skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It seems to me a fundamental problem with this paper is that they're training an autoencoder on a relatively small set of drugs that have been tested on cancer. They are then trying to approximately index a much larger dataset of chemicals and claiming these are novel possible cancer treatments because some of them have been previously considered as cancer drugs.

It's not clear that this is doing much more than finding drugs similar to the training drugs in the new dataset. Given that a large part of pharmaceutical/chemical development is based on slightly modifying existing compounds, it is not obvious that this adds much to the discovery pipeline, or that it is robust to false positives (drugs that have similar "fingerprints" to those seen in training set but are part of a large class of chemicals that mostly don't fight cancer and are therefore unlikely to appear in the small training set of possible cancer-fighting compounds).

Fundamentally machine learning works better with large data. It is hard to believe that training on 6000 chemicals, given the overall diversity in chemical space (~72 million chemicals in the dataset they're indexing) is likely to lead to a real "understanding" of what constitutes a cancer-fighting drug as opposed to parroting existing drugs they're trained on.

The effort from Ryan P. Adams' group (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.02415v2.pdf) is I think more reasonable because it trains on larger sets of chemicals, and is also truly generative in the sense of being able to create new chemicals as opposed to signatures "similar to" existing ones. Though I should note that they also had trouble generating plausible chemical structures despite a larger training set.
> analogous ways.

I really don't understand what this mean? Can anyone explain?? Thank you :)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=awk+windows
I'm not impressed. Did anyone notice that Cambridge Analytics did not work for Ted Cruz? I mean he did win Texas and the great plains states, but those were his most-winnable locations from the beginning due to his consistent conservatism and other nominees dropping out. He even lost the south, which should have been his other target, presumably due to being off-wavelength with southern voters, something the analytics data should have helped him with. Cambridge Analytics and their Facebook questionnaires don't seem to be very effective.
I don't know if I would call it a flaw in the human species, or a flaw with the very concept of civilization... perhaps a combination of the two. For years I have considered this to be the greatest problem facing the human species. Civilization destroys its own foundation.

The act of civilizing entails removing danger from peoples lives. Danger provides the visceral motivation to abandon intuition and think critically. Reason can not convince an unreasonable person to expend the effort necessary to use reason. It's a Catch-22. You either forego civilization, at which point people will pursue critical thinking in order to save their lives and avoid suffering, or you build civilization, and guarantee that there is no tangible benefit to thinking critically.

An infrastructure built for a civilization must be maintained, but once there is not enough support in the civilization to do that maintenance, it will fall. And humanity will return to what might be reasonably called its 'ground state' of killing each other over superstition. (Lest you think people might realize their error once danger re-asserts itself as a few pieces of the infrastructure fails, keep in mind the profound difficulty reason and science had being accepted by society even when it was actively saving lives. And for a preview, read anti-vaccine folks, they are the vanguard. When one of the children in their community dies of complications from the measles, is it because they have allowed their ignorance to kill their own child? Ah no, it's because the rest of that pesky infrastructure still stands. They just haven't gone far enough...)
TensorFlow Implementation of Unsupervised Cross-Domain Image Generation
> I've been warning friends and family about this for years.

How did it work out? I tried the same too, but it was falling into deaf years. Most common response. "Sean beta (means son in hindi). You are being excessively paranoid. Facebook is a closed community, and I only share info with friends and family, so don't worry."
Google's Eric Schmidt proposed a plan similar to this (though in more ambiguous terms) back in 2014, sharing a draft with Cheryl Mills that was forwarded to the Clinton braintrust (John Podesta, Robby Mook and David Plouffe) and subsequently released by Wikileaks[0]. The use of quizzes as a front detailed in OP's article is especially insidious, but the idea of individually targeting voters with "stories" in such a manner was clearly in play. Whether they followed through with it or not, it seems naive to think they won't do something similar in the future now that Cambridge Analytica has been shown to have been so effective.

[0] https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/37262
Self destructing cookies (Firefox plugin) is probably the closes you can get to that nowadays. Not really the same, but the end result is really similar.
Nailed it. I started out surprised he would charge 3k for making some cheap lotus notes crud thing he wrote in 4 hours and couldnot deploy in heroku in 8? Then there was this free associating on a bunch of unrelated concepts topped off with some kind of general axiom.

Nice work getting 3k for that kind of project, you're a better business man than me. If someone like that came my way I would direct them to Google forms or spreadsheet for free.
In its apparent desire to blame Congress for the end of antibiotics, this article misses a big reason companies aren't developing new antibiotics anymore: they just don't work like they used to. Every new generation of antibiotic is effective for a shorter period than the previous.
Science falling victim to 'crisis of narcissism'
..because it is your painting.
In the vast majority* of cases, agencies of the US government should have all non-classified data OCRed, indexed, hosted on their site and additionally available on BitTorrent. Put together a reasonable "Open Access Data" budget and make it available under the Library of Congress.

