skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Wow! This is amazing!

I think the biggest answer that's in here to The Question is this one:

> For me, the glaring fallacy in the argument lies in the implication Not Determined ⇒ Random. If that was correct, then we couldn't have complexity classes like NP---we could only have BPP. The word "random" means something specific: it means you have a probability distribution over the possible choices. In computer science, we're able to talk perfectly coherently about things that are non-deterministic, but not random.

...which, in a way I don't fully grok, seems to be saying there's room between things being predicable (no free will) and random (nonsensical).

Then later, this bit:

> 1) We have the free will to choose in what basis to measure a quantum state. That is, at least the detector settings are not predetermined by the history of the universe.
2) Relativity gives some way for two actors (Alice and Bob) to perform a measurement such that in one reference frame Alice measures first, and in another frame Bob measures first.
3) The universe cannot coordinate the measurement outcomes by sending information faster than light.

which I also still don't really understand but woah.

As a contribution: I encountered an amazing demonstration of "free will", in that it was an experience you could go through, draw a box around, and write "here be free will" on the box.

It's pretty simple: Think of a city, and say it's name aloud.

Now consider what just happened in your mind and brain.

You didn't say the name of a city you've never heard of. You could not do this; you were "not fee" to make that "choice".

You (probably?) though of more than one city, and then selected on. You could do this; you were "free" to make that "choice".

This demonstration doesn't really go after the question as to what you actually have that can be labeled "choice", but it really nicely draws a box for that label to be applied to.
It's from the "Oberon - The Overlooked Jewel" chapter by Michael Franz, in The School of Niklaus Wirth, "The Art of Simplicity".

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90....
The next step seems to be to create a regulated market - anyone know what that means, or whether there is something inherent to Bitcoin that doesn't allow it? Coinbase has KYC, banking relationships and tax integration, I'm sure that can be extended to an exchange.
Great game.

It could use an explanation of the (+#) modifiers though. For example, does (+#) green just add +1 to your attacks, and (+#) red add +1 to each enemy attack?

I was proudly rocking some (+#) red armor of treachery until I realized that I was probably the one being betrayed.
While this is better than nominating Jim O'Neill, it's still pretty worrisome. The extreme partisanship of Trump's nominees is, as far as I can tell, pretty unique. It's not even that he's nominating exclusively Republicans, he's nominating people with fairly extreme right-wing beliefs.
Malware found preinstalled on 38 Android phones used by 2 companies
Really appreciate the quality of the content, there is some real value to it.
Serena del Mar: A new city ready for rapid population growth and climate change
I strongly agree on your main point, although personally I feel it is also on issue of personal liberties.

Also, some studies suggest that the current arbitrary blanket ban has hindered possibly useful medical research related to some of the currently prohibited substances.
Creating and selling a standardized set of API driven microservices to run in Docker containers. Do you need one for what you're working on? :)
I wonder if you could grab the center aisle life raft on the way out. If you could keep it under you after inflating it, not only would it provide more surface area and so a slower terminal velocity but it would also absorb energy when you hit by popping and create a wider deceleration profile so limiting the g-force of the impact.
I thought it was because milk is a base to neutralise the acidic chillies?
Save $200 on SpinaliS Ergonomic Series Chair for Active Sitting
Speed of nerve impulse through tissue: Up to 120 m/s

Add to that muscle charging time.

Add to that tissue acceleration.

Etc.

The fact that the brain decided 200 [ms] before the finger moved is just plain newtonian physics in the macro world.

But, modern journalism just have to hype it.
Even worse than that. You are not allowed to re-melt your piece of gold if that item has a serial number on it.

Basically most smiths run an official registry. Even though a gold bullion is yours, most countries will forbid you from melting it into something else and destroying serial number in process, just like even if you own your house you cannot set it on fire. There are penalties including jail time. Its irrelevant if you put same serial number back on remelted PM.
> Based on the record before it, the Commission believes that the significant markets for bitcoin are unregulated. I'm not sure I entirely understand if they mean that Bitcoin itself must be regulated or just that the SEC needs to see that the major exchanges are regulated.

I'd challenge ANY government to regulate cold, hard, cash
I must say, I started using Blackblaze's S3 competitor, B2, just this week and I'm very impressed. The API is easy to understand, but robust enough to handle hard edge cases, and the interface is quite easy to understand and well designed. The sample code provided works without a long chain of dependencies and it's overall felt like it's working with me rather than having to fight it to do what I want.

Too early to speak to the uptime or support, but I'm pretty optimistic given what I've seen thus far.
This feels like a summary of the book "The Sixth Extinction" but it's not mentioned anywhere in the article...Any connection?
You'd need to force all the unregulated exchanges to close down, and block ability to run smart contracts or any other software on it.

