skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Why would the "aristocracy" owning the factories care about money, when they have all the goods (or can trade for them with other aristos)?

In this scenario, they only need enough factories to meet the needs of themselves and the other aristocrats. Which means there will be massive demand for goods for the common people, which means there will be jobs for people. The only way your scenario works is if the aristocracy produces enough goods for the entire world cheaper than anyone else can, but also making them too expensive for anyone to afford. But that would mean the factories are producing enough goods for everyone despite the fact to very few can actually buy them. Piles of good wasting away outside the factory. The only reason to do this is if the aristocracy was malicious: trying to hurt the rest of humanity despite the fact that there is no real benefit.
No. The base rate of having a crime committed against you is extremely low, and the posterior probability of having a crime committed against you by a poor minority- even if higher- is still extremely low. My point refers to the absolute value of the posterior probability of one's heuristic being correct, not the probability gain resulting from some piece of evidence (like being a poor minority).
If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. The beauty of WebAssembly is that it can be targeted by so many other things. Finally, we can let JS sink or swim on its own, without being propped by an artificial monopoly on the web frontend scripting...
Boiling a chicken, or a bunch of lentils and rice, with a few vegies thrown in isn't really hard.
It's not a question about being silly. It's a question about retaining the legitimacy to persuade people in the middle, people that are currently nominal Trump supporters.

What should scare you the most isn't Trump; it should be the credulity of the electorate, its tolerance of his rhetoric, and its faith in his vague promises. Trump's rhetoric has only _softened_ over the course of the past year. Not too long ago he was literally criticizing John McCain for being captured.

People in dictatorial regimes didn't get there by being quiet. They never were. Even today in places like Venezuela and Russia people take to the streets. They got there by losing a channel of communication to their fellow citizens.

It's no coincidence that Trump's rhetoric is typically vague and non-specific. The whole Muslim registry thing, for example, was vague enough that many people could rationalize it away; that's even easier now that Trump has come out against it.

People are just going to waste their bullets by shooting at poorly defined, moving targets. And when you finally get something lined up in your sites and have a good shot, nobody is going to notice. Trump clearly enjoys tweaking the opposition this way, he understands that his audience enjoys it. Trump understands how and when to hold and distract their attention--it's second nature to him because he thrives on that attention.

All the Republican nomination competitors made the same mistake... and lost. Hillary Clinton made the same mistake... and lost. Pointing out the obvious flaws in his policies, the impossibility of his promises, and his rejection of core American ideals DID NOT WORK! The moment those tactics find any purchase, he changes his tune accordingly.

Too many people _want_ to believe; too many people are reveling in a sense of rebellion, insensitive to consequences. The only way to get through to them is to give them a front-row seat to each and every policy failure, along with an accompanying narrative that squarely lays the blame at his feet.

In the interstitial time between consequential events, people (especially journalists) should just focus on maintaining transparency, so that the record cannot be easily denied. Doing that requires not providing fodder that allows the administration to sow uncertainty and doubt about opposition criticisms.

If people keep reacting to every aspect of Trump's rhetoric, there won't be anybody in the audience left. They'll have all gone home, either secure in their faith in Trump's promises or given over to apathy. Just like people are in Venezuela, Russia, and elsewhere.

It's not about standing up to Trump. This is a democracy. The only way to win is by persuading his supporters, especially when it's this early in the game and Trump and his growing band of sycophants haven't secured much institutional power.
It's interesting that even the best chess engines are still worse at analyzing openings than humans.
Legendary creatures with wings that fly high up in the sky are called Pegasus, Unicorns on the contrary does not have wings. Thus when the interest rate go up Unicorns may be separated from Pegasus.

Cryptographies stand to create a better future. A better future should be worth more than Twitter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pegasus
> like manually compiling and loading Signal, as it's OSS.