* Thinking things like astronomical data or other petabyte+ data sets.
Hackers copied US climate data to European servers during Trump's inauguration
I think you're being overly-critical for alpha software.

If they want to mix the feature list with the roadmap or keep them separate, it doesn't really matter. I assume the incomplete feature list is precisely the reason for the alpha label.

I may be reading too much in between the lines, but your comment sounds like "I don't want to hear about software until it is finished. If it's not ready for prime time, keep it on your hard drive."
>The step from telephone to radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former liberally permitted the participant to play the role of the subject. The latter democratically makes everyone equally into listeners, in order to expose them in authoritarian fashion to the same programs put out by different stations. No mechanism of reply has been developed, and private transmissions are condemned to unfreedom.
(from "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" in Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno)

I think this passage is brilliantly relevant to these discussions. For me the internet provides an illusion of interactivity when really most if not all of it is one-way. The internet is a place where opinions are broadcast, but it is nowhere near as radically communicative as the telephone except in actual communication media built off of it (email, IRC, slack, or whatever else etc) and even then I would argue that is mostly not subjects communicating due to the delay not present in vocal or signed communication. That we can broadcast our opinions back does not mean that the speaker and listener are on equal footing as in telephony, because the communication is indirect.
The conversation in the past has always been about third parties emulating hardware they don't own the copyright to, in order to play software they don't own the copyright to. Nintendo owns both the hardware and software, so even if they're using emulation technologies under the hood rather than actually porting the game to the new hardware, what difference does that make?
I've written one or two awk programs that probably went beyond what the tool was intended for, but mostly I use short one-liners or small scripts. I use awk, grep, sed, and xargs pretty much daily for all kinds of ad-hoc automation.
I've had mostly the same responses. My family has said I'm being overly paranoid. My liberal friends don't think anyone cares what they think. And my conservative friends are afraid of the NSA and the government, but fully support this kind of spying and data collection by private companies as long as their team wins.
It's not as if Donald Trump, or anyone else invented this tactic in 2016, or even the 21st century. Mass media has manufactured consent with those tools for as long as there has been a mass media. William Randolph Hearst was a master of it over 100 years ago. This is a subject that very few in the media are willing to report on, because it would delegitimize the media itself.

Even if there was a media outlet willing to destroy their reputation and business, good luck convincing human beings that they've been conditioned to behave as they do through media messaging. Brainwashing is Hollywood scifi mumbojumbo, not a scientific explanation for why basic training produces a uniform level of discipline in the military, or why millions of people pay for the privilege of inhaling carcinogens.

To top it off, I am well aware of how tinfoil the preceding two paragraphs must sound.
He's deflecting by saying Democrats will do the same thing. It's a false equivalency.
I use !g if a DDG search doesn't give me anything useful, but this is far less than 25% of my searches, and in nearly every case, Google didn't have anything useful either.

Really the only times !g actually turns out to be useful is when I'm searching for something that's well within my filter bubble on Google, but generic enough that I get the wrong results when outside of my filter bubble (e.g. DDG). But that's not really all that often.
similar/comparable (https://www.google.com#q=define%20analogous)
I'm a huge fan of speedy compiles. If you don't get sub-second compile times with BuckleScript (OCaml -> ES5), come shout at the #bucklescript channel in https://discord.gg/reasonml :-)

You may also be interested in my experiences with it http://yawar.blogspot.ca/2017/01/bucklescript-significant-ne...
>What this really indicates, bot or not, is that once you educate people, they will act in their self (and more importantly, self+others) interests.

That's an idealistic sentiment that's unfortunately not actually true. There are abundant examples if you look at politics or gambling.
The comparison to locusts is quite beautiful.
> Only the server congestion control matters. Client simply acknowledges whatever it receives as soon as possible and waits for more data.

To be clear, that's true if the server is the only one transmitting data. (I.e. for a download)
Google reduces GSoC stipend for 3rd world countries
I imagine we'd be equally unimpressed with other early tech.

imho, our concern should be of an extrapolative nature. we can guess where this will be in 5 or 10 years, nevermind Ted Cruz' future electoral successes. and we know how easy people are to psychologically "nudge". (sorry for assuming our agreement there)
Nothing you said I disagree with yet your tone suggests TPP is by assumption a good thing simply marketed wrong; yet you've not made a single argument for why it is good. It's not just the US government that did little to convincingly persuade the populace about TPP's advantages; nobody convincingly persuaded anyone about its advantages except for the tiny group of elites who negotiated and structured the deal in their own favor.