And do it in all the major jurisdictions?
> Bell's inequalities, Gleason's Theorem, Kochen-Specher Theorem, the two-color theorem: and four years ago Aspect concluded some experiments in Paris, which seemed to rule out any prospect of a hidden variable theory. So it seems to me that Professor Margenau was quite right to see quantum mechanics as bearing on the freewill problem, not as proving that it exists but as, in Plantinga's terminology, defeating a defeater.

It seems he was ignorant of Bohmian mechanics then, because deterministic QM is still alive and well.

> 3. If a human m is a sufficiently skilful mathematical logician (equipped with a sufficiently powerful computer if necessary) then if m is given L(m), he or she can construct T(L(m)) and Determine that they are true—which L(m) cannot do.

This step is dubious:

1. It's not at all clear that m could prove the truth of T(L(m)) even in these circumstances. I would need to see these steps to be convinced.

2. Humans are finite automotons (see the Bekenstein Bound), and the addition of a "sufficiently powerful computer" drastically increases the computational power available to m beyond what m is capable of alone. So L(m) would have to be a logical system that encompasses this unbounded power, and so T(L(m)) would still have true but unprovable statements, even with the computer due to Goedel.

This argument basically tries to prove that a Turing machine + Oracle can solve the Halting problem for Turing machines, but cannot solve the Halting problem for Turing machines+Oracles. However, it neglects to acknowledge that L is predicated on the Oracle, so we're not solving the Halting problem for Turing machines, we're solving the Halting problem for Turing machines+Oracles given only an Oracle, which is impossible.

As for the argument itself, it's a clever attempt, but still predicated on the assumption that determinism is inconsistent with free will. This has yet to be demonstrated, and in fact, all such arguments to date have been refuted (although clearly not to everyone's satisfaction).
Show HN: Free company email address finder
You can set initial price based on your cost and expected/preferred margin. And you can always use discount/promotions later to mark down the price, based on the market and feedback, etc.
Ask HN: Privacy Policy/Terms of Service Recommendation for SaaS Startup
Termsfeed generator? Template + LegalZoom review? Human lawyer? Please share your real experience here.
11.6% a year for 10 years compounds out to 3x. If it was 10 years to 4x, that would be 15%. Which would be a very respectable risk premium over BH, the greatest publicly-traded large hedge fund/conglomerate of all time.

But, the "percent" returns, as opposed to cash-on-cash, aren't actually calculated that way. Most funds eventually call something close-ish to 100% of capital (1.0x paid-in), so you can meaningfully-ish talk about the "times money" on the entire fund. But it doesn't work for "percent" returns, which are necessarily annualized.

Funds call capital over time, not all at once. They also pay back distributions as they become liquid, not all at the end. Investors measure this with IRR, taking into account the timing and magnitudes of the cash flows. So a fund that posts up a 4x "times money" within ~ 10 years is going to have a substantially better IRR than 15%.

WRT LP expectations: institutional investors aren't just weighing VC against "safer investments." They look at long-term historical data about different asset classes, project out their best opinions about likely risk and return AND correlations among classes, and make a top-down decision about where to allocate. Then, within each bucket, they try to select a group of managers who can meet (or ideally safely beat) those assumptions. (If rather small, they may delegate this to a fund-of-funds; if rather large, they may further differentiate into various stages or strategies of venture, and the process is more or less fractal.)

Partly we may be talking past each other because "expect" here could mean various things. One thing that's clear is no major LP / institution is going to be invested only in one VC firm or only one vintage year. They think about these things in aggregate and over time.

If by "expect" you mean, "in aggregate and over time, some LPs project 20% IRR for the venture asset class (subject to a very high, like say 25%+ std dev)" I think that's very fair and you'd be right.

But if by "expect" you mean "LPs look at each venture investment and rely on it to consistently return 20% IRR, or that will have been deemed a failure" then you're not giving them enough credit.

#1 driver of venture performance: fund vintage year.

#2 driver of venture performance: manager persistence (manager skill/alpha).

But to bubble back up to the higher level: LPs who see 10x, 9-figure exits in 2 years coming out of the portfolio of a ~$400M fund are not going to say "why not $3B?" They are going to understand that it's a rare fund in a rare vintage year that is going to return 7x+ on the whole fund, and they are going to be exceedingly happy if the "off years" consistently return 3x.
Being a founder means being a jack of all trades, especially early on. So my advice would be to learn how to do it yourself. It might take you a few trials and errors, but that's ok.

You can find a list of 34 questions to ask to a potential co-founder here:

http://fi.co/posts/34-questions-to-ask-a-potential-co-founde...

