skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Amazon marketplace, kickstarter, and etsy have unleashed a FIREHOSE of pseudo-medical products (And other consumer products) that review systems and regulators are just not equipped to handle.

A startup that I wish would happen would be a truly NON biased review organization - eg consumer reports but for the internet age.

Not just a consumer reports as digital first but an organization that is able to respond to the deluge of new products & product claims we see as consumers.

We were recently trying to buy a foam mattress and immediately got sucked into this huge vortex of misinformation to the point that I just gave up.

On the one side you have "mommy bloggers" yelling "tempurpedic offgasses give you CANCER!" and linking to a group of similar non-scientific studies.

On the other end is a group that says "latex is the only all natural foam!!!!" but then links to amazon products made in Thailand / etc full of mispellings / no oversight / etc.

Or the recent expose of how truffle oils (1) don't actually contain truffles.

It's insanity!

Clearly the FTC isn't the solution @ this point to oversee consumer protection.

(1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12453103
Just because everything in the past was horrible doesn't mean we need to burn it all down.

We definitely don't need a culture of victimhood where anyone with documented ties to the past gets vilified.
Actually, their methodology seems pretty sound, with robust findings, including in the subgroup of patients cared by hospitalists, where -- as the authors correctly point out -- patients are pretty much randomized to a female or male hospitalist.

The question is "in a given medical speciality -- internal medicine in this study --, are patient's outcomes related to the admitting physician sex?", not if women make better doctors than females. As such, your point about the best doctors not being in internal medicine is pretty a non sequitur.

Basically, I see two potential biais that could explain at least part of the difference in outcomes :

1. Its is "common knowledge" that male doctors tend to refuse admissions more often than females. (I am not aware of any hard data to prove this point) It could be that the patients that they do admit are somewhat sicker that those they let go directly home. That could explain both higher mortality and re-admission rates.

2. It is again, "common knowledge" (again, I'm not aware of any study) that women write better discharge summaries, including all co-morbid conditions. When coded in a database, those patients will appear sicker than similar ones treated by male doctors, and this could skew any analyses.

A final confounder is that patients often have many doctors during the stay, both male and female, and the study assigned as "the" doctor the one who billed most for the patient, which may not be the one who had the most impact on outcomes. It is difficult to say how this would advantage any particular sex, however.
Show HN: Secured Default HTTP(S) Server for Go
The "body on frame" requirement isn't exactly definitive in my opinion. I consider the Honda Pilot and Nissan Pathfinder (latest gen) to be SUVs, at least as far as their intended market is concerned. They're as capable as a non-Z71 Tahoe is offroad (enormous and fragile airdams) and they are all within the same ballpark when it comes to towing capacity (5,000lbs for the Pilot/Pathfinder, 6,400lbs for the Tahoe) as there's nothing I'd tow with one that I wouldn't feel safe towing with the other (hardly anyone will put a Class IV hitch on a Tahoe).

The difference between the hottest selling crossovers like the CX-5/Forester/Escape/CR-V/Rav4 and the "soft-road" SUVs like the Pilot/Pathfinder/Traverse/Explorer is that they have redefined crossover to mean a vehicle based off a compact sized platform, with compact sized engines (all 4 cylinders), delivering compact-sized fuel economy (30mpg+), with absolutely 0 consideration given to off-roading (all FWD with AWD being a complete afterthought). The "soft-road" SUV is based off a mid-size platform, if not it's own and still gives credence to things like towing, real AWD, and imposing size without significantly larger interior room (the CX-5 in particular feels as roomy as most full-size SUVs) The modern crossover is in every way a "tall wagon", just with a better name.
Aren't those the "unprivileged containers" that keep showing up as having huge security vulnerabilities?
What are the main goals for the rewrite and how is this going to impact existing - react-native and react projects?
Canada never threatened to leave NAFTA.
> But the upright shape and boxy proportions of minivans make it easy to transport plenty of people and lots of luggage. In fact, they tend to perform the job better than most other types of passenger cars — even their upscale descendant, the sport utility vehicle.

I'm convinced that most people that gets small trucks would do better with minivans. The number of things we hauled in the back of our 1987 Ford Aerostar after pulling out the second and third row seats was staggering (and unsafe). It was a better solution for just about everything except for loose earth.

My own Honda Odyssey is a dream to drive, and having taken many 7+ hour road trips over the years in multiple types of vehicles, it's by bar the most comfortable.

The only downside is how you are sometimes perceived, and thus treated, when on the highway. People seem to not like to be behind a minivan, whether because of some preconceived idea that it's slow, or because they don't like the view obstruction, or some other reason. It's annoying to be passed just so the person that passed you can decide to go slower than you were in the first place, and it seems to happen more frequently when driving the minivan.
I'll bet $100 that in this instance, it was just an impromptu design decision. He liked the way it looked, it contrasted nicely with the headings and that's it.
> you're either going to have retire early and pick it up as a personal hobby or go into academia.

