skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
And who's going to pay to upgrade the grid to handle this mass switch to electric vehicles? Even the "just use solar panels" argument doesn't hold water because utilities are already struggling with storing the energy from non-constant sources (solar/wind/tidal) - and we've barely even gotten started on that front.

The current house and senate have an allergic reaction anytime infrastructure investment is mentioned, so I don't really see a solution to the problem arising anytime soon. I would imagine it will boil down to "oh, we just have to stop regulating the power companies so they can afford to upgrade" - at which point you'll find that dollar of electricity gets you about 1/100th the energy of that dollar of gasoline.
And who's going to pay to upgrade the grid to this mass switch to electric vehicles? Even the "just use solar panels" argument doesn't hold water because utilities are already struggling with storing the energy from non-constant sources (solar/wind/tidal).

The current house and senate have an allergic reaction anytime infrastructure investment is mentioned, so I don't really see a solution to the problem arising anytime soon. I would imagine it will boil down to "oh, we just have to stop regulating the power companies so they can afford to upgrade" - at which point you'll find that dollar of electricity gets you about 1/100th the energy of that dollar of gasoline.
House of Saud are not vassals of the US, and they don't control the US.

They made a deal way back that the US would keep House of Saud in power, in exchange for their Oil at market prices. That - and the fact that they are allies on 'terrorism' means a degree of mutually beneficial transactions.

Strategic partners, that's it.

The US does things that massively piss of the Saudis - particularly the removal of Iran sanctions. That is pretty much #1 worst thing that the US could do, outside of withdrawing support for them unilaterally.
He said his cousin was female so I just wanted to highlight a positive for her.

But you bring up a good point.
Before going through a dev-bootcamp, I recommend (especially if you're a coder already) to get her through Learn Python The Hard Way.

https://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/

Best case it'll take less than a month (2 exercises per day, 52 exercises), is basically free, and if she's happy with everything at the end of it, she'll be FAR more prepared to jump feet-first into a dev bootcamp.

I compare learning to program to learning a language. 99hrs of having French slapped across your face won't make you a native French speaker, it's a long road to proficiency and mastery. Neither will 99hrs of Programming make you a native "Programmer".

However I'd pick someone who went through that 99hr drill over most people who hadn't even started.
Field Patterns: A New Mathematical Object (2017) [pdf]
Any word on whether it can tether?

Dumbphone + tethered netbook could be a killer combo.
On the flipside, there are more total people who want to do bootcamps. So there's definitely more noise, but also more good signal as well
For beginners, it's critical to learn concepts of software development instead of the syntax memorization and regurgitation that seems popular to collect like scout badges. The fewer syntaxes one has to learn in the beginning, to do the most, the better. To keep a list to the minimum, I'd probably start with HTML, a bit of CSS, and then go to Javascript to teach web and then mobile development.

I am not a day to day js framework/backend guy.
The first two CS courses at my top university are enough to be qualified for your entry-level junior engineer: the intro course "Programming with Java" (recently changed to Python now), followed by the second course, Data "Structures & Algorithms."

All the bootcamp would have to do is be similarly very selective and do the same exact curriculum, and the people who "survive" these two weed-out courses (you needed to score higher than half your classmates in each course to receive a passing grade, otherwise you had to keep re-taking it) would be the ones able to get hired with nearly 100% placement.
Of all the 'freedoms' we can worry about, as a Canadian, not having the right to see 'hand drawn child porn' is not remotely one that I am concerned about.

The 'real' issue of freedom in Canada is that it's basically the only country in the world wherein it's illegal to pay a doctor to help you. That's actually pretty crazy when you start to think about it.
How can an experiment 'not work out'? Do you mean a negative result? Not getting evidence for your hypothesis is not 'not working'. That's a crazy way to approach science. It is more information to adjust your hypothesis. Or do you mean a failure such as broken equipment or an infected sample meaning you have no data? Well then what would you put in the paper?
Negative results are one of the biggest things missing from publications. I highly suggest the book "The Antidote" by Burkeman. There are several chapters on our current western view of failure and how our attempt to distance ourselves from it can hinder research, product development and even personal development.

I think there was even an article posted here a few months back on how the lack of negative results in science really hurts the community. People may work on something for half a year, consider it a failure, and just dump it; and other people go down the same exact path with the same methods. (If you publish a negative result, someone may pick it up and ask, "I wonder if they tried x or y" and attempt the experiment again).
Sure. But the point of the height analogy was that, first, you don't need to be 6'3" to reach the top shelf of a kitchen, and second, there are so many skills required to cook, not just reaching the top shelf.

In the same way, even if we assume that women have a lower bell curve than men for, say, ability to focus on some algorithmic problem, first, you don't need to be the equivalent of 6'3" at algorithms to do a good job as a professional programmer, and two, algorithms is only a very small part of what you do.

