skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
[Note: Self posts have a penalty here, so it's more difficult for them to reach the front age. Next time try submitting the URL without a comment.]
Opening a new chapter of my work in AI – Andrew Ng
Perhaps they should be different, but people get most upset about the awesome drugs that cure things completely being under patent for so long. They don't care about that antacid drug so much. You would find yourself very short on allies with your proposal.

All the money going towards marketing would instead go towards lobbying, towards getting the government agency in charge of deciding "what really counts" for deciding that this drug should be one of them. When the US government was looking at how to create incentives for invention, they did look at rewards systems, and this was the common problem. Using the market system, for all its faults and ways it could be improved, at least sends proper price signals to producers and consumers.
New $100 advanced USB attack platform from Hak5: BashBunny
Shouldn't storing a json as a string be better performance for redis? All the extra jobb to find subkeys put extra work for redis. While pulling out the str and parse it in application would minimize the time spent in redis. This gets more true as the number of applications against one redis grow.
-Maybe someone just did a risk assessment.

If the odds of this happening are marginal at best (well, they are, apparently - airliners don't get blown up every day) and the risk is largest that such an attack will be instigated from a few, known places - then by all means focus your efforts on those places/airlines.

After all, nabbing the laptops of, say, a few million people daily or however many people fly because there is a non-zero risk that someone flying from one of a handful airports may be up to shenanigans probably isn't worth it.

Terror is exceedingly rare as long as you are not living in, say, the less savory parts of Syria or Afghanistan. We shouldn't spend an unlimited amount of time, money and convenience on a problem which is marginal on the worst of days.
My experience with Android tablets has also been dismal. I've had two: a first (maybe second?) gen Kindle Fire rooted Cyanogenmod and more recently a Pixel C purchased with the dev discount.

The first was kinda slow and heavy, and its display was too low DPI to use it for extended reading. All that was somewhat forgivable given that it wasn't supposed to run anything but Amazon's flavor of android, and, well, it's old. Running phone apps on it wasn't too bad since it's a 7" tablet.

The Pixel though... its hardware was nice. It looked nice, felt nice, and for the most part, handled nicely (though its bezels had be accidentally tapping things on the screen frequently). The problem is that its WiFi drivers were horrible and as it turns out, the cracks in the android experience are much more visible when running on modern, powerful hardware. Lots of bits just felt janky, disjointed, or sluggish. None of the browsers I tried were as nice as mobile Safari, though Firefox came closest, which is weird to me — why isn't Google's browser the best on Google's OS and Google's hardware?

Beyond that, the C's full size form factor made the lack of quality tablet apps on Android blindingly apparent. More often than not I had to settle for stretched out phone apps, which look and feel like crap on such a large screen. To be fair, the tiny handful of good tablet apps I found were very well-made, but they were far too rare.

I'd also say Android's dev/hacker-friendliness is arguable. Yes, one can side load unsigned apps, which is cool. To me, though, this point is nearly moot due to the quality disparity between the Android SDK and dev ecosystem vs the same of iOS. Perhaps I'm biased, but barring projects where iOS doesn't provide the necessary hardware access or something, I'd almost always do my prototypes and v1s on iOS and port to Android later when demand drums up than vice versa, simply due to time and frustration saved.
You can choose an arbitrarily large vessel (e.g. you can argue that you are your body + your immediate surroundings). But the brain seems to be the smallest such vessel which still leads to an indistinguishable result.
10 Book Recommendations by TED 2016 Speakers
In fairness haven't there been problems before with cities shortening the yellow light timings after installing red light cameras?
> 2. Why would the ex-CIA guy hurt his current employer to help his former? Don't people do it the other way around?

I don't think quitting your CIA job lets you off the hook for essentially giving away something they consider to be a secret. Or at least I'm sure the CIA would not look at you kindly for doing so.
I've been thinking and reading about OOP and its roots recently.

Here are some interesting resources on the subject:

Alan Kay's elaboration on what he envisioned when he coined the term:

http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ram/pub/pub_jf47ht81Ht/doc_kay...

Two papers he references:

https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memorand...

http://repository.cmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2281&c...

Cool article on failures of OOP:

http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-progr...

Its long and frustrated, but most of the points he makes are true. A lot of the stuff people claim as

I think the original vision of OOP is more valuable than what we call OOP right now. I think a good balance would be writing low-level stuff in functional style and then wrapping it in objects when you need state and cross-library messaging. Also, it seems there is some overlap between the original vision for OOP and what we call "microservices" today.
tl;dr: person's train is delayed, thinks deep thoughts about why they weren't more concerned for the dead guy.

