skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
On both parts of your comment you are missing a huge piece of the puzzle: fraud.

A payments processor (old school or digital) is constantly taking on some certain amount of risk of fraud, from both the credit card user and the merchant itself. I could set up a store that appears to be real and just move my money out of my bank account and run. I could also go to a carding site, use real credit cards on my own fake store, wait for my transfers to process, cash out of my store and run. I could 'just' use it as a small operation to check whether my stolen credit cards are really working, and then make big purchases later... and that's just the very basics in merchant fraud.

Between this fraud, and risks from otherwise honest parties (what do you think happens when people preorder something, the company goes under, and the consumer tells the CC company that they want their money back? Someone ends up holding the bag), it'd be pretty much impossible to run a payment processor as a non profit center without a lot of work. Add to that that merchants want more complex features, like subscriptions, the effort to maintain PCI compliance, and that adding support for each new payment type and country is a pain in the behind for everyone, even for companies that do their very best to cut out every middleman.

So as long as you are interacting with banks and the risk of fraud is not carried 100% by the consumer, bitcoin style, you'll have a lot more innovation than you think, most of it dedicated to making life harder for fraudsters, and you'll find that this is something that you have to do for-profit. I'd not even consider doing it without venture capital, because you need a bankroll to handle the fraud losses which will definitely happen.

If you want proof of the innovation going on, just ask any fraud forum out there: There were plenty of people with nice and easy ways to defraud online processors, but nowadays, for all but the best fraudsters, it's a whole lot of effort for very little compensation.

And still, I'd not be caught dead carrying the amount of risk that someone like Braintree or Stripe is carrying on a regular basis without a profit motive.
Yeah, this is happening, but other left-leaning outlets are calling it out too:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/democrats-confront-lefty...
http://mashable.com/2017/02/01/left-wing-conspiracy-theory-v...
it is for simulation, as you say - but this is a critical for employing reinforcement learning. The internal (inverse) model will of course, be based on a simplified system, like a DNN
Humans will never defeat the strongest go playing programs ever again. AlphaGo is now clearly ahead of the top pros, and such programs will only get stronger. Humans should learn some things from the machines, but we will definitely not be able to extract the full totality of understanding, and thus will naturally continue to fall behind.
No, it is just a good(the best?) way to do public blockchains.
I might agree that "most people" out of the general population would go for the latter, but "most engineers" would not. As an engineer, 90% of my job description is handling the cases where it's not working the way it works most of the time. The case where everything works when all dependencies are doing what they normally do is a prototype or an MVP.

Now, as a founder, my job is to build that prototype & MVP, but I'd expect that as a CEO it would be to hire people to handle the other 90% of cases.
Space/speed trade-off.
It doesn't have to be an arm; for example Kiva, the robotics company Amazon bought for $775 million in 2012, just found a better way to move parts around in a warehouse; pretty basic idea and system too.

If you or for that matter anyone want a cofounder to apply to YC for AI, happy to help.
I belive the fundamental difference is that in the old system, someone could be incredibly selective in which facts they used, and slant those facts as much as they wanted, but the sacred line than could not be crossed was making up facts.

However, in this new thing, reputation free news, right and left, the baseline of facts is gone.
Which identity did they copy? (I mean, I suspect you are implying Uber or Lyft, but I didn't get any vibes that pointed me towards either one of them past the "app for taxi" part)
Have you looked into ROS and Gazebo?

I am an undergraduate leading an open source autonomous vehicle project [0] and we're currently almost done setting up simulation testing. Gazebo and ROS are very poorly documented but they serve their purpose really well when it comes to creating pub sub and physics simulation for robotics systems.

[0] https://github.com/gtagency/buzzmobile
Motivation and perseverance are the keys. If can somehow keep those fires burning in the long run, you'll do well.

My problem is that I tend to get really interested in learning something, work really intensely at it for a while, then get bored and move on to something else, leaving dozens of unfinished projects in my wake.
Got a source for that?