For the bell-curve hypothesis to work for cooking, women would also have to be weaker at using knives, worse at visually comparing the volume of liquids, worse at keeping track of time, worse at tasting things for flavor balance, etc. etc. - every single one of these axes would need to have a bell curve lower for women than for men. That's just implausible. Same with programming.

Of course, if you set up your hiring / recognition processes to look for the 6'3" algorithmists and not for the 5'10" algorithmists or the people who do any of the other work than algorithms, you'll see a 2000:1 ratio. But I think that's a sign of the hiring and recognition process failing to find truly qualified candidates of any gender, and just using the easiest metrics instead of the best ones.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13739476
You're making it seem like there are no social services in the US yet 2/3 of the federal budget pays for just that.

If make up to ~200% (varies state to state) of the federal poverty level you qualify for Medicaid which has almost no out of pocket expense for the patient.
How to date a mysterious missile launcher
Assumptions proved wrong?
I prefer Chevy Bolt Shock myself
The guidlines for the fqxi essay explicitly prioritize first of all "interesting" and secondly "relevant". No-where is it mentioned that these essays be based on reality or in any way practical. In my opinion, it's very typical of academia: they are in it for the buzz, not for actually coming to any practical conclusions about anything. (Not that they are actually averse to practical applications/reality.)
The editorialization of publications also has a detrimental effect. There's a great PhD comic about this:

https://robertcargill.com/2012/04/21/the-science-news-cycle-...
Pardon me! (I saw your name and re-read my arguments before responding. I'm used to your points being thorough.)
Intel has patents over the x86 instruction set.

Not the x86 instruction sets - that's out of patent protection a while ago (patents are max 20 years).

Maybe amd64 (which is more AMDs parents).
Dumb outsider question: why not just mark studies that have been reproduced versus ones that still have not been reproduced?

The way I view it is two steps of publication: the cutting-edge (not reproduced yet) versus independently reproduced.
The obvious questions is "who's going to do the confirmation work?"

I think that masters/bachelor students should be able to handle that work. A new grant mechanism for masters/bachelor training grants that fund replication would get the job done with a lot of nice side effects.
Catchy title, nothing more. On Cheng's part it was simply a joke about the mathematician's mind being similar to the mind of an anarchist. In fact, mathematics and anarchism do have something in common. It is being based on strict laws of logic. Anarchism is no joke! Problem is, while mathematics is extremely successful, anarchism will never succeed in achieving its goals. Its criticism of the modern technological society is based on what looks like a correct analysis of the effects it has on an individual and his freedoms. Again, problem is, for better or worse, the technological and scientific progress is irreversible, and there is nothing anarchists or anybody else can do about it.
I love Randall's illustrations. And to be clear I don't have any argument at all with the data that shows humans dumping lots and lots of CO2 into the air. I wish it went back 40,000 years though.

My interest is about the systemic response of the planet to heat. Not CO2, heat. Because over time the planet has gone from very hot to very cold and back again. Richard Alley in that youtube video makes this point nicely where he points out that if Ice Ages were just caused by the tilt of the planet, you would expect they would either oscillate from pole to pole, or from equator to pole. And yet they don't, they take the whole planet with them. Why?

One of the papers I read discussed the notion of water vapor and its effect on global temperatures. Its hard to get right for the models since it doesn't leave a good footprint and it is difficult to evaluate using gas bubbles in ice cores.

In the current models if you add clouds to the stratosphere you get more warming (it traps heat) if you add clouds to the troposphere you get cooling. The basis for the nuclear winter argument is the obscuring of the troposphere.

So one of the big wild cards in climate science is this, as the atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapor, that is basic physics. But if that water vapor condenses in the troposphere it cools the planet, if it condenses in the stratosphere it warms the planet. So you can start the next ice age using the existing models of climate that we've built, by assuming a large fraction of the additional water vapor becomes clouds in the troposphere. Is that the future? Or is it desertification? Or is it something else?

To reiterate, I completely agree with every climate scientist who says you won't like the result, and that is what they say. You wrote it in your comment:

"cut the CO2 emissions if you don't want huge increase in the average Earth temperature so fast like it never happened in the history of Earth, you are not going to like the effects."

But they don't say "cut the CO2 emissions and the climate will moderate to a comfortable stability." Because from a systems perspective the climate always changes. Everyone who understands the argument understands humans are destabilizing the climate, but we haven't yet figured out how the Earth is going to react to that destabilization. I agree with you that "we're not going to like it."

And I mourn that when people talk about the climate it gets immediately politicized (by both sides). The Earth is an amazing system and we have a lot to learn about it, it is a shame that talking about what we know and what we wish to know sets up such emotional debate.
I don't understand - experiments only work if they prove your assumptions? If your assumption was wrong then the experiment is working if it won't confirm it.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Roughly 1/3 of hydrocarbon use in the USA's goes to 'cars', 1/3 'electricity production', and 1/3 makes 'stuff'.

