your analysis box), to yourself (and all your devices baring OS restrictions), or with a larger group of security-minded individuals.

For extra fun, if you're capturing the traffic on your own machines, you could have a tool that extracts network encryption keys from memory, which should work similarly for programs using the same encryption stack, and you then feed that into the network analysis tool.

You could then use this to make sure you're not sending out data you don't want to send out in the first place; ideally you'd get to the point where your analysis tool can decrypt every packet, so that you're sure you're not sending out any data that you don't want to get out.

PANDA looks like an interesting tool to automate the retrieval of encryption keys; it can replay full process executions using a modified version of QEMU, and find procedures that convert high entropy data (i.e. encrypted or compressed data) to lower entropy data.

Coincidentally, if you get this up and running you can also automate the breaking of (encryption-based) DRM; that's just a side effect of gaining fuller control over your general-purpose computer. Oops.
I'd think Otto in particular would be enormously beneficial to Amazon. Amazon loves robots, and anything that reduces shipping costs (and times) would be incredibly valuable to them.
uber seems to be run very poorly from my exposure to them. when i was applying for jobs, they contacted me and said that theyd interview me in 2 to 3 weeks. My deadline for another company was in 3 weeks as well. They failed to schedule anything and contacted me after 3 weeks were up and said it'd be another month before they could interview me. For reference, Facebook flew me out and interviewed me on campus 2 days after I had my phone interview and 3 days after they contacted me originally. Either way, I wouldn't work there in a million years considering everyone i've ever met that works/interns there said they worked 60 hour weeks.
Fair enough, we're very different people. The only down side to the shoe box for me is that I can't have a real sized dog.
This happened to me a few months ago at a different company and I was shocked by how unprofessional I thought that approach was. I ended up declining the offer because I thought that kind of pressure to commit was an indicator of how poorly the company may be run. It was for a senior level position and I had been at the same firm for nearly five years and it just seemed unnecessarily aggressive.
I'm wary of companies that say yes after a quick conversation in a bar (That is, unless I've got friends there I've made companies with before and I come highly recommended). Maybe that makes sense for < 10 people companies who are just starting out and can't get any better.
A good heuristic leads to a reduction in the overall cost of a decision (combining the cost of making the decision with the cost of the consequences if you get it wrong).

A heuristic like "it's risky to rent a car to a male under 25" saves a lot of cost in terms of making the decision (background checks, accurately assessing the potential renter's driving skills and attitude towards safety, etc.) and has minimal downside (you only lose a small fraction of potential customers) and so it's a good heuristic.

A heuristic like "a 26-year-old working a clerical job who makes novel statements about the fundamental nature of reality is probably wrong" does reduce the decision cost (you don't have to analyze their statements) but it has a huge downside if you're wrong (you miss out on important insights which allow a wide range of new technologies to be developed). So even though it's a generally accurate heuristic, the cost of false negatives means that it's not a good one.
I'm suspicious of his primary motivation being a distaste of global mass surveillance. This passage is especially damning:

> Snowden would later publicly claim that his "breaking point" - the final impetus for his unauthorised downloads and disclosures of troves of classified material - was March 2013 congressional testimony by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

> But only a few weeks after his conflict with NSA managers, on July 12, 2012 - eight months before Director Clapper's testimony - Snowden began the unauthorized, mass downloading of information from NSA networks.

Given that Snowden claimed his motivation was seeing Clapper "lie on oath", there's some irony in seeing Snowden caught in a lie about this claim, as at that point not only had he already downloaded and exfiltrated much of what he later leaked, but had already been in contact with Greenwald and Poitras for two to three months.
If the shadow is predictable then the unsupervised (self supervised) part of our Predictive model will not have too much trouble learning to deal with it. But you're right, if it did have trouble, there would be good reason to for the system to continue exploring that type of event.

One way to do this is to link PVM'a prediction error output to an "instinct" that directs it towards lower confidence events that you mentioned. This could be just orienting the camera towards those events, or in a robot producing actions that led to those events again.

Note this is not necessarily reinforcement learning but it relates to some ideas there, like the idea of novelty being rewarding.
Sure, I don't think the two are incompatible. One could want to cross compile and not want to require internet access.
Wikipedia lists it as supported since version 12.5.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragma_once#Portability
I believe it's fair to say that a computer programmed with knowledge of sufficient numbers of inputs and outputs does indeed "understand" -- in fact the computer can truly speak and converse in Chinese quite well. But I believe it's a distinction without a difference to say the Computer does not, in fact, understand Chinese in this case.

Instead of arguing semantics I propose a different sort of distinction.

A computer programmed as a deep neural net can understand remarkably well, and with that understanding it becomes a remarkable tool for automation.

However it remains nothing more than a tool. No more intent than a hammer. And without will, certainly without will to evolve.

Only in the sense that the algorithm is programmed to improve its fitness, it calculates coldly towards that end. Not ever in an innovative sense, and certainly not in an adversarial sense.

I agree thoroughly with the other commenters that propose it's not that AI will defeat us, but rather AI will be just too useful that the economic damage will be extreme.

AI will defeat us by replacing the need for us in all productive endeavors. Anything we can do it can do better, cheaper, so far up the value chain that only the elite will remain gainfully employed.

Too much of human labor will be eaten by AI, we better get a hell of a lot better at educating our masses if we ever hope they will have something productive they're able to do.