As I understand it, aluminum wound transformers are more reliable than copper under surge conditions because aluminum has a much higher specific heat than copper - providing more of a thermal buffer prior to damage.

Motors aren't transformers, but I'm having a hard time seeing how this same effect wouldn't be in play.
From a cryptographer's perspective, everything around SHA-3 is a little weird. We ended up with something that's pretty slow even though we had faster things, for which general consensus was that they were just as strong. Similarly, consensus was that some SHA-3 candidates made it as far as they did because they are drastically different from previous designs. Picking a major standard takes a while, and immediately preceding it we saw scary advances in attacks on traditional Merkle-Damgard hashes like SHA-0, SHA-1. Not SHA-2, but it's pretty similar, so the parallels are obvious.

Bow that we have SHA-3, we ended up with a gazillion Keccak variants and Keccak-likes. The authors of Keccak have suggested that Git may instead want to consider e.g. SHAKE128. [0]

[0]:
https://public-inbox.org/git/91a34c5b-7844-3db2-cf29-411df5b...

It's a bit unfortunate that this is really a cryptographic choice, and it seems to mostly be made by non-cryptographers. Furthermore, the people making that choice seem to be deeply unhappy about having to make it.

This makes me unhappy, because I wish making cryptographic choices got much easier over time, not harder. While SHA-2 was the most recent SHA, picking the correct hash function was easy: SHA-2. Sure, people built broken constructions (like prefix-MAC or whatever) with SHA-2, but that was just SHA-2 being abused, not SHA-2 being weak.

A lot of those footguns are removed with SHA-3, so I guess safe crypto choices are getting easier to make. On the other hand, the "obvious" choice, being made by aforementioned unhappy maintainers, is slow in a way that probably matters for some use cases. On the other hand, not even the designers think it's an obvious choice, I think most cryptographers don't think it's the best tool we have, and we have a design that we're less sure how to parametrize. There are easy and safe ways to parametrize SHA-3 to e.g. fix flaws like Fossil's artifact confusion -- but BLAKE2b's are faster and more obvious. And it's slow. Somehow, I can't be terribly pleased with that.
Glad to hear that someone on the Fed has some sense. The confusion of "target" with "ceiling" has been disastrous for the economic recovery. Raising rates now is a terrible idea. Moderate inflation is good for an economy based on credit, _especially_ so when so many individuals are overburdened by overwhelming student loan debt and underwater mortgages. Running under 2% core inflation for the past nine years has destroyed any chance of wage growth or natural debt relief. If anything, we need a few years of 3-4% inflation to make up lost time. Wages need to go up and relative debt loads need to go down, but they never will at 1% inflation when the Fed tightens the screws anytime we get close to 2%.
Uhh, where on earth did you get the idea that these women were telling their kids how they feel? That isn't even intimating at in the article.

Strawman much?
No CHIP in there...
Would be fun for the remaining bro culture if the board ousted Kalanick and installed Marissa Mayer.
I think you've been out of the loop for quite a while - RTS games were the absolute premier competitive ("esports") game type (see twitch.tv for more recent evidence) probably through 2014, being eclipsed by MOBA games (like League of Legends).

The rise of "casual" games was essentially irrelevant, actually, but that's another story.
Maybe or maybe you could just model what the workers already do, predict what they should do, and dynamically provide feedback, simulation, etc.
But that is the fee, 1%? For some size of business, it's not worth paying a "double" payment provider fee to do the token provider thing (+ the extra development work)
Make interactive network visualizations from excel without writing code
Defining AI is hard - we can agree on that. I think the best definitions are in the form of tests that match the performance against organisms that have developed intelligence through millions of years of evolution. The Turning Test is a good example of this. I think that we can all agree that an AI that passes the Turing Test is intelligent. But that is the final goal post. What about intermediate milestones? My opinion is that games just don't count.