Except, I’d have to modify the code, as the current version depends on Google’s proprietary libs, which I can’t inspect. And I lose half of the functionality, as RedPhone is also proprietary.

> by coercing Google or Facebook engineers to run you a Hadoop query or conditionally inject malicious JS.

The same can be done by coercing OWS engineers to backdoor their services.

And in any case, Signal can start collecting metadata any minute now, and there’s nothing we could do against it.
To the general populace, "Fracking" refers to the entire process of extraction of resources involving Hydraulic Fracturing.

Edit: Also more than salt water is injected.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted, ransomware infection rates lead bitcoin prices closely.
Copy and paste? Reordering two lines or two characters?

If that's all that vim could do better than traditional editors, then sure, stick with the traditional editors. Learning the complexity of vim is not worth it.

But those are incredibly trivial examples. vim can do so much more than that, in a really efficient and powerful way.

It's like demanding why one should use a battleship when a tricycle can also turn left and right, and can go forward and backwards. Yes, both can do that, but the battleship does far, far more, and there are reasons for its complexity.

If all you need is a tricycle, stick with the tricycle by all means. It's much more intuitive than a battleship. But some of us need far, far more power than that.
One observation I've had: I feel/have felt more isolated when I don't have close connections with people around me but I am around a lot of people. I grew up in a really rural area and spent a lot of time outside alone and never felt isolated in nature. However once you get out in the city, get an internet connection etc, all the sudden you do feel isolated.

Also, does anyone else like it when the power goes out? Its so surreal to be in the city without power (I'm used to it in the country however) and all the sudden everyone is on their porch or out in the street chatting. Then it comes on and everyone goes back into their little isolation chambers.
Why is poor Appalachia (mostly white) low-crime? They have violent crime rates on par with "affluent" communities.

What about poor immigrant Asian communities? Low crime as well.

There must be another explanation for the drug and violence problems you discuss, unrelated to education and wealth.
> A million different ways of doing things -- but referencing is so often overlooked and I've never understood why.

Because it's worthless.

There is a 1% chance that you'll find out that "that guy" was a drug dealed and he was let go.

The other 99%. It's impossible to know if you're calling a friend of him, if you're talking with an ex-grumpy manager who's backstabby (that may be why the guy left in the first place), if you're reaching someone at all (do you seriously expect employees to have valid phone numbers from people they've worked with 5 years ago and the numbers are still valid??? wtf), and of course you can't get nor trust references for the current company (you're not only rattling him out but the reference may have a serious incentive to lie to you in ways you can't possible understand).

And last but not least, all consulting and sweat shops will ask and insist for name and references of everything, not to hire you BUT to go harass your companies as potential customers for their services.

IMO: references are optimizing against everything they're supposed to help with. Never do referencing. Stop interviews when people insist on references.

[P.S. Answering reference requests is a liability that's putting you at risk (and it's forbidden in a lot of places). Don't do it. The only acceptable answer is "That guy has worked with us around <that period of time>. That's all I can tell you."]
There was a lot of early positive press about Uber, especially in media aimed at tech workers, businesspeople, etc.
In what way does it seem more restrictive?

I own both the BlueBuds X (which uses micro USB) and the AirPods. I love the BlueBuds X, but the charging solution for the AirPods is vastly superior to that of the BlueBuds. To me, the charging case is one of the killer features of the AirPods.

When you take them out of your ear, they conveniently pop into the case for safe keeping. While they are in the case they are always charging. They also charge incredibly fast. This makes it virtually impossibly to be "stranded" with dead headphones. Even when I ran the AirPods almost completely down, I was able to charge them from 2% to 84% in just a few minutes.

I've had several times where I've had my BlueBuds die on me and I wouldn't have a backup pair of headphones. The AirPod case's battery is large enough that you can get an additional 24 hours of playback from them. This means you could potentially not charge them for days and still be fine.
Uber's last valuation is 12x ($66bn = $5.5bn x 12) on annual revenue growth of 275% - 12x doesn't seem an unreasonable multiple.