I wonder how the theory of competitive advantage stacks up against AI -- a good for which there is no scarcity!
Sub optimal from the perspective of the AI, some positions that seem easy for an AI looking 10 moves ahead might be tricky for your opponent.
This reminds me of redaction.
That actually is a good (in the sense of 'effective') heuristic. It's just not socially palatable in modern, Western civilization.
McDonalds specifically is starting to replace its cashiers with kiosks, though right now it looks like the former cashiers are switching to bussing tables instead.

http://fortune.com/2016/11/18/mcdonalds-kiosks-table-service...
Why so afraid of the 400 pound killing machines?
The engine dislikes the King Gambit, which has a pretty lengthy history, dating back to the 1600s [1]. However, it's not played much anymore at very top levels, and much has been written about its weaknesses [2]. So in some sense, humans have been "trying" the King's Gambit for centuries and have only recently come to the conclusion that it's not optimal.

Many players enjoy using the opening simply because it leads to dangerous and exciting games, so it makes sense that Stockfish and other engines would prefer conservative opening lines.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_Gambit

[2] http://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/94/why-is-the-kings...
> I tested the new feature on my favorite opening: 1.e4 e5 2.f4!, a.k.a. the mighty King Gambit. Stockfish hates it, and asked me to review it like it was a mistake! Yet it's considered playable. Actually Carlsen played it against Arionian in 2015.

Not acceptable, Mr Stockfish!

Actually, the King's Gambit has been (essentially) solved: https://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-busting-the-king-s-gam...

There is only one move that doesn't lose by force after 2. ... exf4, and that is the strange-looking 3. Be2. Does that mean this opening is a "mistake"? Well, maybe not, obviously a human wouldn't know the perfect lines, but personally I wouldn't play it :)

Either way, I'll certainly be using this feature a lot. Kudos to the folks at Lichess.
>Congressional and Presidential elections are much more frequent than that and can result in sudden and dramatic reversal of policy direction, especially in the face of widespread economic concerns.

The frequency of elections is immaterial in the era of uber-gerrymandering and population migration. Censuses are every 10 years.
Intellectual property law is complex and trying to sum it up in a sentence or two is going to give people the wrong impression. However, as much as I'm not a lawyer, I will try to help you dispel a few notions.

First, this is a clearly a trademark issue, not a copyright issue. You can't copyright a name. In fact there are many, many, many things that you can't copyright. It often happens that people conflate the 3 main areas of intellectual property law: copyright, trademarks and patents, but it is quite important that you distinguish between them precisely.

WRT to trademarks, having a similar name is not enough to cause a trademark infringement. It also needs to create confusion in the marketplace. In this case, a tutorial on how to make a command line Haskell app and some kind of web service is really unlikely to cause any confusion.

The problem with trademarks is that, unlike copyright, if you have a trademark you have to defend it or lose it. So if you sue someone over a trademark infringement, the other side can say, "Well, they didn't say anything about this other guy doing the same thing even though they knew about it". This can cause you to lose the trademark.

Because of this, many lawyers err on the side of caution and send out spammy "You are infringing on our trademark" notices to everyone. If you send a quick note back saying, "I don't think there is any possibility of confusion in the market place" (such as this situation), the lawyers will often back off -- unless they truly believe that there is a problem.

Clearly your advice of trying to avoid trademark infringement is good advice. In this case, though, here is pretty clearly no infringement, so it's misplaced. In the very unlikely even that a lawyer asks about it, replying back with the response, "There is no chance for confusion in the market place" will likely be enough (Note: this is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer).

Interesting side track: The World Wrestling Federation (WWF) became World Wrestling Enterprises (WWE) due to a trademark dispute with the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF). You could reasonably think that there is no way of confusion in the market place, but the World Wildlife Foundation showed that people were hesitant to contribute to them because they actually thought that they were associated with the World Wrestling Federation. That is the key issue, not just the similarity in the name.
I use Vim for editing Lisp. Basic :set lisp mode that dates back to ancient Unix implementations of vi and the % command for jumping between matching parentheses. In Vim, selecting a range and typing = re-indents it, and == indents the current line. I set shiftwidth to 2. When I need to move the indentation of a whole block I use select and < or >. Or << and >> for the current line. With those basics, I comfortably do 95% of all Lisp editing.

For instance to move an expression: put cursor on one parenthesis, type v for visual select, type % to jump to the other paren, then x to delete. Move somewhere, p to paste. Adjust formatting here and there, done.

I edit C and other languages in pretty much exactly the same way.
I know it's nit picky, but in the 'About' section on Financier's website the first sentence under '100% offline web app' reads "Click the button above to go the the app"... I just wanted to let you know it bugged me a little but other than that it looks very nice!
Randallstown Monroe's "what if?" From the creator of xkcd. It's a fun and insightful read on how much goes and analyzes the hypothetical questions
I was hoping to avoid spoilers :)

"Madness Has Its Place" is also a good story of his on a similar topic.
As horrific as Nanking Massacre was, I believe that doesn't really prove your point. I'd argue that a lot of counter examples of soldiers ethical behaviour simply aren't visible and are forgotten and lost to history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
Best Sublime Text 3 Themes of 2016
Oh, this kind of horror I've met lately has got a name? Well, I learned something today. Thanks ;-)