I think that creating similar test as milestones would do more to progress the AI field. Like the Turning Test, it must test that parity with another intelligent being is achieved. Intelligence is a spectrum from "not very" to "omniscient". What are some organisms that are closer to the "not very" end of this spectrum that would be good candidates for parity tests? How would a parity test be performed?

It is in answering that question that one arrives at “There is no AI without robotics”. If you want to demonstrate that your artificial cockroach is as intelligent as the real thing, then you have to build a robot. It doesn't have to be a physical robot as long as you have a simulator that can do a very accurate simulations of the physics of the environment, the AI candidate, and their interactions. That's not so easy, which is why many if not most researchers build physical robots.

Would a cockroach be a good first milestone? Too complex? How about a worm? Achieved parity with cockroach? Then move on to Jumping Spiders. When your great-grandchildren achieve that parity, my great-grandchildren will certainly celebrate with them.
Teenagers’ Internet Socializing Not a Bad Thing (2008)
If you are Facebook, Amazon or someone like that it can make sense, but their level of sophistication is insane for someone that isn't making millions a month. At a smaller scale, the best that you can do is just to have bindings for the processors that do easy integration, but it's still a bunch of work that isn't going towards making more money, but towards insurance.

So putting sophistication on your payments platform is something that you should only care about once you are very successful anyway.
Buffett has bought some tech in recent times - IBM and Apple. More established stuff with cash flow.
> I did submit a bug report and it did get fixed, but there was another crash I couldn't be bothered to try to track down, and just switched back to the standard ubuntu shell.

Interesting. What was the bug, if I may ask? Do you have a URL for it and the resolution to it?

What do you mean, you "switched back to the standard Ubuntu shell", exactly? XMonad is a window manager, it has nothing to do with shells.

On top of that, do you mean you switched back to bash, which is the standard shell of most distros, or do you really mean you switched to the standard Ubuntu terminal emulator?

There are a few things that need clarification, as what you've said doesn't make much sense in the context of window managers.
Quake was only open-sourced years after it was superseded by more advanced games. It was still an awesome thing, and I'm glad that ID seems to have made it a tradition.

Not since id Tech 4 (Doom 3/Quake 4), now it's proprietary (thanks ZeniMax).
Well that, and a home appliance doesn't cost 1/7th of your annual budget anymore. Some things were built to last because to justify the expense, they had to last.

James May (unusually) made a very good point that the "good old days" is an illusion created by survivorship bias, nostalgia, and failure to understand economics. The survivorship bias especially should be obvious:

Lots of cheap crap was made throughout the years, but it didn't survive. We only have examples of the stuff that managed to survive, or was notable in some way. The $50 Smartphone equivalent of the 50's was no more notable than today's version, and no more long-lasting.
Uglify has actually gotten better the last few years, but Closure is still faster on multi-core machines. Here's on one of our apps:

$ wc -c index.js | grep -v total
9320511 index.js

$ cat index.js | time closure-compiler \
--warning_level quiet \
--third_party \
--jscomp_off es3 \
--compilation_level SIMPLE_OPTIMIZATIONS \
--language_in ECMASCRIPT5 > index.js.closure 2>/dev/null
33.54s user 0.93s system 369% cpu 9.336 total

$ cat index.js | time closure-compiler \
--warning_level quiet \
--third_party \
--jscomp_off es3 \
--compilation_level ADVANCED_OPTIMIZATIONS \
--language_in ECMASCRIPT5 > index.js.closure-advanced 2>/dev/null
33.54s user 0.93s system 369% cpu 9.336 total

$ cat index.js | time node_modules/.bin/uglifyjs \
--screw-ie8 --mangle --compress - > index.js.uglify 2>/dev/null
18.88s user 0.24s system 103% cpu 18.475 total

$ wc -c index.js.*. | grep -v total
1750478 index.js.closure
1515331 index.js.closure-advanced
1763350 index.js.uglify

$ gzip -9 index.js.*

$ wc -c index.js*.gz | grep -v total
369749 index.js.closure-advanced.gz
397468 index.js.closure.gz
387896 index.js.uglify.gz

(Closure 20170218 on Oracle Java 8, uglify-js 2.4.19 on Node 6.8.1, running on MBP Pro 2015).