The valuation isn't artificially high, it's a result of an unprecedented growth curve.
It's articles like this that genuinely make me wonder if I'm a weirdo because I actually prefer to be alone when at all possible.

And I like people! I have no trouble engaging in small talk while getting to know new folks. But man, they wear me out. Even ones I love. At the end of the day, I need aloneness if I'm going to recharge for tomorrow's challenges.
A language doesn't need dependent types to make fixed-size arrays of differing size count as incompatible types. Rust does this, for example:

// error: expected an array with a fixed size of 5
// elements, found one with 7 elements
let x: [i32; 5] = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7];
The LiChess guys are just the best. The BEST!!!!
Are you able to point me to a more specific location for that citation? I click the article link, then click the link to the PDF study from there. I read through the whole thing (actually way more interesting than the article), and unless I missed it somewhere, I didn't see anything referencing that statistic.
They always miss a critical and subtle assumption: that intelligence scales equal to or faster then the computational complexity of improving that intelligence.

This is the one assumption I most skeptical of. In my experience, each time you make a system more clever, you also make it MUCH more complex. Maybe there is not hard limit on intelligence, but maybe each generation of improved intelligence actually takes longer to find the next generation, due to the rapidly ramping difficulty of the problem.

I think people see the exponential-looking growth of technology over human history, and just kinda interpolate or something.
Whether it's ? or something else, having a very concise form of syntactic sugar to unwrap option types is desirable. Most languages that don't have it, eventually acquire it due to demand.
I can't help but stand this next to the Challenger Space Shuttle O-ring thread, without feeling a profound sense of resonance between these 2 scenarios.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13238346

Compare this passage:

(U) Third, two weeks before Snowden began mass
downloads of classified documents, he was
reprimanded after engaging in a workplace
spat with NSA managers. Snowden was repeatedly
counseled by his managers regarding his behavior
at work. For example, in June 2012, Snowden became
involved in a fiery email argument with a
supervisor about how computer updates should be
managed. Snowden added an NSA senior executive
several levels above the supervisor to the email
thread, an action that earned him a swift
reprimand from his contracting officer for failing
to follow the proper protocol for raising
grievances through the chain of command. Two weeks
later, Snowden began his mass downloads of
classified information from NSA networks.

Compare to:

2) The engineers actually knew the risk (~1% chance
of loss per launch, not specific to the o-rings,
compared with two actual losses of the shuttle
over ~130 missions). Management used entirely
invented numbers for the risk which were not
justified.

It's like, hey, Snowden tried to tell them to apply their updates. He tried to tell them the o-rings might blow. He warned them that there was a one-in-one-hundred probability of failure.

If he didn't blow the gasket on the launchpad himself, before launch, how disasterously awful might this have really been, if he had behaved like a good little cubicle drone, followed protocol, drank the Kool-Ade, and permitted this so-called "counseling" to brainwash him?
It was Gorbachev who refused, not the generals.
Yeah but we were never forced into this global boiler room where we're constantly confronted with each other's thoughts and opinions. Thank you social media. It's like there is no intellectual breathing room anymore. Make anyone go mad and want to push the button..
You're right #3 is not right, but its not completely wrong either. Looks like issues on github won't be used, but PRs won't really be used since there isn't going to be any merging done using PRs. Maybe it'll be a bit more clear as to what they'll do. I wonder what's left for them to host on github if people can't open issues or merge their code.

>- workflow between LEDE and OpenWrt? Using Github to gather pull requests, but not use the merge pull request feature of Github, have staging trees for queuing changes, and then merge into the main tree
We can get fusion to work in H-bombs so it might not be that silly.
In the end it's a governance problem. If you create an ecosystem which sets a precedent of taking security seriously and thoroughly excommunicating insecure clients, netsplitting them out of the mainstream, then I think you'd see a lot more interest in client vendors and users routing around obsolescence and upgrading to whatever the current best practices are. This is particularly nice if the protocol is designed to let you enforce this, by ratcheting up to new versions.