Of the rough thirds, the 1/3 that makes energy is mostly domesticly sourced, which is a good thing. We can ethically produce that as a backup to renewables (safety and reliability reasons).

The third that 'makes cars go' was majority foreign until the 90s. Fortunately we've turned that number around. Electric vehicles don't have the energy density of gas cars yet. If you don't live in the desert of California/NYC/etc, they're quite inconvenient. We need stronger magnets and denser batteries. We can drive innovation in this area by letting market forces act. Qe need to be careful about over regulation, as to not drive reverse progress. I'm very hopeful and happy for electric in this area to dominate.

The final third that goes to 'making things' can't be easily replaced ATM. Hydrocarbon feedstocks to make everything from medicine to lightweight carbon fiber are made from oil. We could possibly produce this domestically and at least be assured it's being done ethically and safely. This is the slowest area of innovation unfortunately, and if you're reading this, in your lifetime will likely not be replaced by a process that doesn't involve hydrocarbons. A breakthrough in this area would be sorting waste materials for recycling, or an electric power source so dense, reliable, and cheap we could capture co2 and turn it into hydrocarbons (maybe nuclear here?)
Ask HN: Hourly freelancers, what do you do when you can't figure something out?
I'm stuck on a particularly irritating show-stopping bug (microchip's ADC functionality just giving 0 no matter what voltage is applied) and haven't been able to find a solution in days. I feel guilty continuing to charge for the many, many hours of investigation without producing anything....it's just making me feel incompetent and thieving.

Has this ever happened to you, and if so how did you handle it? Do you keep charging, or work for free, or just tell them "sorry, you have to hire someone else to complete this, I just don't know why this is happening" ?
This comment seems kinda spammy (not to mention the fact that it's appeared and reappeared at least 3 times so far). It would appear less so to me if it were much shorter and much lighter on the marketing speak. Just a quick, maybe 5 sentence introduction and a link would suffice.
This post mostly describes me. I am a PhD student in applied mathematics and returned school to get my PhD precisely because I wanted to get a job outside of academics, most likely as a data scientist or scientific programmer. 2.5 years into my program I still struggle to see beyond the degree but am currently looking at non-academic internship opportunities as a way to start to untangle myself from academics. I also spend a significant amount of my time trying to teach my self good programming practices that I don't get from mathematics (how to write clean, adaptable code, choosing appropriate design patterns and writing generic code without over-abstracting, writing readable documentation and using version control, etc.) To those of you who have left academics do you have any other suggestions? How about for marketing myself as a programming mathematician when competing against CS and engineering students for internships/jobs?
First of all I find it bothersome how the journalist referred to the 'scientists' in the articles as 'researchers', when the basis of their thesis is philosophical, with proofs logical and rhetorical. I am aware of the encroaching proximity physics and philosophy. Nonetheless what is displayed here is a set of proofs pulled from many different domains which that lock together nicely, though they are not expressions physics nor are their methodologies research or science. It's a well contextualized and sensible argument, but it is a consideration of the fundamental assumptions of physics-- of which come from a discipline other than physics. If physistiscs philosophize, it's philosophy not physics. One's institutionally verified field of academic study doesn't determine the nature of the academic acts one is conducting at any particular time. Noam Chomsky is a good exampke of what I mean.

Furthermire, the physistics would do well to admit they are philosophizing, so as to open up the debate to those who are fimiliar with the domain and maybe learn a thing or two.

Despite the physicists doing a good job falsifying time, they mantain in their framework and approach various assumptions not unlike time has been for physics.

These assumptions are beliefs so intimate and widely held that they can and often do easily slip through logic filters unnoticed even by scientists and other men of learning. A good example of these types of assumptions and our intellectual blindspot right in the center of our inner vision is. Time.

What are the assumptions? It's hard to put a name to negative space, but perhaps the assumptions I noticed in the article can be best described as materialism and reductionism, which have both proven useful and even necessary, though incomplete.
Yes, I was replying to Saudi oil? How on earth
French historian Henry Rousso held for 10 hours and threatened with deportation
I bought Occulus just for this game. I love Elite. Was tons of fun with Occulus. Unfortunately, the physical pressure of the Occulus hurt - caused too much pressure on my face, causing discomfort after about 20min. Additionally, resolution way too low for distant battles. Returned the Occulus, but it certainly was a great experience.
Cars (transport) consume the majority.

If we take the US, which consumes 21% of all petroleum, to understand oil usage pattern, we can see that 47% of US consumption is from petrol (gasoline). Second is Distillate fuel (diesel and heating oil), which accounts for 21%; this is used for industrial machines and heavy motor vehicles, trains, boats etc (diesel) and for industrial heating (heating oil) [1].