That's a strawman crafted by introducing a false extreme dichotomy. I don't think anyone claims they want to produce "theoretically-robust software". 99% of all programmers I've ever met and spoke with in real (or virtually), agree there's no such thing.

What's discussed here (which admittedly is off on a tangent derived from the OP) is questioning the value of rushed software. There's a balance to be struck there and bending over to the managers and always trying to squeeze more in less time is always ending up in flames. I still don't get it why so many people, probably you included, have trouble understanding this very simple (and well documented in the recent history) truth.
News organizations could post a bond on each article. Then they could lose money if they lie. For the main context of a story, for factual inaccuracies, for spelling mistakes, it could be contextual with different types of bonds. The question is how to verify, since these 'fact-checker' websites are a 'who guards the guards' problem.
"Tesla also includes the tax credit in their price."
This is false... Tesla advertises their model 3 targeted base price as $35,000. This is before any tax credits.
I'm not sure I follow. Imperative/Declarative in the programming sense is no different from the speech sense, is it? Quickly skimming the wikipedia page [1] for imperative mood makes it look similar enough to me. The page for imperative programming [2] references the grammar page, even.

As for the state, I think in life everything has state. Kids are quickly learning which ones have states that they care about. It is not uncommon to see them learn that cups filled with water need to be held a certain way, otherwise they spill.

Now, like more formalisms, computing and programming is much more strict. But that is a matter of rigor, moreso than of form. That is, it is the same form, just not forgiving in syntax/content.

Though, seriously, if I am abusing terms here please let me know. Is not my intent.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_mood

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming
In many places it's not that easy to find diesel pumps, and since about 2005, diesel has been 10-30% more expensive per gallon in the USA, negating a lot of the benefits from fuel economy.
The yearly losses are fixed, unrelated to usage. The per-cycle losses are indeed less when you don't fully discharge, but only by a relatively small amount.

Lets say you have a battery with a capacity of 100. Empty it completely 100 times and the capacity might be around 95.

Empty it only 20% 500 times (for the same total energy usage) and it's capacity might have only degraded to 97.

Better, but not nearly enough to erase the other effects.
I recently saw a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stout_Scarab on display at the NC Museum of Art. Way ahead of its time.

If you have a couple minutes, watch "The Stout Scarab: The World's First Minivan?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjvy-n2TM9U

(Apparently the Scarab on display at the museum is the one in the video.)
Would be nice if you gather emails so you get notified when you release binaries for others systems. Sign me up for Debian!
The federal tax rebate is likely to phase out over the course of the Model 3 introduction: it isn't a given that the effective pricing will be be similar. It's also premature to compare pricing without the Model 3 specifications.
Adam Ruins Everything did a video debunking many of the myths about the case.

https://youtu.be/KNWh6Kw3ejQ
I believe that Whole Foods made a strategic decision to avoid large suppliers like Kraft Heinz and Procter & Gamble, because they have too little bargaining power with large companies. The same people who may have defaulted to picking whatever brands their parents or even grandparents chose, were willing to choose new brands in Whole Foods. Not only were the old brands missing from the shelves, but the friendly people working there all seemed to think these new brands were about treating your body like a temple.

In the case of these new brands, they probably meet the same sanitary standards most of the time, and may be more healthy or better for the environment a lot of the time. However, I am convinced that their biggest feature is being that it lets Whole Foods feel like it is as big as Walmart when its purchasing managers negotiate with their suppliers.

--

On another subject, while it may not help, Wolfram|Alpha lets you quickly approximate a consolidated "nutrition facts" for any recipe. It could be easy to compare to the weight watchers meal. For example:

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1%2F4+lb+chicken+breas...
And the reason you need to know this information is what?
The problem is the government isn't putting that money to productive use in an economic sense, and is taking a larger and larger slice of the people's economic output because that output is shrinking.

If the government and the economy were both functioning properly there would be no reason to print money - the treasury would be receiving enough money through taxation. Governments don't go into wholesale printing unless that's not happening.

Though to be fair it seems every FR system does at least print around the edges, eventually.
Instead of trickery of tax credits, you get trickery of rigged emissions tests. Because when you regard air quality, it is not just carbon dioxide, but various nitrous oxides.

Also, most diesels are noisier, and diesel fueling stations are further apart, and the federal tax is higher, and gasoline-electric hybrids have much better consumer branding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/automobiles/as-the-world-e...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a4567/4330313/
Yep, you are right. I was thinking of it in terms of efficiency and not capacity.
Its ironic, isn't it. The main reason I want to buy a tesla is due to their advanced autopilot making long distance driving easier. Yet the whole electric thing makes those drives take longer due to recharge time. I wish there was a trailer with a diesel generator you could rent to tow behind your tesla.
Reading between the lines, I think this car is a trick and not meant to sell at all. They get fleet wide mileage credits by producing it, and they are losing money on each car. Electric cars are easy to make, especially if you don't put much effort into it (example: regenerative brake paddle is separate from normal brake paddle). Dealers don't make as much from servicing electric cars.