It's worth noting that Closure is heavily parallelized, and uses 50% of the time to complete by using all 4 cores at almost 100%. If you only have one core, though, Closure will be much slower.

Our apps don't use any of Google's conventions, but Closure is still able to minify as well than Uglify. I don't know if there are any specific Closure or Uglify options that could make a bigger difference.

Also worth noting that we only minify for staging/production, not during development, which would incur too much of a performance hit.

We've always used Closure, and been very happy with it.
Agreed, I have bought probably a dozen games in beta, but usually in the £5-15 range and more than likely, further in the release cycle. Usually the more raw the game, the cheaper the price - I would have expected a game like this that has been subject to recent, major bugs to be closer to the £5-10 level.

I will be keeping an eye on this one in any case.
We cleaned up by buying the extended warranty on our dreadful dishwasher. For a modest charge upfront, Sears sent out technicians 5 or 6 times, replaced the electronic control panel, a valve, and the entire washer motor. It took months and months of angry phone calls, but the damned thing works now.
This is a huge barrier, there is a lot of 'rent' money being doled out to 'sole providers'
I think the problem is more complex.

It's not that people 'want' to buy cheap stuff.

That's the mistake PC laptop makers made for 20 years, collective racing to the bottom until they figured out ways to produce $300 laptop. But they eventually learned that a large consumer base had no problem paying $1200 for a MacBook. It turns out, people were willing to pay substantially more for a better product. Now, PC makers are dishing out laptops that are comparable to Apple's.

In my view, main problem is this; when you make washing machine ranging from $500-$2000, inevitably they will share significant number of parts. And the weakest link will most likely be the shared parts engineered to cost, so that they can be profitable in the $500 model.

So why use not bespoke, higher quality parts for the $2000 one? Because it will end up costing more like $4,000-$5,000.

Overall reliability of appliance would shoot up, if a company stopped making their cheapest model so dirt cheap.
And then account for interest, inflation, improved efficiency and possibly future reductions in cost -- a $500 one that lasts 10 years might be a better investment than a $4500 one that lasts 1000.
The trick to learning new things as an adult is to never stop learning. For many people university (or highschool, for the slightly less fortunate) is the last time they will actively learn, after that they are 'done learning'.

But you're never done learning! In a world that changes as fast as ours does you'll be learning until you die if you want to keep up and stay relevant in the near future. Even more so in the IT domain.

So don't stop learning, or you'll be playing catch-up with very little chance of success once you do stop.
Generate fake data with Graphql Fake
Google Pulls Beauty and the Beast 'ad' from Home
Is it actually disingenuous?

When I graduated college, I had a decent job in financial software, but figured I would measure my standard of living against my peers who were unemployed or going to grad school and just bank the rest of my salary. That gave me the freedom to take advantage of many opportunities that would've been closed off to me had I measured my standard of living against what other people in my workplace expected.

Similarly, when looking at my life as a whole, I compare it to my dad (who grew up in WW2 Philippines and had his house bombed) and think I'm doing great.

Sure, I understand that it's natural to compare yourself against your immediate surroundings rather than arbitrary points in time and space. But if a mental model comparing yourself against another reference point will make you happier and give you the wherewithal to actually improve your standard of living, why not adopt it?
This article seems to be an advertisement so I don't have a positive disposition towards it.

There's this free online course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn which I think might be preferable to the book in the article, since it has transcribed video that you can speed up, exercises, and quizzes.
He prefers business any idiot could run but buys other ones as well such as IBM and some airlines recently.
>"The only explanation..."? What about "never attribute to malice..." and Occam's Razor.

Experience tells us that the simplest explanation for manufacturer's behavior is the kind of malice called "maximizing profit, all else be damned".