Email never had this, and it shows. SHA-1 in HTTPS is a kinda intermediary example; browser and server vendors have been petrified to break legacy systems and generally not accorded that much priority to security updates. In Matrix, we hope to avoid this by setting a precedent that if Olm/Megolm is found broken tomorrow, we'd work with the major client authors to upgrade them, patching their clients ourselves if we have to, or providing a localhost shim or whatever, and then take the biggest community anchor points (e.g. #matrix:matrix.org) and throw the switch to the new protocol, and make it abundantly clear that folks on old clients have been left out in the cold for security reasons and need to get upgraded immediately. If you're a big enterprise with a private deployment who doesn't want to upgrade rapidly, that's fine. But the societal pressure will enormously be to get with the program and upgrade. Let's see how well that works though - we haven't really had to make any backwards incompatible changes yet since we started in Sep 2014.

(p.s. hi! :D)
That sounds great.

What I am objecting here, are those annoying cool kids try to sell their flashy green solutions, like 'A new machine learning library written in Rust' to other people, because 'yeah, Rust is better programming language than C++'.

That is what I called 'religion belief', for those people who don't really care what problems they solved, they just naively assume they are better because of the language they are using is different.
The current bugs are basically that occasionally, you can't decrypt a message. Supposedly this has actually been fixed (and wasn't a security issue), but I've seen it once or twice since. And as I say, you lose your chat history if you log out or bring in a new device. This is an important bug to fix, but it requires some UX work.
But who will people listen to, Tupshin?
Those trades are probably black market profits, primarily drugs. Or oligarchs, whose circles haven't been penetrated by journalists. (Or, what, overstock.com?)

I imagine Bitcoin would be a lot more popular if it weren't for the moral hazard of providing fungible currency for people trafficking in 9mms and ecstasy.
This is pretty cool. I have some elderly Lenovo T60 laptops that this will give some new life to. I love Pixel on my Raspberry Pi. It's a really clean interface, easy to use and pretty snappy on the Pi. Hoping it's equally snappy on the x86 hardware.
There are errors, and there are errors.

The kind of error that you'd handle high up the stack is, say, a general I/O error reading a file.

But when you look up an item in a collection (or a node in a DOM tree), and it is not found, the only place where you can sensibly handle that is right where the lookup happens, usually.

In a language that doesn't follow this philosophy, what you get instead are random NullPointerExceptions etc. If you go and look at a random C# or Java project on GitHub and check its tracker, you will see that - surprise, surprise! - that is exactly the type of error that shows up most.
There is indeed a helm package, gitlab-ce.
The jobs are coming back, sure, but they're all bullsh*t jobs. And more and more we're all at the beck and call of computers. Seriously? Just so we can say we have a job?
Ha how ironic that this was just mentioned in another thread! +1 to you sir!

Now with that said, this looks quite good and really broaches chess in a modern way in terms of learning. I sure have stacks of books that I wish were just software, mostly on studying chess tactics
Tangential question: why aren't we using '#pragma once' more? I've adopted it in personal stuff and it's obviously Good. Is anyone still really coding for some arcane compiler that doesn't support it? Or is there some good reason for not just switching?
Well, for some reason I feel bad for the co owner who started apologizing on the forum. Probably I shouldn't, but I can feel his thoughts of all the reputation of the company and him going down the toilet because of some toxic worker and his emotional outbursts.
So, even when you buy from Amazon itself, you may get one of the goods shipped to the Amazon warehouse by a third party dealing in counterfeit goods.