All very moral and noble. Except I have this nagging doubt: did the suicide have to do it in such a disruptive way? Did they just step in front of the train impulsively, or did they plan to go out with a bang? Because, that's critical to understanding the OP's point.
Free download manager has worked flawlessly for years for me. Not sure how it works on Mac tho, but worth giving a try.

http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/download.htm
Use the right tool for the job. Risk profiles between web app software and rover software are totally different.
I'd argue async/await is almost no overhead, code flow becomes synchronous again.
Must be some shit tutorials. The ones I read were great. Did you just take "some-random-guy"'s blog at face value? There's an official Go home-page full of beginner guides.
That's likely true, but honestly how many people really have TB of data?
The reference is to popular scams where a person contacts you and claims to be royalty in need of a bit of money. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam
Everything old is new again it seems.

I guess this is a variant of CADT, based on ignorance of the past rather than a chase of shinies.
Personal attacks are not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do it again.

Unfortunately, your comment history has plenty of uncivil and unsubstantive comments. It also has some really good ones, so we aren't banning you, but if you keep doing this, we'll have to, so please fix it.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13927087 and marked it off-topic.
No, the Penrose-Lucas argument does not demonstrate any such thing quite clearly.

In fact, the argument was refuted in print before Lucas ever published it, in a nice paper called "Minds and machines" by Hilary Putnam.

Exactly where it fails depends on exactly how it's stated, but here's a sketch:

Goedel proved that a formal system powerful enough to talk about mathematics either is inconsistent or else cannot prove its own consistency. Lucas and his followers claim that human mathematicians have no such limits; presented with such a system they can just see that it's consistent. In Lucas's version we look at some particular candidate system that might implement a human being, and just see it's consistent. In Penrose's version we look at mathematics as a whole and just know it's consistent.

But this is all nonsense. Real human mathematicians don't look at the sort of system that might implement a human being (still less, the totality of all mathematicians working together) and "just see" it's consistent. They don't even look at the nice streamlined formal systems they've made specifically for doing formalized mathematics in and "just see" that. Frege's system was inconsistent and he didn't notice after writing two volumes on it. (Russell famously pointed out an inconsistency.) Quine's ML was inconsistent and he didn't notice until Wang pointed it out. For all we know there might be some inconsistency lurking in ZF; it seems like a very good guess that there isn't, but that's all.

And, I repeat, those are highly streamlined systems that don't attempt to do anything nearly so complicated as describing the complete behaviour of an actual mathematician's mind.

We do sometimes attempt to study computer hardware and software -- systems a bit more like actual human minds, but still orders of magnitude simpler -- using formal methods. Sometimes we try to prove them correct. These proofs are also often wrong, which is why hardware and software have bugs. (In some cases we're pretty confident about relatively large systems; guess what?, the correctness proofs for those are done by computer and there's no "just seeing" about them.)

The idea that a human being could look at a formal system representing the entirety of what their brain does and "just know" that it's consistent is not just wrong, it's one of the wrongest things any otherwise intelligent human being has ever suggested. But that is (part of) what it would take to show that the formal system didn't really model them perfectly.

This is far from being the only major error in the Lucas-Penrose argument, but it's the worst one.
You are incorrect.

If you have many threads each doing small amounts of work before blocking, the kernel will happily switch in another runnable thread when the current thread blocks. This is common in workloads that service network IO using a 1:1 thread:client model.

It can absolutely be more efficient to retire work for multiple clients from a single thread. Your last paragraph ignores this. It also forgets that in addition to prioritization there is multi-core load balancing to deal with. That can leave runnable threads stranded for whatever the LB interval is (which is independent of the overall scheduler quantum), while a concurrent service queue would allow steady service of all clients from all workers (that said, I actually prefer the siloed model in most cases).
I want to agree, but look where shell and perl are.
Ask HN: Do you have a side project you want to sell?
If you have any side projects that you've built and that you no longer have time for, list them here and let's see if others want to buy it from you.
UK parliment under lock down
> It's pretty well agreed at this point that a good C compiler will generate faster code than someone writing assembly.

We must be discussing with different people then. Have you ever looked at what a compiler spits out ? My rule is that a compiler is as good as a half-decent assembly coder. I won't even go into the limitations of compilers.

> It's of course possible to write code that's at least as fast in assembly, but in practice, nobody would do it, because the program would be unmaintainable.

You don't write the whole program in assembly. But you can write it with it still being maintainable if you use just a little constraint and forward planing. See the Fresh IDE and libraries that go with it [0].

If you want to write performant C, you should focus on writing simple code. Being smart, especially with needless abstractions, will more often then not result in slower programs. The "hello i am a compiler" crap was never true and won't be in the near future.