That's Occam's Razor in use right there -- we would need to get out of our way to invent morally good businesses, incompetent engineers who can't get things to last, and modern conveniences that have short lifespans as necessary engineering tradeoffs to explain that away.
Doe low rates necessarily cause wage inflation? It might cause inflation in the price of assets or goods while wages stay steady.
Really, I'm the one shitting on people?

You're merely claiming hundreds of game developers, part of the most transparent game studio of all time, are involved in this grand conspiracy.

What does "running off with the money" even mean? Create artificial work for yourself and your company all the while pissing people off on purpose? Oh yeah that's a much better plan than just making a game.

Reminds me of people claiming the lunar landing was faked because they have it in their head that faking the thing and maintaining the charade over decades is somehow cheaper.

Regarding your question, we're talking about shading languages, most of which are autogenerated by the sources. This is more akin to dropping support for a platform than "rewriting everything".
Im a bit opposite in that I love much of the "house, techno, electronica or even dubstep directions" (though much less dubstep these days) and Discover Weekly/Radio usually delivers some great stuff and is probably 95% of my new finds.

Im more inclined towards progressive trance/psy trance type stuff which I think aligns more with Classical music you mention (since I usually listen while I work). I love electronica remixes of Vivaldi and other classical pieces, for instance. I enjoy Tool as well, A Perfect Circle, and Puscifer and have a much more difficult time discovering in that direction, but I listen to them less frequently as well. I also listen to a lot of rap, and intermittently some other types (almost anything but country).

Im always finding good new electronica of the types I like and rap, but their algorithms definitely could use some improving. I would particularly like an unlike/thumbs down feature like Pandora had and may still have. Id like that so that it a) never show me that song again, and b)could potentially be used to further tailor the results.
This whole article could have been avoided if the author was introduced to the concept of planned obsolescence, an umbrella that reaches across each point they argued and even beyond it.
Ask HN: How should I document an existing web app?
I'm a recent CS graduate and have just started work for a business that is building a web app. Almost all of the work has been done by a single contractor who left with a day's notice last week. My role is essentially business analysis and my boss wants me to document the app so that any new developer can understand it quickly. I'm wondering what my options are. As I see it I could:

a) Potentially overdo it: express everything I'm able to learn about the app in various UML diagrams, tables and written guides.

b) Potentially underdo it: try to determine whether the app has been built well enough that any competent developer can figure it out it fairly easily and just provide a readme or something if I judge (with my limited experience) that it has been. Existing comments are fairly minimal, but I believe some developers prefer a commentless approach.

c) Something in between the two. Maybe comment the code myself, maybe using JSDoc style or something to make ongoing documentation easier.

Any advice would be much appreciated.
Not necessarily true. I've seen it work both ways, so probably best to leave it at "we don't know the details of the compensation arrangement".
I agree. It would be worth double the price, if they used all different components than the ones used in its cheaper siblings. But if much of the parts are the same inside, where it's manufactured doesn't really matter.
I think Uber breaks the laws because the people making decisions in uber do not see the laws as useful, and I agree with that opinion. And if the fines for breaking the law aren't hurting their bottom line, it's a win-win - presumably the fines are calculated to more than offset any public harm done.

When you hear a company break an actually meaningful law, the outrage isn't "X is breaking the law!", it's "X is doing <bad thing>". And yes, some of the outrage about uber does take the shape of the latter, and some of it is actually bad. But a lot of criticism is "Uber is breaking <law X> in <country Y>", and you'd only say that if the law in question is actually ridiculous.
New Form of Atomic Nuclei and It Suggests Time Travel Is Impossible (2016)
what a vapid predictable piece of self aggrandization.
They didn't lie in response to any official requests by the agency; they lied to incognito agents.
Ask HN: Who do you follow on Twitter?
I just got Twitter and thought this community would have a great selection of people who make great things or say great things.
im not quite sure what you're suggesting. there needs to be a source of ground truth to inform the robot if what is being done is right. And actually having a physical robot arm for this would be way too slow