skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I believe it /technically/ possible that the world could be initialized in such a state that it appears as if evolution occurred when it had instead merely been made to exist in such a state.

That is probably astronomically unlikely, but you don't even really need a 'god' to produce such an outcome. Imagine if an alien race wanted to run a simulation of some sort that was only possible in reality. So they go to the trouble of setting up an entire solar system and planet as their staging ground. It isn't conceptually beyond any possibility, but the effort required is likely beyond my capacity to accurately imagine.

It's so highly unlikely that I don't believe it actually happened, but I cannot say for absolute certain that it didn't.

Given the history of everything, even war-time level efforts to keep secrets, I don't believe anyone could creditably say that any level of over-ride key wouldn't be impossible to leak from /somewhere/.
Oh, good. There's more Russian work to be done!
Mark Srednicki's Quantum Field Theory book has a very nice and often quoted passage in its introduction regarding two approaches to incorporating time in a relativistic theory. The problem is that non-relativistic QM treats space (position) as an operator while time as a sort of label. But relativity demands that space and time be on equal footing. So we can either make space a label (as is done in QFT), or time an operator (leading to string theory).

The passage is long, but here is a Quora article that excerpts it: https://www.quora.com/Why-is-time-not-an-operator-in-quantum...
Go has generics, or at least parameterized types. Maps and channels are generics. Go just doesn't have user defined generics.
For one: I'm talking about the freedom to do what I describe here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13253207 Without cracking down on the ability to do that, they've achieved nothing on the search warrant front.
Never seen the "past" button before. Thanks!
There's probably less opportunity to make an error when most things are immutable by default. I'm not sure if that's the case or not.
The previous comment is not confusing speed with quality.

The point is that once we have a machine as smart as us, simply improving its speed and resources will increase its effective intelligence.

Whether a higher/faster intelligence generates additional value in any given task is beside the point. Some tasks don't benefit from increased intelligence, but that doesn't mean being smarter doesn't come with great benefits.
Kiss your dad square on the lips.
Optimal Data Science: Latent Dirichlet Allocation
Proof of life, please.
Another neat pair of raytacers that shows the performance boost from vectorization:

http://www.excamera.com/sphinx/article-ray.html
You can't get money out of a bankrupt company. Suing would cost several thousands. According to American law, in a bankruptcy, employees get paid first, then contractors if anything is left. Suing will only lose you money, nothing to gain.
I'm not a fan of these "Notice how you don't hear too much about X" arguments. Just because you aren't interested does not mean it's not being reported.
Seems to be a lot of dissent around this idea. I think if you send the original message to my email, and make reply-to without your app easy (or transparent or whatever), then you're just making it easier for other users to email me and that's OK.

If I have to sign up to your service to read or reply to the message then it would be spam.
The actual model is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

Almost all these self-help "how to do X" guides focus exclusively on Conscientiousness. Yeah, they all pay lip service to "relationships" but it gets the same treatment as "bigger car": work! work! work! daily goal!

> • Values & Purpose • Contribution & Impact • Location & Tangibles • Money & Finances • Career & Work • Health & Fitness • Education & Skill Development • Social Life & Relationships • Emotions & Well-Being • Character & Integrity • Productivity & Organization • Adventure & Creativity

That list is absurd. If you're unhappy enough with your life to turn it into a 24-point daily checklist you need a vacation and possibly treatment for depression. If you think that's not it, here's some advice:

Get "Values & Purpose" straight and everything else will follow.
Which languages do you recommend then?
I googled for a bit and didn't find anything current about Rust's region system from an implementation perspective. Is there a good place to read more in depth about design decisions, but containing less process than the RFCs and PRs?
I'd recommend watching this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi0rHwfiX1Q to see how powerful this can be.

I've just discovered generative testing due to clojure.spec. Describing specs for your data works not only to help validate data structures but can be plugged in as properties for generative testing.

After the "aha" moment it was followed by a feeling that I've wasted so much time writing specs just to validate data structures and writing specs just to see if my functions are working as they should.

This is one of the things I wish was obvious in my learning track right after vim/emacs will help you code faster.
"the emergent self-organizing process, both embodied and relational, that regulates energy and information flow within and among us"

This definition is worthless. It has an incredibly high false-positive rate. For example, according to this, any animal would qualify as "a mind", any self-sustaining chemical reaction would qualify as "a mind", and in fact anything that sort of looks like life (key concept is "self-organizing") would qualify as "a mind".

Breaking it down:

> emergent self-organizing process

Any life, and a lot of things that probably wouldn't be counted as life. For example, gravitationally bound spherical bodies in space.