I suspect the fact that it's ugly is a feature: it will hamper sales a bit and reduce the chance that they'll need to produce lots of this car.

Is the mileage credit on electric cars calculated as a formula of the range? If so, that would explain why they focused on getting a 200 mile range.

Edit: selling this car will also eat into the U.S. limit on tax credits for electric cars, which hurts their competitor Tesla.
I think the argument here was indeed to treat promises as a subset of observables, not replace them with observables. Just as option type is a subset of collections that can have at most 1 element (but all operations that apply to any other collection, like say "map", still make sense for it).
Tesla uses very unconventional accounting to arrive at that gross margin. Specifically they don't subtract R&D costs from their margins. When you correct for this Tesla's gross margin is within a few percent of the median for the automotive industry.

> In 2015, Tesla spent over $700 million on research and development while selling about 50,000 vehicles. If Tesla reported gross margins like other automakers, gross margin would have been reduced by $14,000 PER VEHICLE.

Tesla also has huge sales expenses that they don't subtract from their margins. Take that into account, and Tesla isn't making any profit per car anymore. To make matters worse, they also need to raise an enormous amount of money in order to manufacture the model 3 at scale. It's questionable if they'll be able to do that.

Tesla is operated very much like a silicon valley startup. They're growing rapidly in the hope of becoming profitable when they reach scale. But they sure as heck aren't profitable right now.

Source: http://seekingalpha.com/article/3994655-teslas-gross-margins...
...and none of this will matter when most of us are using self-driving car services in the next 5-10 years. I mean, it won't matter if my Lyft or Uber is an ugly Bolt. As long as it's cheap and safe.
Visualizing MNIST: An Exploration of Dimensionality Reduction
Ah yes, of course. I did miss that. The implicit (client-side) auth flow gets the access token directly and doesn't need another request to the API, that's the whole point.

This is indeed rather unwanted, even more so
with the new more restrictive API usage policy and the sandbox.
> Eating healthy food _is_ costlier than not caring about what you eat.

False. I started preparing pretty much all of my meals for health reasons and spend much less than I ever did before. When I didn't care and I bought what I craved or sounded good when I was hungry, I was spending close to 50%-60% more at the store. Prepared or processed foods are generally more expensive than others. Packaging, marketing etc are used to influence your purchasing decisions.

Example:

frozen sauteed broccoli: 2 servings -> $3.49
14oz frozen broccoli: ~5 servings -> $1.09

One serving of the former is more expensive than 5 servings of the latter. They're both healthy choices, but former is a product from a large company that put more into their packaging and preparation. I can throw the latter in pan with some garlic, butter or oil and accomplish the same or prepare them however I like.

Still, a lot of processed foods at Whole Foods et al are still not 'good' for you. Organic carbs and Himalayan salt are still carbs and sodium.
> real AWD

You mean 4WD, right? They aren't really the same thing, or at least, a decade ago they were still considered separate, if often confused by the public. Are the current SUVs offering AWD or 4WD (or do they offer both on select variations/models)?
I get that. My argument is for a small subset of software tools, to be considered to be sufficiently critical that updates are prioritized because compromise of said tools would have outsized consequences.
By reading other people's code you start to get a feel for how many ways you can slice an apple. Many ways.

I find even choosing the degree of formality is often difficult. If you have a gander at Oracle/Sun's JavaFX implementation, you'll see just how much code, how much complexity goes into making a large and comprehensive API - and also who the architecture is about 4x more complicated due to their will to try to build rendering pipelines, which is ultimately an optimization of sorts.

And then of course the quick, dense, poorly commented code on some node.js implementations that seem to be novel and smart, but nevertheless threadbare.

Finally - it seems that there is quite a lot of variety in common practices particularly in Javascript.
Aquarium for Mac terminal
Siri and Google Voice are in completely different leagues. I find Siri completely useless; I use Google's voice interface all the time; it even understands context.
Join the mailing list, I'll make announcements there! https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!forum/beaker-browser
> just the reality of what's possible in their current job.

Reality is maleable, albeit it's not an easy thing to do, that's a fact.

The real question is if you are willing to change your reality -- or are you a coffee-addicted slouch who is always too tired to try and change anything and just wants to go home for a proper sleep after yet another soul-draining workday.

Apologies for being a bit extreme. IMO it helps illustrate my point a little better. No offense is meant to you or anyone else reading this.
I made an aquarium for the terminal, written in Python (needs termcolor module to run). It was a project I wrote to help me learn OOP.

