skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I doubt Bertha will be purchasable given the
> litigation on the SR 99 job.

Can you say a bit more about this? I had reasoned that the litigation would make it more likely that Bertha would be purchasable as a way to offset costs/losses for the party that holds title to the equipment.

> I don't know what you would be able or want to
> use it for - it's 58.5 ft in diameter.

One of the longest bus routes in the Bay Area is the '22'. It travels up and down El Camino Real from San Jose to Palo Alto. El Camino Real keeps going north right up the peninsula to San Francisco. To the south it goes down to Gilroy. My proposal is to tunnel from the where it crosses Highway 152, up past Palo Alto and into Milbrae where there is both a CalTrain and BART station about 200' off of El Camino Real. My proposal would be to create bus stops along the way that took you up to the surface street of El Camino along the way. Then run bus service north south, with several different bus types "express", "local", "intercity", etc. The tunnel diameter can support four lanes of traffic (two in each direction) allowing for buses to pass one another and to support multiple schedules in the same tunnel.

Based on my evaluation of the Viaduct plan this plan would use it in substantially the same way.
On the other hand, government rating systems can get hilarious.

Here in Finland, VHS and DVD distribution of program materials were rated for audiences (does it suit children or not, etc) by a government agency. They wanted to raise money for the government. So, even if a program was rated for VHS, distributors couldn't use the same rating for DVD distribution; they had to pay another fee to get the DVD rating. Without government inspection, movies had to be distributed with K-18 (X-rated) label.

Eventually, one of the distributors got fed up when they were told to pay yet again for the new rating of "Little House on the Prairie", the nostalgic 1970's family series classic. The distributor simply said no, and decided to sell Little House as an X-rated DVD release. Supermarkets had to verify that buyers had photo ID and were over 18 years old. Parents were told it's forbidden to show the series to their children (it had been on air in prime time in 1970's and many remembered it fondly).

Everyone started to laugh at the government rating agency, and they gave up and changed the regulation.
Telecos are a weird example. They're more like a utility than a product one can live without. This, combined with the massive duplication of effort competition would entail, is the reason why they are so intensively regulated. Oftentimes the government provides funding & loans[1][2], and tax incentives for telecom infrastructure buildout.

For what its worth, the reason telecoms have such low margins is that they are a commodity (which in my opinion, is what they should be). Their lobbying to get the ability to give non-neutral lanes is to give themselves a way to not be a commodity. I don't really see the upside for society as a whole for them to be essentially granted a state monopoly and then decommodify themselves to make things that were cheap more expensive and risk the internet in the process.

Their profits are nearly risk free even if they're relatively low. According to your link, the average return was between ~2% and ~11%. We're not talking about fractional percentages here. A small low risk margin on a lot of money... is still a lot of money. Notice that the ROIC in exhibit 3 lines up nicely with utilities.

I'm not sure where you were getting your info from about wireline divisions, but I found this interesting report: http://marketrealist.com/2015/01/wireless-telecoms-key-indic... It looks like investment in wires has declined by about 40%, but investment in wireless has increased tremendously. I don't know what the absolute numbers are though. I imagine wireless is much cheaper to deploy.

[1] Government funding of rural infrastructure - https://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=...
[2] Government funding of certain consumer uses (which is free money for the telecos) - http://www.gillibrand.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Gillibrand%20...
Yes, hence it's an abstraction.

I didn't say SQL is a way of writing query execution plans but it seems some people are interpreting my post that way.
Maintenance, insurance, etc. are largely fixed costs: you have to pay the same for them regardless of how much you use the car. (Pity for me, I've got an 8 year old car with < 30k miles on it.)

Parking in the suburbs is subsidized by business owners & the city itself - you can usually park for free, and the price of it is reflected in land values.

Gas is the only marginal cost for suburban driving, and I can basically guarantee that Uber costs more than gas does. The marginal cost of driving across Silicon Valley, in gas, is under a dollar.
6502 assembly - we were building the Acorn BBC machine (!)
BCPL - the "before C" language at Cambridge University
Pascal, SNOBOL - just because
Modula 2 - because it was sooo cool (and we were using a variant of our own with all kinds of neat stuff - like exceptions!)
To make something happen politically, both a plan and an organization are needed. This was the plan part. The organization was the Human Rights Campaign Fund, originally a political action committee (PAC).[1]

A plan without an organization behind it is just an essay. An organization without a plan just thrashes around. That's what happened to Occupy. They never had a coherent agenda.

[1] http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/HRC/
The networking isn't a problem if you only acknowledge a write when the underlying database says so. You could have a write succeed before you crash. But you won't lose an acknowledged write.
I have a few things to say about your post, but I thought I'd comment just on one.