> both embodied and relational

Mumbo-jumbo, presumably meaning "both physical and abstract".

> that regulates energy and information flow

Vague bordering on meaningless. This sounds more like it's describing a transistor than a mind.

> within and among us

Completely ill-defined. Who is "us"? Is this definition impredicative, where "us" is defined over the set of minds? If so, it's useless.

It's cool if people want to spin yarn about how to define various difficult-to-quantify abstract concepts, but it's frustrating when they act as if they're talking about some sort of factual discovery they've made.
Dead Hand (nuclear war)
Has there been any progress since then? The blog has been awfully quiet.
Hearing their stories communicates to you the existence of the millenia-wide fellowship of truthseekers, and that what you are receiving is not just fodder for tests---it is your inheritance.
Kaspersky Total Security 2017 Crack and Activation Codes with Serial Free
I was referring specifically to libraries and frameworks that would require common end users to have a nightly compiler to "infect" their own code. I'm more-or-less fine with Servo being a heavy user of nightly given how much that helps us test new language features on a, er, captive audience. :P
Either our voting system is secure from tampering or we are all just ignoring a horrible probability.
Definitely. And it's going to be around for a long time, but just because a debate perdures doesn't mean both sides have an equal claim to the truth.

After all, there are still a lot of people who think creationism should be taught in school next to evolution.
Could you say any more or point me to any references about problems with OnePlus, please? I'm looking at getting a new phone soon and was thinking of one of theirs, and your comment is the first substantial negative comment I've seen about them so far.
> nor standards-based...

Not to be antagonistic but what difference does it make if it's not "standards based" while it works for them and does what they want it to do?
You lost the essence of the article by changing the title to a trite observation. The point the author is (presumably) making is a bit outrageous: that you not live just in your own brain but in the brain of the others you're related to.

I say presumably because I haven't read Siegel's book, but am extrapolating from the same thread which was woven by Hofstadter in "I am a Strange Loop". A more popular yet similar exposition of this idea is the word Ubuntu, which you can roughly grasp using the aphorism "A person is a person through other people".
To me, Ruby feels like this ex-girlfiend I was completely infatuated with and eventually broke up with because I was too young to pay attention to the fact that her flaws were in all the right places instead of the ones that truly matter.
Reading the above, I wonder if the people who are writing the linear equality/inequality parts of SAT solvers for program proof know that. Internally, numerical equalities and inequalities become rows in a sparse matrix. The columns represent program variables. Solution is done with rational arithmetic. The original Oppen-Nelson prover of the 1970s solved those with a Gauss-Jordan approach, and most follow-on work through at least the 1990s was basically the same machinery.
Hmmm. As crazy as it sounds, I've been freaked out by this recently too.

I recently had to get glasses due to degraded eyesight. I never posted anything about it on social media because quite frankly i was embarrassed by it. Never did any searches etc. Just went to my optometrist, did the test and got my glasses.

Whenever friends see me working, or out and about (where i usually have my phone with me), they usually comment "oh, you have glasses now!" Or something equivalent. I usually respond with a light hearted "oh yeah, i am going blind these days" or something along those lines.

Well dang - my Facebook feed is full of ads for optometrists and lasik surgery etc. these days!

Let me reiterate, i have never mentioned my affliction on any social media channels, nor done a search for anything related to my failing vision. The coincidence is spooky.
Traits are orthogonal to the dynamic/static question.

My experience has taught me that not having type annotations in a source code makes it very hard to understand and maintain that source in the long run.
Android app yet?
Show HN: Rocket, a web framework for Rust
Who profits the most off the interest?
They same could be said of flight, but now we have machines whose sole purpose is flight.

"Pure" is a bit of an extreme word, but clearly designed things are purer to particular goals than biological systems typically are.

This is partly due to the essences of what design means and partly because machines don't have to do all the things biology does, such as maintain a metabolism that continually turns over their structural parts, reproduce, find and process their own fuel, etc.
That's the point. Sometimes "not for sale" means incredibly cheap, like air. Sometimes it means "not available in standardized fashion," like trips to the moon.
Ah I see, yes the explanation there is correct. The types exist up to ginormous sizes, but the standard library only implements certain convenience traits for certain sizes (though using newtypes, you can implement those traits yourself for any array size you want). The specific feature we're lacking is type-level numerals, which is on the way towards but not anywhere close to a dependent type system AIUI.
He did my Masters thesis from NYU Poly, actually everyone in our department for like 30+ years was getting done with him. It was an experience that I would never forget.
Six more radio signals from deep space deepen mystery
> I used to make docking-stations and other desk-appliances with it.