[0] https://fresh.flatassembler.net/
this story has been submitted more than 20 times in the last 10 hours... duplicate of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13928365
Because the useful volume of a laptop is somewhat limited and in the cabin you can ensure placement against the skin of the aircraft. In the baggage hold it will have been scanned better and by a process that is less susceptible to compromise by a single person, it will have been placed in a somewhat random position inside another container with a fragmentation blanket around it, etc. Yes, you can certainly bring down an aircraft by putting a bomb in luggage, but a lot of effort has been put in place to prevent this exact thing.
* Talk to a lawyer

* Have everything written

* Do you have a >30% of equity?

* Talk to a lawyer
SalesSeek – a CRM for Hipsters
They could have a fab operating at a lower process node for manufacturing microcontrollers, but I also think that it's not likely.
My assumption is that the ASIC is executing code that changes every month but that it's using instructions and a memory hierarchy geared towards constitutional neural networks. If that stops being true then of course you'd need a different ASIC but then again if that stops being true then there's no guarantee that a GPU or ASIC will do any better than a CPU. You could end up with something like Alpha-Beta pruning where parallelism doesn't make much different. A reasonable chip wont' be able to contain enough transistors to have separate execution resources for each layer. It's going to have to work by loading a layer, convolving it, load the next layer, convolve it, etc. So you'll be able to change your network without changing the ASIC your running it on while still taking advantage of your dedicated ganged operations. The exact size of the network layers can be optimized for in the FPGA version that you can't in the more flexible ASIC version. But I expect the benefit from those to be much smaller than moving to an ASIC.
Thank you. I was really frustrated reading the article of this post as it was very vague about the actual scam.
Start a small market site for local (for some value of "local") clothing production that maintains provenance and estimates footprint for all the articles.
This is a great article. Thanks for the link.

One thing it points out is that the rocks in that particular part of Mars are special: they are sharp and cemented into the terrain. There are places on Earth that have this kind of rock, but they are unusual. The wheels do fine in a rocks-in-sand scenario.

The article goes into a lot of detail, and it turns out that some of the obvious armchair science explanations for what is happening are not the case. For instance, the main constraint on the mass of the wheels was not keeping the liftoff mass of the payload under some limit.
Darth Bubba: "I find your lack of duct tape disturbing."
Because everyone knows that the "ops" part of devops is the part that is enjoyable and scales well.
/s

On a more serious note, if that is the goal why not just write a monolith in Erlang? You can hot-patch functions, scale on multiple machines, and don't need to use http as IPC.
If a product breaks once, it could be the product, if it breaks multiple times - you might want to rule out something you are doing that could be breaking it.
Rise of the techno-phoenix. SQL is alive, and incredibly fast on GPUs
Just realized misspelled. Floyd* Anyways - it's a great model that can work, but the "cloud api" has been tried to death. See: most recent acquisitions. Maybe things will change, it'll take time though.
>they would probably switched to a back-up plan (say, putting bombs in laptops for instance ;)

I actually used to think the same way, until I mentioned how silly some of these security theatre steps seem within earshot of someone who did some kind of Federal security work.

He went through a long winded explain of all the steps that it would to make a switch to circumvent one restriction, how much time it would take, and how it would only take one suspicious interaction by one of the group members for something to be reported.

Basically, while you can't protect against everything, by making attacks an order of magnitude harder (going from blades to bombs), you greatly increase their chances of being discovered.
Your pricing is close to 1/2 of AWS. Assuming you scale, would you stay profitable? How?

I think the front page lacks clarity. "GitHub for Machine Learning" suggests a framework for hosting and cloning machine learning models, datasets, and training scripts. I may be just stupid, but it didn't come through as clearly what you actually offer. I see the term "experiments" up front and I wonder what you mean exactly. Then in collaboration I see "projects." What does a typical project consist of?

Don't get me wrong, the idea seems to have huge potential. My advice is to clean up the front page and develop a very clear explanation of what a typical person would use this for. You might want to take all of the features that say "Coming Soon" and move them into a separate page to avoid overwhelming users.

Perhaps try to differentiate this against Floyd in some way.
The Gnat of Perfection – What I Think About When I Think About Engineering
It's Redis...
Abstraction in software almost always involves using something that does more things than you actually need; of course it's not going to help with performance. Sometimes it means calculating related results one at a time, when they would be better calculated at the same time in a single pass, because the library to do the calculation can do either calculation on an array, but only one at a time.
I imagine these types of crimes are very much helped by mining data from Linked in and Facebook.
I'm curious(and this is in no way meant to belittle the work they've done) - if you drove a normal Earth car on the surface of Mars, how would the wheels and tyres behave in Martian conditions? Obviously we have off-road tyres here on Earth which can withstand some extreme abuse, so I'm just wondering - is Martian soil just full of sharp objects? Or is something else going on here?
No. That would not be the case.
> when I was working on the Doom 3 BFG edition release, the exactly predicted off-by-one-frame-of-latency input sampling happened, and very nearly shipped

What is this predicted off-by-one-frame-of-latency input sampling ?
They fixed all 3 bugs already. https://mobile.twitter.com/taviso/status/844573211278794753 I'm not moving.
How can my app benefit from AWS Pt 2: Which storage service to use?
NitroShare – cross-platform network file transfer application
High-performance employees need quieter work spaces
This is 100% untrue. What is your basis for this post?