That is a misleading statement because Amazon only commingles third party sellers, not their own inventory. If you buy from "Amazon itself" you aren't at risk of getting commingled inventory.
I'm trying to find where I remember the factor of 30 figure from. Maybe it was the equivalent calculation for hydrogen fusion in the ocean? I'll keep looking.
How Artificial Intelligence Will Revolutionize the Insurance Industry
They probably just ran out of money or a key relationship dried up causing their runway to become impossibly short.
I think the GP's point is that just because something is possible in principle, complexity is still a barrier in practice, probably a much more serious barrier than accepting an idea on principle
It wasn't a ridiculous thing to worry about at all.
Maybe it's time for somebody to start a company aimed at helping tax cheats avoid the government.

Or maybe it's time for illegal immigrants to follow the law, just like thousands of legal immigrants do? Maybe they can pay taxes for the social welfare resources they use, the free college, the free medical expenses.

Do you know how frustrating it is for legal immigrants who worked hard to become legal and follow the law watch other illegal immigrants trample on the laws without regard? It's very frustrating.
A flight was late because someone named their Wi-Fi hotspot ‘Galaxy Note 7’
Read/write Slack Channels via Vim with Golang
We don't need ai for massive differences in military effectiveness. That is already here. The us can just destroy most country and substate actors with minimal causalities. The issue is already just difficult matters like differentiating friendlies/neutrals from enemies and not creating more enemies via collateral damage and other forms of reactions.
Wouldn't a constant desire to self improve mean a constant desire for more energy? That would bring it into conflict with other beings that want that energy.
>When the subsystem and its software was decided to be used on Ariane 5, they did not even run the subsystem with the projected trajectory of the new rocket.

On one hand, I find that incredibly hard to believe. Yet on the other I am old enough to have seen exactly that kind of thinking often enough that I don't find it hard to believe at all.
If the company is shutting down no matter what, keeping the employees on is essentially giving away money for no (business) reason. To do so could be construed as a violation of fiduciary duty to the shareholders.

Alternately, who says they have the money to make payroll either way? Keeping them employed when you know there is no money to pay them would be even worse. It would leave them just as unpaid, but also even more bitter about it.
Traffic Hacker 101: My 23 Killer SEO Resources for 2017
Sure, but their sales are subsidized by VC dollars. I don't have all the data, but everything I've heard in every city says Uber pays drivers more than they charge riders, hence the enormous 10 digit losses annually. And once they raise rates, people will use their services drastically less. The question is can they make driverless cars work before they run out of money? And I really, really doubt it. That's many years away, and I don't think Saudi Arabia is going to give them a few more billion dollars.
I want that last sentence on a coffee cup. Or tee-shirt I guess, but I have too many at the moment.
As do a number of major universities (CMU, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and plenty more, I'm sure). If I had to guess, these contracts are generally a lot more prevalent in fields where people are regularly creating intellectual property.
> I have zero idea what the legal definition of debt is in the country/jurisdiction you live in. I also didn't specify what country I live in.

Only definition that matters is the one in the jurisdiction this startup was in.
yeah, the term I'd use is source available? anyway, I agree with the idea that "open source" is a dirty term, an attempt to subvert the free software movement. But that is a battle for another day.

Someone else put it better than I could:

> Likewise a Source Available is not necessarily Open Source, but Open Source is necessarily Source Available.

https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSo... (requires you to accept github cert because https is difficult for some reason)

Blog github at https://github.com/Haacked/haacked.com
Bad timing. Yosemite broke basically everything in nixpkgs-darwin, and it took a long time to get everything fixed. I think that was mainly due to the switch from GCC to Clang and the accompanying toolchain, library and runtime changes.

The good news it that the darwin stdenv is now "pure" in the functional sense. It bootstraps using /usr/bin/curl, and symlinks libSystem into the nix store, but otherwise doesn't rely on macOS at all. That makes it much more resilient to changes in macOS and Xcode.
True, but H-bombs don't really produce runaway chain fusion reactions afaik. The conditions exist only momentarily due to the heat and pressure from the fission devices, then quickly subside and the fusion stops.