I'm willing to hear an argument for why TPP would be good for working people in the US. I've never heard anything even close to that. I've heard plenty of hard evidence that it's horrible for working people (and people in general) in the US, while being great for large corporate interests. Sometimes unpopular things are unpopular because they are bad, it's not always a communication problem.
I had a hard time with a lot of the anti-tpp sentiment coming from the left because I felt like Obama did make a good case for it (to me) in some of the interviews I heard [1]. I'll be honest in saying I never took a lot of time to dig into the guts of the thing and really vet out the criticisms of it, but at the highest level (which is what the president usually speaks to), it seemed sound.

[1] http://www.marketplace.org/2015/10/06/economy/president-obam...
Gittea is a community fork of gogs motivated by dissatisfaction with the current maintainer.
Ted Cruz is probably more to blame in this case than Cambridge; he came across to many as supremely unlikeable/comically phony and clearly lost the mud slinging fights with Trump that dominated the Republican primaries. Whatever benefit Cambridge bestowed probably wasn't enough to turn Ted Cruz into a serious Presidential candidate. In more colloquial terms, perhaps even the most effective data targeting can't polish a turd.
Not so. I've tried this on a few dozen students (post-secondary, many of them post-baccalaureate, perhaps 50% ESL) over the years; of those who have not heard it previously, all others say "what? that's not a sentence". I don't recall a single counter-example.
how is it different than a company asking someone's sexual orientation, religion, etc during an interview?
My side project: learn Swiss-German online school
Why? I think ISDS is an excellent mechanism to subjugate developing countries' governments (I know this sounds like sarcasm, but I think that's the purpose). And the issues regarding cigarettes have been resolved in favor of government regulation of cigarettes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay
Time to stimulate research into phage therapy instead of granting longer patents to antibiotics. The field seems promising with a long history in Russia but mostly ignored in the west until recently. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy
AIUI, it's only "to bully" in the sense of verbally overwhelming someone into believing what you what them to believe. It's like the word "to snow" (in the sense that means "to con").
Salesforce looks like they're doing it: http://fortune.com/2016/05/11/salesforce-two-software-worlds...
My impression is that many large organisations would prefer that, but most small organisations would prefer to outsource these kinds of things if possible. From a perspective of how much money you will make, I think focusing on the small organisations will be better. The economies of scale just don't kick in until you have a couple hundred employees (or more!). Especially from the standpoint of security, most small organisations simply can't hire the staff they need (couldn't afford them even if they could find them). So there is a solid market need there. On the other side, large organisations have the skills they need to roll their own if they choose, so your business plan has to rely on walking that line of offering software/services more cheaply than these big organisations can do for themselves. Personally, I think that long term this will be a losing battle. Although Github has a strategy for large businesses, I think they are better positioned to service small businesses. For this reason, I much more bullish on Github than I am Atlassian (which seems to tie their horse to enterprise at every turn).
That's surprising to hear. I don't think I've ever found someone that understood it without an explanation. I like using it as an example of how confusing English can be to parse.
Do you have a source for this alleged temporal decay of efficacy?
Not everything is done for blue collar rust belt people. TPP is about the US as a whole. Instead of us setting the terms of trade in the Asian Pacific, we will have China and Russia cut their own deals and cut America and its allies out. Entitled white heroin users in the Rust Belt would rather help themselves with protectionist policies to give them no skill jobs instead of help the rest of the country and the world.
Scrapping it can be step one of fixing it, or at least a future iteration that probably won't be called the same thing. Demonstrating that the people who weren't invited to the table do in fact have the power to scrap the treaty means next time they'll be at the table, or there won't be a next time.
Trump likely to see the birth of an exascale system
"Were countries not ruled by kings we'd be arguing back and forth on the triviality of legislation. We need to make sure that there's one strong voice that is capable of deciding everything"
The Living Truth: On Alexander Herzen
Air Force goes after cyber deception technology
Peloton is in fact the French word for platoon. I'd be highly surprised if the bike maker had the legal standing for issue infringement claims. Just as you can't copyright the word "bicycle", peloton is used widely enough that they should be fine. Then again, Jade the preprocessor was forced to rebrand as Pug.
San Francisco Asks: Where Have All the Children Gone?
there is no argument against it that stands on logical legs. The arguments either just talk about boogie men like corporations, globalism, and the "establishment" or somehow gets mixed with fear of Mexicans/Muslims/Chinese taking jobs.
They should be blaming doctors and people for using them incorrectly. Doctors used to give them to people because they had a cold, for example. People insisted on being given some sort of medicine.