It randomly generates a unique aquarium ecosystem every time you run it.

It adjusts to your terminal window size, so you can run it fullscreen or just have a tiny little aquarium off to the side to keep you company while you work!

Try it out, and let me know what you think :)
What makes jupyter/python closer to this than booting into emacs? (With something like org-mode?)

Just the point/click nature of jupyter?
Cancellation is a high-level expression of intent that you no longer care about the result of the operation.

Due to the very nature of asynchronous operations, it is, in general, impossible to even determine which layer will ultimately handle that request (e.g. in your example, whether the POST won't happen, or it'll be aborted, or it's already completed), much less how it'll be handled.

The assumption is that all layers will do their best effort (defined vaguely in a "common sense" way) to service that request.

That is a very useful abstraction to have, and I don't see why JS is special in that regard.
Works just fine if you change:

this.test(7);
test(10);

to

test(10);
this.test(7);

Of course, since this is a made-up example to highlight one of your pet problems I don't know if that ordering is important to you. However there is a reason for the insistence on calls to the constructor being first, and it's not specific to Java. You run into this problem any time you have code that might mutate a data structure before if has been initialized. There are other ways to write this kind of code that avoids this, but it is by no means unusual in imperative code.
How we launched a new homepage
Croyez-vous aux extraterrestres?
Word. I was like uhhhhhhhhhhmmmmm
I think you're right. Alexa and Google home do well at...home. But Apple want everyone using a phone/watch/Airpods to interact with their AI assistant wherever they are.

We can argue about the quality of Siri, but I think Apple have the best chance of dominating the wearables market.
> The "world" equivalence is not a useful way to think about it.

Regardless of your opinion on the matter, that's how it's actually implemented. IO is roughly equivalent to "State RealWorld#" with some extra strictness/unboxing stuff.

What you're talking about is basically the free monad over the (Request, Response -> a) functor. That would probably work, but be less performant and harder to extend.

IO is nice because it's really easy to safely integrate with FFI calls. I don't think you could easily do the same with your proposal.
I do think the complaint on having to write the backward pass seems especially shallow; finding out they were working with numpy makes it even more so (since numpy takes the pain out of the matrix operations). IIRC, when I took the ML Class in 2011, we used Octave, but Ng had us first write stuff "the hard way" - so we'd understand what was going on later when we used Octave's methods.

Something about this article as a whole, though, does raise a question that I've been wondering about, and I want to present it here for a bit of discussion (maybe it needs its own thread?):

Does anyone else here think that the current approach to neural networks has some fundamental flaws?

Now - I'm not an expert; call me an interested student right now, with only the barest of experience (beyond the ML Class, I also took Udacity's CS373 course, and I am also currently enrolled in their Self-Driving Car Engineer nanodegree program).

I understand that what we currently have and know does work. What I mean by that is the basic idea of an artificial neural network using forward and back-prop, multiple layers, etc (and all the derivatives - RNN, CNN, deep learning, etc). I understand the need and reasoning behind using activation functions based around calculus and derivatives and the chain-rule, etc (though I admit I need further education in these items).

But something nags at me.

All of this, despite the fact that it works and works well (provided all your tuning and such is right, etc), just seems like it is over-complicated. Real neurons don't use calculus and activation functions, nor back-propagation, etc in order to learn. All of those things in an ANN are just abstractions and models around what occurs in nature.

Maybe (probably?) I am wrong - but it seems like what nature does is simpler. Much less power is used, for instance, and the package is much more compact. I just have this feeling that in some manner we may have gone down a path that while it has produced a working representation, that representation is overly complex, and had we took another approach (whatever that might be?), our ANNs would look and work much differently - perhaps even more efficiently.

About the only alternatives I have heard about otherwise have been things like spike-train neural networks, and some of the other "closer to nature" simulation (of ion pumps and real synapses, etc). Still, even those, while seemingly closer, also have what appears to be too much complexity.

I'm probably just talking out of my nether regions as a general n00b to the field. I do wonder, though, if there might be another solution, seemingly out in "left-field" that might push things forward, if someone was willing to look and experiment. It is something I plan to look into myself, as I find time and such between lessons and other work for my current learning experience.
Passenger vans have been a thing since the dawn of the automobile. What separates vehicles like the VW Type 2, the Chevy Astro, and the Ford Econoline from the minivan is the minivan's complete disregard for use as a van. It was based on the platform of a sedan so it drove like a (fat) sedan rather than like a work truck. It also had actual attention paid toward things like NVH (noise, vibration, and harshness) and passenger ergonomics.

It's easy to look at the form factor and say "that's been done before" but that ignores hundreds of differing design principles that make for something entirely different on the whole.
Ash HN: Would you pay for a monthly magazine with step-by-step growth hacks?
Yes? How much? No? Why not?