*

Another way is to delegate the task of interviewing a non-technical co-founder to a professional.
Good luck!
If your only reward for beta-testing is "early access to latest features" (i.e. no rewards afterwards) most people will assume the only point is indeed "early access to latest features".

Many companies do this to test the robustness of their system by letting people in in controlled beta-invites waves instead of going 0 to 60 in a stampede inauguration. The tight loop you're referring to seems to me more typical of QA/QC testing, which is a paying job. Trying to pass this job into customers is tricky, since most of them are not interested in following tight reporting schedules or writing lengthy standardized reports.
Which ceases to exist entirely after a mega-solar-flare.

Gold persists.
A B C - Always Be Closing! In this case, always be shipping. I see a lot of resentment around here against the fact that you developers are always seen as lowly peons by managers. And here we have the perfect example why: this guy doesn't care about shipping, he only care about going into his little world and doing what he wants. This type of mentality leads to what we managers call 'coder mentality'. Programmers that see themselves as programmers instead of problem solvers. You need to get out of your head and realize that coding is just a tool to solve a problem. It's not something that you do just because. It makes no sense. Coding in of itself is useless.
Problem solving though, is very useful. Some problems require only coding, some problems require some coding and other things, and other problems require no coding at all in order to be solved. You should always seek to solve problems that you and others have. Don't just go into your world and start coding. That will not make you a better programmer.
We managers hate the 'coder' because he just wants to code and not solve business problems. That is why you are treated the way you are treated and will always command less respect than others. By the way, when things are down and we have to let people go, who do you think we let go first: the guy who shows interest in the business and how to make work better and cut costs, or the guy who just puts headphones on and starts coding surrounded by red bulls?

I'll leave you with the now famouse Glengarry Glen Ross Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9XW6P0tiVc
Always be shipping! You don't ship, you don't exist. When I hire I always ask about shipped products specifically. The things that didn't ship don't exist. I consider that wasted time. One shipped product means more than 1000 personal projects that didn't ship, no matter how much you think you learnt.
How did you find this? I was unable to do so from the SEC's main page.
If you're supernaturally calm and skilled, it will also give you more steerability. You might even be so lucky as to be able to aim for a stand of pine!
>When Greece went bankrupt, life was much easier for anyone with Bitcoin than for anyone without it.

How? Bitcoin atms were basically non-existent there and from what I read on /r/bitcoin at the time from Greeks no one there was accepting it in stores.
It protects you against hyperinflation. It also protects the innocent from having their funds unfairly seized. It puts you in control of your money in a way that no other asset can.

Bitcoin's biggest use case is as an emergency fund. People in Venezuela who bought at $1200 in 2013 were still doing comparatively well when the price was $200.

If oppressive capital controls crack down in a nation like Turkey, Bitcoin can protect you.

Bitcoin is excellent for protecting yourself during financial emergencies. High volatility is acceptable in these situations. Some money is better than no money at all.
a property ownership is also a text file
Crispy Tofu
Ask HN: Using technical/development skills to give back to community/charities?
There are many ways to help charities and volunteering organizations. Have you ever used your technical/development skills to help your community/any charity/non-profit organization?

Thanks in advance.
The principle of supply and demand doesn't really work, it's too simplistic a view. In the small scale, in a controlled environment sure it works fine, but real markets are messy with lots of factors impacting them, so it tends to break down rapidly. This has always been the failing of those that hew to the freemarket capitalist ideal, this unfailing belief in supply and demand as a market driver.

One (but certainly not the only) missing factor here is a discussion of skilled vs. unskilled labor. The market for skilled labor is relatively small compared to unskilled labor, but even in that market companies struggle sometimes to fill positions, that's one of the claims companies backing H1B programs make (even if it is a bit dubious). On the other hand, there's an almost unlimited supply of unskilled labor available, and that's growing all the time. Further complicating things is the fact that the demand for unskilled labor is directly driven by the size of the market, and they tend to scale together.

People desperate for any work to offset their costs of living are more willing at accept lower pay if it means getting a job and that's exactly the situation we see evolving now. All of this so far has been predicated on the supply side of things being the driver, but there's also the question of demand. If people had options they could fall back on then the unskilled labor market would demand higher wages and refuse to work under the poverty line forcing employers to increase wages. The problem is of course that people are so desperate for anything at all that they're willing to work in jobs that can't keep them financially viable because it at least slows the collapse. Eventually they'll either move into a skilled position that gives them a better chance, get sick, die, or turn to crime or drugs to try to cope. Long term this is of course economically disastrous, the middle class has all but ceased to exist, and the economy is slowly grinding to a halt as more and more of the population finds themselves unable to take part meaningfully in it. However in the short term it means record breaking profits for corporations. It's pretty obvious to anyone who's watched the policies that corporations have pushed for the last 40 years exactly what choice they're going to make.
AFAICT, his terms are very well defined; he's using terms specifically from quantum computing, which combines terms from quantum phyics, classical computing theory, and adds a few of its own.