In India, you can still buy antibiotics over the counter.

http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/17/44114639...
The equations from physics say "if we have some quantity X distributed among bins Y, and X is randomly exchanged between pairs of Y over and over, then P(bin y has amount x) is proportional to exp(-x)". In physics, X is energy and Y is atoms, while in economics, X is money and Y is people. If the money were truly being exchanged randomly, then the distribution should look exponential, that is, the probability person p has money m is proportional to exp(-m). What we observe is that the probability of having money m is actually m^(-alpha). Therefore the money is not being exchanged randomly, and the richest agents probably aren't lucky.
The TPP was far greater than a class issue. It was part of the War on General Purpose Computation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg). It cut through class lines, into our ability to control the technology in our lives.
The 2.X => 3.X transition really appears to have been bungled here, which is a shame. I really liked Python before I got deeply into the .Net world, but it has become less than enticing with this fragmentation. Meanwhile other languages seem to have taken up the vanguard position, which leaves Python in kind of an awkward position, between the new hotness and the tried-and-true enterprisey ecosystems
> I believe state and local governments are unable to run a deficit.

That's true in at least many places, but they still can borrow from the future by issuing bonds, or by pushing off massive costs like pensions. They underfund pensions now and let the next mayor/governor deal with it; this process repeats until they can't meet the cash flow needed to pay current pensions and are effectively bankrupt.

Remember when Detroit went bankrupt: According to an article I read about it, there were at least two main causes: 1) Going back to at least the 1990s their pensions were overfunded because they would need that money to pay future pensions when the ratio of current workers to retirees would drop. Instead of saving the money, they distributed it to pensioners as a '13th month'. Detroit also invested in some financial engineering instrument sold to them by Wall Street that the city couldn't pay off.
Seriously. Why do we allow this kind of data collection. This is ridiculous.

Edit: the commenter who responded has pointed out that this is phrased fairly accusatory. Should the fact that there is probably a data cloud out there about me being used to manipulate me through subliminal type messaging not be upsetting? I don't think I have ever signed up for a service with the expectation that whatever information is collected will be collated in some over-arching cloud used for more things than just the service provided to me by the site. Maybe somewhere in a 30 page terms of service document, it said that, and I clicked "agree" upon skimming it. But should that really be enough?

Edit 2: Here's an idea: charge me $3/month to use your service without ads, and with full expectation that my data will not be sold or used inappropriately (you can give it to the govt. if they need it for security reasons, I don't care). I currently pay for e-mail without ads from both outlook and mail.com and would gladly do the same for a pure facebook / gmail / google search / etc service.
Unfortunately, the law simply does not care about technical details. If you were being prosecuted for this sort of thing and you brought and expert witness or testified yourself about a technical justification such as this, you would be accused of attempting to bamboozle the court with fancy technical wording and it would not go well for you. You might even get found to be in contempt of court. Even the very simple fact that 1% of DNA tests have been shown to be false due to sample contamination and other factors is not permitted to be mentioned in court when DNA matches are being used to prosecute someone as this is too technical. Cases which involve computers fare even worse.
There's enormous evidence for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean it's equally applicable to every individual. I see no reason to think that some small percentage of people truly are happier alone even if the opposite is true for the large majority.
When people feel left out of a process that has a big impact on their lives, it's fair to say "no".

You can say that this deal is what's best for them. But whatever harm killing this deal may have done is much less than the harm from letting the elites decide what's best for them without the courtesy of even an explanation.

I think there were a lot of people that voted for Trump simply because the elites told everyone that they had to vote for Clinton. It's a way to remind the government that the people are in charge.
Bah, the HN markup dropped my asterisks in those types.
That's a statement of faith though (or ideology if you prefer), not a statement of fact. And I think it's built on shaky ground (such as requiring economic systems to tend towards equilibrium, which while perhaps a useful simplifying assumption a few hundred years ago, these days it's looking more like economic systems are actually better modelled as complex dynamic systems that don't necessarily happen in equilibrium).

I think empirically history shows that lack of regulation can be as bad as too much regulation. The reality is more of a balance, and black-and-white faith in the free market solving everything looks more and more to me at least as a dangerous delusion.
Interesting blog post describing the choice to go with OCaml: http://techblog.arena.io/2016-12-04_Risky_Libraries/

To that post I would add that the OCaml -> JavaScript compiler, BuckleScript, now gives you access to the entire npm package repository, so it's not such a big risk any more as it was for them at the time.
We could use a solution from electricity markets.

Electricity generation companies are paid not just for the electricity they produce, but also for reserve capacity. Because that's the only way to keep the lights on reliably.

Seems like this would work for antibiotics and snake antivenoms.

http://www.theenergycollective.com/adamjames/237496/energy-n...