If a seller chooses commingled inventory when setting up their account, they have no obligation to re-label the product, as amazon uses the existing barcode on the product. If you order a pack of pencils from XYZ_Pencilmart and they are using commingled inventory, amazon will just grab any old item from all the commingled sellers, then deduct an imaginary unit from XYZ_Pencilmart's account.

This is why commingled inventory is a nightmare for resellers - it's your reputation on the line, but someone else's inventory.
KeePass does this. Autofill activates the last window, finds the "input control" on the window, then tries to type in the username, tab key, password. It breaks in all the expected ways, and sometimes new and exciting ways.
Same here. Fanboy’s Annoyance List seems to be one triggering it.

Instead of disable all of ublock you can toggle the cosmetic filtering when you click on the ublock icon. http://i.imgur.com/Ne9mHBd.png
Is the phrase "privacy issues" referring to the supposed bug that prevented the chatbot from sending its privacy policy?

I'm not really sure what this article is about. There's a chatbot out there that asks for selfies. The rest is FUD.
DLL Files Fixer 3.3.90 License Key and Crack Full Version Download
IPO Trading Meets Modern Tech
> I love the way Michael Abrash talks about optimizing. He emphasizes and re-emphasizes that optimization is for people not computers, and that if you aren't experiencing a delay, you're done.

In a time of battery powered computers CPU cycles spent equate to energy consumed equates to reduction in battery life.

Even if your program does not impact the user's experience of runtime behaviour (latencies, delays) it's still impacting in the user's experience on his devices recharge cycle.

Also spinning fans generate noise, which is just as a nuisance as a laggy program.
Performance issues come in all flavors...

- CPU usage (complexity, cache misses...)

- Memory usage (leaked resources like memory, connections and handles)

- Excessive I/O (networking, files...)

- Concurrency (contention, starvation, deadlocks, livelocks...)

There's no one size fits all profiler. I find load testing in combination with profiling very useful to get an idea of how a system performs.

Usually I keep injecting load until the system fails then find what failed.

There are other approaches, like automated performance testing (writing tests with assertions on performance). e.g: https://scalameter.github.io
One reason people are reluctant to trust old sources (regardless of how well received they were at the time) is that software, operating systems and hardware all move at lightning pace. I've not read your paper, but I'm willing to bet enough has changed to warrant a new writeup talking about modern systems.
Perhaps the most likely avenue for such a plan depends on compromise at least one person in the passenger screening process. If you know that they have a plan which has a reasonable probability of working given a compromised person working the carry-on scanner and you know the airports where these groups are most likely to compromise such individuals then it seems logical to start with those locations.

Terror groups can get into Europe, but do they have people working airport security a CDG or FRA?
Node v7.7.4 Released
That's pretty interesting. Once the recipient contacts the sender to view the contents, presumably their client could also download the contents to have it locally available, no? Would the retrieval of the email have to be user-initiated?
No one's talking about that fact that the US trusts Abu Dhabi to have a customs port there[0], but not enough to let a passenger travelling via Abu Dhabi to put a laptop in their carryon ...

0. http://www.etihad.com/en-us/before-you-fly/us-preclearance/
On the order of a millisecond. Which seems to me, way too slow in this day and age. The context switch has been a hard wad that chokes algorithms in unexpected ways, that are hard to diagnose.

This can be fixed with a different approach to CPU design? Most threads block on a semaphore-thingy or a timer or wait for io completion. If the CPU made those an opcode instead of a wad of kernel code, the switch could be reduced to a clock cycle (ns?)

How could this work? Maybe a global semaphore register where you Wait on a mask. Each bit could be mapped to one of those wait-condition. Another opcode would Set the bit.

To scale, the CPU would have to have not 2 or 4 hyperthreads but maybe 1000. So every thread in the system could be 'hot-staged' in a Wait, ready to execute, or executing.

There would still be cache and tlb issues, but they would be at the same level as any library call. They wouldn't include yards of kernel code messing with stacks and register loads and so on.
sept 11 was led by highly trained and organized people

You wrote that as fact, but is it? Those "highly trained" guys could barely fly a small plane, but where able to fly huge airlines at top speed.
If yellow lights all had a fixed duration I would agree with you, but unfortunately the length of yellow lights is variable. Additionally yellow lights have no legal rules behind them. They don't mean "slow down", they are simply an indication that the light will be red soon. You are within your rights to accelerate through a yellow light (assuming you're still under the speed limit).