Let's recap. OP says:

>> They don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs.

So you say.

> Existence of opposing political wills working publicly in good faith toward their goals (opposing or otherwise) is a foundation of democracy.
You're effectively suggesting that someone is anti-democractic because they openly oppose your policy agenda. Which is a deeply flawed argument.

But if his/her agenda is Democracy, then yes, someone who opposes this agenda comes off as anti-democratic no? OP does seem to be in line with the Democratic ideal since autonomy and sovereignty is a big part of democracy, which is in line with your own comment!

So OP is saying "hey, some people oppose this. Democracy is about allowing differing views, so forcing this is not democratic". To which you are saying, "Well, that's flawed, because democracy is about allowing differing views". See where I'm getting at?

Just thought I'd point this out this little oxymoron to you since it seems like you tripped a bit in your logic and confused arguments. Happens to everyone, but worth pointing out so you keep it in mind for the future!
Even a special-case Result<T, E> in the language would be far more useful than multiple return values simply because you could pass it through a channel or a slice.
How about you just... not collect data from people? Or, at the very least, have it be an opt-in option?

I'll probably never use this just on principle.
The github page for floydhub has a lot of open source projects. What parts of floyd is not open sourced?
The way you define intelligence makes the rest of your statements tautologically true, but makes the existence claim problematic. Of course there could hypothetically be algorithms that better deal with uncertain environments than humans. Those problems are computationally hard to solve precisely, and you must find a decent approximation. But it is not certain at all that we could find an algorithm that consistently and significantly outperforms the one used by human brains. In fact, there are theorems that it is impossible to improve optimization algorithms indefinitely. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_free_lunch_in_search_and_op...

Now, suppose we don't find a better algorithm than the brain. Wouldn't better hardware make it significantly better? No, because not knowing the algorithm, we don't know how it scales with resources.

> I don't see how anyone could not concede that machine intelligence will obviously be superior to human intelligence.

Because of computational complexity. There's a lot we don't know about computation, but there are some things we do know. A layperson reading sci-fi novels could imagine an artificial brain smart enough to solve the halting problem, but even though it's easy to imagine, we know that's not actually possible, no matter what resources are at our disposal. This means there may be disappointing limitations to our ability to scale intelligence. But note that I'm not saying machine intelligence would not be superior at all; I'm saying it may not be as significantly superior as some would imagine. I don't see what beyond science-fiction makes you so sure of an obvious significant advantage.

> The space of intelligence is so much larger than the point we occupy.

Computational complexity makes this uncertain. It is possible that significantly better approximate results would require an exponential increase in resources. The hypothetical space of computation is also huge, but we know very little of it is actually reachable. If you take into account that the entire "space of intelligence" is incapable of efficiently solving NP-hard problems -- many of which are very important for science and technology -- you'll see that it must exist within paramaters that may be pretty narrow.

Also, consider this: our own intelligence, which has been sufficient for art and science and technology that could one day create an intelligence far superior to itself according to you, was really created simply to hunt animals a little better than cats and wolves, and has not evolved much since the agricultural revolution. This may indicate that intelligence may be more a step function than a smooth one. Then how many steps are there past our own? Maybe you're right and there are some more, but for me it's hard to imagine such a significant jump over us without breaking unbreakable complexity barriers. Anyway, I don't think we have enough knowledge to dismiss the possibility that there are no more steps beyond us, and that any improvement, while important and useful, may be less than dramatic.
That was my thought exactly. To have a meeting in 3D space (maybe more domain of Hololens than Vive or Oculus) would be awesome. Kind of like the Jedi Council meetings in the prequel trilogy - http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/6/6f/Cou...

Ki-Adi-Mundi working from home here.
You guys seem to make setting up Deep Learning infrastructure easy for data scientists which is awesome! What about situations where the end user/business isn't sure exactly how to use Deep Learning (which algorithm, how to partition the data into training and result sets, stability of results etc.) for the problem/data set at hand? Would it be possible to use FloydHub as a marketplace of sorts where I could hire a deep learning enthusiast to appropriately construct the experiment for me and then explain the results?
Thanks for this. And I just realised, examples are in PHP!
You were probably annoyed before you've read the whole article, like I was at that moment. But it goes on:

"Not so fast, says probabilist Yuval Peres of Microsoft Research. That naïve answer of 1/2? In real life, he says, that will usually be the most reasonable one."