These two accounts for the vast majority of consumption (47 +21 = 68%).

The percentage used by transport sector has been increasing [2] over the years:

2013	63.8
2004	57.7
1973	45.4

Does not match exactly (68 vs 64), but it shows a growing trend of transport sector energy consumption. Petroleum as a raw material (plastics) seems to be slightly reducing after peaking in early 2000s.

Source: [1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_use [2] https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/oecdoi...
As a professional scientist in AI and deep learning, I see futurists making wild predictions about AI that I wouldn't see anyone serious in the field coming remotely close to making. I don't know how it is with other futurism fields like genetics, space travel and energy generation, but I expect that it's a similar situation.

All I'm trying to say is, let's please keep a cool head and a wholly skeptical approach about all this.
If you walked into a wall, they must not have had the chaperone settings setup properly, either miscalibrated or not appearing brightly enough.

I have a 2.5m x 2.5m space, with walls an inch or so past the edge of the space on two sides. There's only been a small handful of hits, and those were mostly at the beginning. My experience, both for myself and watching my friends try things out, is that the wire is annoying, but it's not dangerous. I think part of the problem here could be that it's best to play without shoes on - it's easier to tell when you are standing on the cord, which is when you can get the most tangled up. Obviously people are not taking their shoes off for store demos.

Wireless is definitely going to be a massive improvement, but I think saying it is dangerous is a bit of a stretch.
You are missing the greater point. I agree with you. Before Prospect Theory, economists did assume risk was irrelevant and that one would choose either A or B for both. That even a layman would find it nonsensical is exactly my point.

I should've put rational in quotes to show sarcasm or followed rational with "defined by economists at that time"
Also includes alternative protocol implementation design and source for protocol.

Would love a simple way to do client<->server udp from browser!
> Additionally, the server enforces that only one client with a given IP address may be connected at any time

So much for people behind carrier NATs
My bad: I meant IP address + port. Fixed in the article.
> put it out there.

To write a good, technical blog post takes 10+ hours. To write a complete academic paper with references, related work, methods, graphics, etc can take days, weeks, or even months (eg. for thesis work).

It's not just that negative results largely go un-valued by the academic status quo... it's also often just not worth the effort to write-up beyond simple documentation in your lab notebook. As a researcher, the lasting impact that we care about is (simply put) in the positive results, and being the first to achieve them.
Oh yeah, you're going to change the world by figuring out who to market baby formula to, and that internet-connected toaster is a winner.

The money is good though, that's true.
A few months previous I suggested online self-instruction, but didn't hear back on the idea. Perhaps some people prefer the social structure of a classroom for learning.
That's actually why I love the PSVR – I prefer the haptics and general setup of traditional video/computer gaming. Still, I also love the VIVE for what it could do in terms of creativity / productivity applications.
I'd tell her to do some work on her own before signing up. The internet is jam packed with courses, guides, tutorials and references for all the skills needed for web dev, for free. Pick a tutorial and work through it. Then dream up a really simple project—todo app, pet store, tick-tack-toe or whatever—and build it from scratch, using the same stack.

Then with that under her belt, sign up for the boot camp. The advantages of this approach are:

- she'll find out if this is something she really wants to do before plunking down thousands of dollars
- with a bit of background knowledge, she'll be better able to absorb what's being taught at the bootcamp
- she'll have a better idea of what she wants to specialize in and can select the right boot camp for her

Also, find the community she wants to join. There are a gazillion places where web devs hang out online and talk shop. While doing her prep work she should seek out the places appropriate to the stack she's chosen and lurk. Stay engaged through the bootcamp and during her job search afterward.

Finally, pay attention to open source. Not a lot of professions do their work out in the open like that, so take the opportunity to see how the sausage is made! Find the open source projects that these communities contribute to, and watch them do it. Follow the discussions on mailing lists, Github issues and pull requests. Look at the code and try to understand the criticism arguments. Ask questions. People are shockingly willing to help newbies who are trying to understand.

The bottom line is, there is real value in getting an expert to teach her how to code, but the more work she puts in herself, before, during and after the bootcamp the more she'll get out of it. If she's looking to pay $15K and get a high-paying job in exchange, she'll just waste the money.
A friend mentioned being in a meeting where Mike Cowlishaw argued that Javascript's floating point type should be decimal floats not binary floats. Everyone including my friend thought he was out to lunch. My friend says now, 'a great opportunity was pissed away'

Because almost no one actually wants wants binary floating point.
also please note I didn't say "we won't have strong AI in our lifetimes". Let's work on the actual developments specific of science instead of what we dream it to be. We want people to think about deep learning as a sophisticated pattern analysis algorithm instead of thinking that Skynet is going to start a coup any day now.
Congress.