He's also doing the thing where he's discussing the issue without a direct attempt to resolve it, which may be throwing off your comprehension.
"Failed"? Seriously?

Isn't selling a Kanban board for half a billion dollars amazing enough?
It is called "bigotry".
For instance, scientists in different solar systems would find in next to impossible to collaborate: it could take years for news of one group's findings to reach the other, at which point they may very well have independently discovered the same thing

Even on Earth, where the latency between devices on opposites sides of the planet is measured in hundreds of milliseconds, this is true.

The ten closest stars to Earth are within about 10 light years distance. While two way communication would be impractically slow, sending a continuous stream, UDP-style, to another colony would probably do the job sufficiently well.
> Now that I think about it, is this why people puts "Copyright $initial_year - $current_year"? Because as you rightly say, only $initial_year is legally relevant.

Both are, actually, and $current_year may be the most relevant. That formulation generally indicates that the current work was created in $current_year, but is a derivative (possibly through a chain of intermediaries) of a work created in $initial_year.

Derivatives are independent works with their own copyrights, and copyrights of works where the author for copyright purposes is a corporation rather than a natural purpose last a fixed time from the creation of the work in the US, currently, IIRC, 95 years.

So something that says (assuming accuracy of the notice) Copyright 2001-2017, with a corporate author, will be out of copyright (barring further extensions) in 2102, but is ultimately based on an earlier version that will be out of copyright in 2096.

Of course, a lot of websites use automatically updating and false dates for copyright notices, and anyhow the usual current advice is not to include a date at all.
No. All of the reality as we know it is just a software bug, with the fix request sitting in some junior developer's project management system. They just haven't gotten around to submitting a pull request yet.
When the Winklevoss twins became aware of BTC (or at least shortly after they started talking about it publicly), some classic market manipulation ploys began appearing.

It could be coincidental, but I've always been suspicious that the Winklevoss twins were the first people of a mind and with the capital to start gaming the BTC market as one can any other financial institution.

The Winklevii are not people I'd like to distantly do business with.

Edit: I'm trying to find articles but it was years ago. What I recall were cycles of Ramps and Bear Raids. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation
You only need that luck if you get your software from people who think coupling security updates and UI updates is a good thing. Fortunately, not everyone does.

Obviously Microsoft itself realises this, because Windows 10 Enterprise is essentially a different product. In the spirit of sharing good luck, I wish you luck in finding any large corporate IT department that will adopt an OS as their standard platform without the ability to control exactly what gets updated and when.

The trick Microsoft seems to be trying to pull with Windows 10 is getting everyone else to be the beta testers for its enterprise customers. Commercially, I imagine that makes a lot of sense if you can do it, since surely those enterprise customers are far more valuable to you.

Other customers, who can choose from ever more alternatives for activities that used to use a Windows PC by default, might not be so keen. Casual home users rely more on alternative devices like phones, tablets, and consoles these days. "Prosumers" and small businesses can work with Apple gear or Linux, either on their own merits or simply because if a lot of the services you use are available online then it doesn't much matter what OS you're running locally anyway. With Windows 10 Pro being such an odd beast, I wonder how much longevity Microsoft's apparent strategy actually has.
to be honest, creating an ETF exposes bitcoin to even more debt-backed trading, increasing the risk of bubbliness. In the medium run, this decision is probably "better" for bitcoin, since I think there is still trepidation about the realness, uncertainty, and misunderstanding about the market for the "intrinsic" value of bitcoin - a medium of exchange built on distributed trust.
Gender Diversity
Nothing you've said about Bitcoin is new, and yet it's been around for half a decade now, and the price is still in the $1000/coin range. At some point people are going to recognize that whatever it's used for, it has some value.
Well, if you knew the entire state, you could predict which path will be taken.

What I said was that that the "agent" having the "free will" in a person can be larger than their conscious layer. Our brains are still ours (and define us) even if we don't consciously know everything they do or all information they keep at all times.
you dont need to say full disclosure...

you can just tell people you used to work at twilio.
or a kickstarter campaign to cycle through moveon.org, or the like.
Man, now I'm wondering if this is some sort of violation of the CAN-SPAM act. My blood pressure goes up a little every time I get one of these emails and it doesn't have a way to unsubscribe if you aren't the legitimate recipient. Considering the companies that spam me the most with this irrelevant crap are Apple and Wal-Mart, I would feel 0% bad if they lost money over this practice.

Quick Edit: I just read the Wikipedia page, and individuals cannot bring suit against spammers (using CAN-SPAM in any case). Which is a shame really, because spam is really really annoying.