"If I specifically selected him because he was a boy born on Tuesday (and if I would have kept quiet had neither of my children qualified), then the 13/27 probability is correct. But if I randomly chose one of my two children to describe and then reported the child’s sex and birthday, and he just happened to be a boy born on Tuesday," "the probability that the other child will be a boy will indeed be 1/2."
Depends what you use tunnels for. Subway systems encourage density in cities. In a plane, you can see the Toronto subway lines based on the density around the stations. But new subways tunnels are the big expense that blocks more of then being built. (Though I've heard station construction also is a big cost). Dense areas lead to more walkers, less drivers, cheaper overall infrastructure.

It's not about having more infrastructure to maintain, it's about replacing the expensive stuff we have with efficient infra instead.
Airlines Phasing Out Screens Because Passengers Are All on Your Devices
There's some stuff at the end of these slides

https://talks.godoc.org/github.com/davecheney/go-1.8-release...
We actually had someone say that the new version is so much better than the old book, even though it's incomplete, that it's like a medical trial where the treatment is going so well it'd be unethical to keep people on the placebo. A bit hyperbolic, yes, but so is "this doesn't help anybody".
The start of a holographic interface for smart homes
I think the reason that some of these patterns seem so terrible in real code is limited static type systems / OO - I'm specifically looking at Java, and it's terrible type erasure, and poor (but getting better) functional programming support.
I think the best startups look to solve a non-it problem, and I think there are still a lot of them out there.
I work at Facebook. Can you provide another example link for something that's "public" but you can't access? Most public content is accessible without an account.
Reminds me of physics books from college where they might say "a horse is approaching a barn door at relativist speeds..." - always seemed much too contrived and I'd maybe have preferred "an exotic particle is moving towards an electron at...".
I'm not sure what you guys think an abstraction is, but a declarative language on top is just another kind of abstraction.
"Who the fuck wants to put their bikes in a magenta shed?"
Ask HN: What questions do you have as you move from founder to CEO?
If you are moving from founder to CEO - that is, you are starting to scale, starting to build a growing, lasting organization - what questions do you have about moving into that role? what skills do you want to develop?
if you have made this transition, what skills do you wish you could have learned quickly and effectively at that time?

context: I see some common threads show up in coaching - I'm interested how generalized these are, and how other people who've been through this experience see and experience them.

Thanks!
IBM Watson IoT to Provide Access to 20B Devices for Visa
No - the tables have not flipped.

There is 'global left/right' and 'local/national left/right' now.

The 'global left' is exemplified by UN.

The 'global right' exemplified by WTO.

Often, the 'global' version of a movement can be in conflict with the 'local' version.

This is seen clearly: 'global leftists' care about migrants - a lot - but immigration can be hurtful to the working class of the host nation. Mass importation unskilled labour = wage suppression, it's just an economic reality. 'Global lefits' might use negative terms such as 'lazy Americans' or whatever - which demonstrates the rift - 'working class' Americans are the 'traditional base' of leftists/labour organizations.

This is most acutely seen in the UK, where the Labour vote has been split - most of UKIP (nationalist) votes came from Labour - who are now more of a 'globalist left' party.

The Tories under May are a more 'traditional right wing' party, whereas the Liberals (i.e. Classical Liberal, which in America would be more akin to 'Libertarian') are kind for the 'pro globalist right wing' party - i.e. trade and business is the most important thing.

'Free Trade' sometimes breaks leftist ideals - because on one hand, it can have directly negative consequences for many workers. On the other hand - it means benefits for the working poor in other nations, and quite a lot of benefits for those who can hold onto their jobs in the host nation (lower prices for goods). Of course, the greatest rewards of globalism to the investing class.

Also - it's usually centre-left activists who care about such issues as 'gentrification'. Well - 'globalization' is a kind of 'gentrification' on a massive scale. The loss of local customs, authentic culture etc. is acute in some places like 'Harlem' - but it's also becoming acute across entire nations - some wealthy, some not.
It's so obvious as to hardly bear mentioning, but you can use this to excuse any violation of rights if you want. Sometimes "rule of law" just isn't worth it.
The state of being without a cutlass is 'cutlasslessness'!
What are the returns of the competitors' infrastructure funds compared to GIP?

If everyone (including GIP) has modest (much less than the historic 24% of GIP) returns, then we might think the opportunity was simply about untapped inefficiency, and that any team with the massive capital + reasonable human talent would have had the same results as GIP in the past decade.

If GIP continues to outperform vs the competition even as the space gets crowded, we could consider their human talent to be a differentiator.

If all the infrastructure funds are doing great, even in a world of high competition, then again we can consider the access to capital and access to the counterparty stakeholders to make the deal happen to be the differentiator, not the operational or engineering talent of any firm.