I’m having a hard time visualizing this. How do you use bookbinding techniques to make these things? I think I have a wrong picture in my head.
> in practice, large amounts of data tend not to be sent over channels

Can you cite a source for this, or is this your personal experience?
Could you share some details about the exploit? This is the first I've heard of it.

There was also this article about some of the problems with Go channels: http://www.jtolds.com/writing/2016/03/go-channels-are-bad-an...
I don't think this definition is quite as worthless as you argue. Specifically, you've missed the meaning of "relational". By "embodied" the definition means the physical (brain and rest of body). By "relational" I believe the point is all the stuff that happens to/around/in concert with the physical body and brain. You cannot decouple the brain from the external experiences of the brain, and so the mind must be considered as the processor (the brain) as well as all of the data (stimuli/experiences) that is input and output from the processor.
Interest rate subsidies help students and banks. Also, where's the money coming from? From lenders, i.e. people's bank accounts.

> It transfers wealth from banks to the government to the benefit of taxpayers

No, it transfers money from lenders (like you and me who have bank accounts) to borrowers. People own banks and lend money to banks. Banks don't have any magical stash of money. If banks lose wealth, then I lose wealth (my bank account earns less real interest).

> You're also assuming lenders have control over that given the way the government creating money affects interest rates. When the government creates money it has the effect of reducing the amount of government debt in circulation (they have money, they don't need to issue bonds), which reduces interest rates on bonds and forces would-be bond purchasers into buying some other debt, which increases competition for lending and reduces interest rates in other lending markets too.

Yes, the government will loan less, but interest rates will go up (right now they're a low 2-3%) to adjust for the risk of inflation which cancels that affect. Lenders have control over interest rates obviously; only they buy bonds. Infact, if the inflation is a surprise, then lenders will be risk-averse causing drastic increase in interest rates (they'll be thinking "what if the government inflates money even more next time in a surprise?"). Lenders like stability.
OK... but none of that sounds like it would result in deliberately introducing security flaws of the sort under discussion here. Let's not forget the context of this discussion:

"Some researchers have even speculated, especially since the disclosures by Edward Snowden, that commercial hardware sources could be subtly manipulated to make the codes easier to break by the U.S. National Security Agency or others." [Emphasis added]

Obviously such attacks are possible, but are they likely? I can see how the cat-and-mouse game of IP protection would lead to all kinds of dirty tricks, but what would be the profit in introducing a backdoor that could be leveraged to break crypto or an RNG?
> The developers working on it could be led to believe they were working on something else completely. It only takes 1 person to pull the libraries together, and that would have to be someone you trusted.

Have you actually worked in software engineering? There's no way this approach would be practical, especially not in a public company, with as many platforms and sophisticated tech like FB. This is a ridiculous conspiracy fantasy.

Also, having worked in ad-tech, in order to sell this to clients you have to have product explain it to sales, you need marketing to create powerpoint presentations explaining where the data comes from, with stats showing why it's better, possibly your data science team needs to do bespoke reporting, etc... it would take at least dozens of people from multiple teams to implement something like this.
"Tell us where the body is buried, or we'll hold you in contempt of court."

Being compelled to produce any information from your mind to incriminate yourself is not acceptable.
I've been using Complice [0] for a couple of months now and it does something akin to what you're describing.

[0] https://complice.co
You can shoot yourself in the foot with any language, granted.

But I'd rather use languages that have less ways to shoot myself in the foot.
Which Countries Have Nuclear Weapons and How Big Their Arsenals Are
Just with the python/ruby comparison

I kinda feel like the reason for that is more due to the fact that if python users want change in their language, they really need to either construct their own pre-parser and deal with a lot of potential issues, or post a change, hope it becomes a PEP, and hope it gets accepted. There is very little ways other than that

In ruby, you are enabled to fix so much more of the language to your own liking, so there is much less of a need for the main language to change.

I'm not saying that ruby isn't underfunded, just that it doesn't need to grow as fast as python does
Comparing dynamic and static programming to creationism and evolution is passive-aggressively condescending and only weakens your credibility
The only document I can think of outside of Niko Matsakis' blog (http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/) would be https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/librustc/i...
"mind-body problem" is indeed not trivial.

But the 'mind' does not have a location, it does not make sense describe it as 'in your head' or 'in your body' or anywhere else.

Your brain has matter/energy. It has a location.

Your mind has neither, it's a abstraction. It has no location.

If it did, you'd be able to say where it was without fuss.

You'd have to get into fancier metaphysics (i.e. non-materialist) to go too far beyond that.
Ask HN: How to promote non-english websites/content?
I am researching for ways to promote content to regional audiences. The problems I've felt so far:

- Lack of clarity about SEO rules in this regard. Eg: Will Spanish content rank higher than english one if I search in spanish? Or will google do a combined (transliterated) search and rank the best?

- Top Trends show what is being searched for in english. No option to see search top trends by language . Any way around this? [0]

- Even if its a non-english website, what are best the practices for URLs? Should they still be in english or can we use the regional language?

0 - Such a feature would be incredibly useful I think.

Edit: Clarified that by trends, I was referring to top trends.
Both those questions are uncivil. The second is one that the site guidelines explicitly ask you not to post, and the first will be in there soon too. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13252669 and marked it off-topic.
Posted yesterday.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13245475
The downsides of compiler options that modify the language is that code can no longer be understood on its own. Most languages stay away from these for that reason.

One notable exception is Haskell, which uses pragmas to modify the language. At least these pragmas are part of the source code, but they absolutely need to be included if you want people to understand a snippet of your code. Take a look at Haskell questions on StackOverflow to see what I mean.

It's not something you want to see in an industrial strength language because it basically turns your language in factorial(n) languages, where n is the number of pragmas.
Better story: http://www.sciencealert.com/6-more-mysterious-radio-signals-...

Preprint: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.08880
You should be able to do this by just expanding some sysctl limits on FreeBSD 10+. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TneLO5TdW_M
Maybe it's the cost of doing business in NYC. There are over twenty book binderies in Detroit.

http://www.yellowpages.com/detroit-mi/book-binding
According to your link the CIA thinks the RNC was hacked, but the FBI says they were unsuccessful; Did the FBI ever withdraw that claim?
Just the fact that a machine mind will be able to interface with regular digital algorithms directly will give it huge advantage over us.

Imagine if we had calculus math modules built into our brains. Now add modules for every branch of math and physics, languages, etc. The "dumb" AI and algorithms of today will be the superintelligence mental accelerators of tomorrow.
Oh right, because female Richard Nixon just couldn't have lost on her own, so we need to blame Comey, Putin, Sanders, and anyone else we can deflect our poor taste in candidates onto.
History is a convenient and readily available proxy for shifting content focus away from mathematical facts and toward mathematical processes such as problem-solving, proof-writing, problem-posing, abstraction, theorizing.

History's appeal I think lies in the concrete, engaging narratives involving the struggles, dreams, and failures of actual people going through those processes. In my experience, differences in mathematical inclination are correlated with the ability of perceiving the abstract mathematical processes as engaging narratives in and of themselves.

Professional mathematicians, as much as I've witnessed such speak to one another, tend to describe, e.g. a sequence of algebraic manipulations to solve a problem, as a journey taken by known facts during which they grow, combine, and ultimately transform into new knowledge. I myself have always considered numbers, variables, etc. abstract concepts, to be my friends, and like with any friends I care about their relationships, their states of being, and so on.

This of course all begs the question of what mathematical facts and processes should be part of the curriculum in the first place, i.e. what is it that we would like to teach better using history in the first place?
Now Obama can claim election fraud and point a finger at Russia. Which he has been doing anyway since they lost the election.
What do you mean moving to GitHub has been banned? This isn't it? https://github.com/ruby/ruby
Yes, befuddlement abounds
the ´g` object is one core item, for example.
Most all of the DNC / Podesta emails are DKIM verified. That is a level of proof far beyond the word of a single security company with close ties to the FBI and the US government. I scanned through those two links you posted and I've read other interviews with Alperovitch, and I still have not seen proof that Russia was involved. Appeal to authority is not proof. With a password like "p@ssw0rd" it's not hard to imagine that many, many state-level actors and others had access to those emails.
Please don't break the HN guidelines by going on about downvotes.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13252882 and marked it off-topic.
Learning from the enemy: The Gunman Project [pdf]
> The gist of it is that you can do a bunch of cool stuff you wouldn't be able to do (or even think about doing) in an imperative language

That's an odd claim and one I've never heard. Surely you can do everything you can with imperative programming as you can with FP, it's just that you will do it differently and, arguably, in a way that will present some downsides (e.g. lack of safety).

Also, for what it's worth, you are enumerating a list of characteristics of functional programming but you're not answering OP's question, which was: what makes FP useful?
The benefits from being faster accrue more quickly than algorithmic complexity suggests.

In economics where winner often takes it all, being just a little bit faster or better can produce outsized economic benefits.