Personally I'm willing to believe that operational experience at massive scale is much rarer than simply "great engineering talent" at the individual contributor level, but am open to be proven wrong.
Sometimes you have no choice. Like when an employer looks at the license cost of going from SQL Server 2005 to 2016 and figures that if it isn't broken, why fix it.
Yes, our Enterprise offering allows for building more complex workflows. Everything (code, parameters, environment and data) is versioned for reproducibility. One of the big value-adds is efficient caching of parts of the pipeline to avoid repetitions and save resources. We have noticed that this usually results in 10x increase in the number of experiments run by teams.
Bah, I started at $53k as a software engineer in 2006. Where are these $100k starting salaries?
3. Modularity and abstraction. Views only get you so much, because they don't let abstract away the table or columns that you are targeting. Also, I typically don't want my views to clutter the main namespace if I'm just trying to refactor some queries. I can use the "WITH" syntax in some cases, but bizarrely it comes with an unavoidable optimiser fence on most RDBMSs (i.e. your subquery will always be materialised), which severely limits its utility.
> power is not transmitted via electromagnetic radiation, but via oscillating magnetic fields

I don't think you can have one without the other, can you?
What happened to the dog???
The difference is that people use the terms "racist prejudice" to justify racism.
What you miss is that with LINQ you can extract the expression tree : https://msdn.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/mt654263.aspx
This is what is used to generate the SQL.
>Plugins are here, but on Linux only for now

The documentation says Linux only but the build flags seem to suggest it may work on macOS?

https://golang.org/src/plugin/plugin_dlopen.go:

// +build linux,cgo darwin,cgo

Can someone with a Mac confirm?
Dick & Daughters or Ismael ANUS are definitely not more vile then Cockroach. The former are names rooted in tradition, not some idea of a an arrogant hipster joke. To call a company Cockroach is fucken arrogance. Plain and Simple.
There is a lot of wrong and dangerous advice on Stack Overflow about C++. I also disagree that it is good as a learning tool. The C++ Annotations book linked to will much better place to master C++. As it turns out, 'gray beard people in the C++ community' actually know the intricacies of the language, and you better learn them too otherwise you're never going to be productive with it.
Facebook has a "mission"? What a joke. Their mission is to make a fortune on fake news. Masking this in nobility is absurd.
No, do not get a second PhD. Your opportunity cost is too high. In particular since you are doing computational physics your computational modeling, statistical analysis and understanding of high performance computing should exceed the average AI founder. Second, you will already be capable of self-study of AI type academic publications and you want to be focused on translating those into real life applications not writing grant proposals and other graduate level academic stuff.

By the time you finish a second PhD you might be well along the pathway to business success, or you might fail. But I am convinced that adding a second PhD won't noticeably reduce your risk of failure.

I am almost certain that given the technical capabilities you have already developed that the risk factors in starting a business are product-to-market fit, timing, poor PR, marketing and sales or bad co-founders. By the way I have experience with all of those risk factors - they are real and technical skills or even a second PhD will not make them go away.
Copying over my comment from the other thread that sparked some interesting debate:

I find this letter to be deeply cynical. There's a baked in assumption that a global community is a good thing and that the only possible reason to resist it is because you're being left behind by its benefits. I don't think that's true and I certainly don't think it should be assumed a priori. There are people in this country, and every where in the world, who don't want globalization. And it's not because they haven't received enough of the benefits or need to be educated better, they don't want it for real reasons and, in a Democracy, that should be an acceptable stance. If we're not willing to accept that stance than we're forcing people into a global community that matches our vision for the future, not theirs. In other words it's a plot for world domination of one world view over another. I find it deeply cynical that instead it masquerades as a virtuous plan to help all man kind.
I'm seeing significant performance increases in my app (small RNA aligner). Haven't profiled yet, so not sure where the gains are coming from, but happy all the same.
You still seem to think that LINQ to SQL is an 'implementation detail' and it would be possible to do LINQ to DB Execution Plan directly.

This is just plain wrong and you are missing important details of how LINQ and SQL and RDBMSes work in the real world.
I think it is. Especially if you keep your code in a public repo, any breaking changes (probably just tweaks as opposed to huge features that break stuff), will probably have a pr filed via cargo.

From what I understand, the rust team has scripts that crawls the repos and compiles everything looking for usages of some feature being used that's going to break in the next release, and they will issue a pull request to fix those.
D-ealer: Auto Healing Docker Containers Using Python and Docker API
Yep, this is what I expect. The pressure will be on prospective buyers to insist in a rigorous security audit and preparation for that audit will get worked into standard business plans.

I work for a huge telecom, and we take sucurity pretty seriously. Sometimes it seems like we've been doing nothing but security upgrades in the last seven or eight years.
Guess it's always about dealflow, be it PE or VC.
Why not just write a letter? Email and text are entirely unnecessary.