skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think there are two distinct things you can disagree with in the parent comment. The first is whether the use of the phrase "tech bros" is defensible; the second is whether all the people who are supporting VR are those who can be called (rightly or wrongly) "tech bros". I think you're conflating those.

I've always interpreted the term as being gendered, but not gender-essentialist; there are plenty of women who are "tech bros", because it's referring to a culture and set of ideals derived from gendered spaces like fraternities, but not those spaces themselves; plenty of "tech bros" were not members of a college fraternity, for instance. It is true that the vast majority of tech bros are men, for many reasons relating to society and gender. It's certainly possible that the term could get inaccurate, in which case I at least would favor a different one, but it works for now.

Under that definition, "there exist women who do behavior X which you attribute to tech bros" does not imply "attributing behavior X to tech bros is incorrect".

That leaves the question about whether "tech bros", such as they are, are the only people rooting for VR. I think that's fairly unlikely to be true, and yes, your points seem do rebut that claim. (That said, it's probably worth mentioning somewhere here that while women exist in VR, the industry seems to be biased towards an assumption of men, from various apps placing virtual objects at heights that are difficult for most biological women to reach, to the entire concept being based on a model of 3D visual processing that is more common in biological men: https://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed-to-be-sexi... Pointing out the obvious truth that VR seems to be male-dominated is not excluding women, and your question about bigotry seems to be attacking the messenger.)

But even if it's misplaced to associate the entire VR industry with "tech bros", I don't think that invalidates the concept of "tech bros" itself.

Finally, I think it's inappropriate to imply that a good-faith participant doesn't belong here.
Isn't the only information legally available aggregate and non-identifiable?
It seems quite reasonable. Let's assume that it's known to the public that Alice and Bob work for CIA. If their colleague Charlie would openly go bowling with Alice and Bob, then it would lead outsiders to understand that Charlie works in CIA, which is very, very undesirable in many cases.

If Charlie wants to keep his CIA ties secret, then bowling with colleagues is either simply prohibited (as for "Employee Group C" in the document) or possible only if an appropriate cover story is arranged for the miraculous coincidence that Charlie happens to be bowling in the same time and place as Alice and Bob.
I am wondering the same thing. I believe they wanted to appeal to the broader JS community first, then build in reactivity to Meteor. That is the only reason why I haven't picked it up yet.
> I don't know if this is true - but that math major is probably a lot more likely to go work for an accounting firm at 60k a year rather than put up with the stress of teaching at 40k.

And if you think that's bad try getting a Computer Science teacher to literally shave six figures off their salary!

I hate to bad-mouth teachers, because there are so many people taking haircuts on their salary for altruistic reasons.

But my experience tutoring college math majors is exactly this. The low performers are nearly all interested in teaching, the high performers nearly all headed to either grad school or engineering/finance.

That's why you'll encounter a lot of super great humanities teachers but a lot fewer stellar STEM teachers.
Scientists map Arabica coffee genome
You claim

>But you have the burden of evidence backward!

Then claim

>Eventually you hit a saturation point where the return on investment becomes too low to justify the additional expense.
20k aint that point.

Do you have evidence of this claim? How do you know? Please show sources.

>Do you have any evidence for this claim? Sounds extremely unlikely to me.

You don't believe poorer kids have worse outcomes in life?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528796/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2998067/Bright-pupil...

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-children-in-poo...

https://newrepublic.com/article/123093/rich-kids-better-poor...
ISPs will never let this happen. These people scratched the ISPs back and the ISPs will scratch theirs. No way will they sell their data.

Our data will be up for grabs though if the ISPs choose to sell it.
OP specifically said "relatable to me" so the feelings of others aren't particularly relevant and even if they were, enough Americans had a pro-Trump stance that Trump was elected president. I'm assuming your reason for not describing him as "idealistic" is his pro-Trump stance, in which case I'd say he has ideals and is therefore idealistic, his ideals simply don't match yours.

I'm no Trump fan but I think your points are biased and irrelevant.
> A father and son are in a horrible car crash that kills the dad. The son is rushed to the hospital; just as he's about to go under the knife, the surgeon says, "I can’t operate—that boy is my son!" Explain.

Well, so "silk" is priming your mind to think of similar words. Here are possible hypotheses about the doctor riddle:

1) The presence of a father in the story is priming the listener to think about fathers and not mothers.

2) The tone of a riddle implies there is a paradox, which suggests to the listener that the doctor is the father.

3) We are biased to think doctors are men.

And you're saying that the author thinks it's inconceivable that #1 or #2 could be complete explanations? I think she admitted such... she believes that the bias exists and is merely looking for evidence.

I don't think she is saying the study is conclusive though. Taken alone it doesn't prove anything. But there are lots of other studies showing similar effects. You can run the tests on yourself: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

I wish you would say a little more about what, specifically you are accusing the author of.
A little more than eight years ago, I came across a nice documentary: "Fractals - The Colors of Inifnity", narrated by Arthur C. Clarke (yes, THE Arthur C. Clarke!), with music provided by Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd; to top it off, I was tripping on LSD for the first time when I saw it, and I had to rewind at least once to check if something I had seen was actually on the screen or just in my head (to my disappointment at the time, it was actually on the screen).

It's a nice documentary, though. Highly recommend it. They even have an interview with Benoit Mandelbrot himself, may he rest in peace.

Two years after that, I wrote my first Mandelbrot-renderer. First in Python, but that was waaaay too slow, then in C, which was a lot faster (duh!), and then I made it even faster by telling the compiler to use SSE. (To some, that sounds trivial, but it was something I had never done before.)

I have always suspected that it is like a rite of passage, building at least one simple-minded Mandelbrot renderer. I rewrote mine after two more years to take advantage of multiple threads and wrote another one to render the Buddhabrot[1]. Then I remembered an article I had read years before, about the Parallel Virtual Machine, PVM. So, the next weekend, I turned my Mandelbrot renderer into a distributed application.

So Kudos to the author. Tackling the Mandelbrot set has the dual advantage of being interesting and you can make pretty pictures along the way. It is great fun, and I learned a few things along the way. What more could I ask for?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhabrot
IANAL, but the plain text of the statute says:

"For the purposes of this section, “owner of a business entity” means ... or any owner of capital stock, in the case of a business entity that is a corporation.

For the purposes of this section, “ownership interest” means ... or a capital stockholder, in the case of a business entity that is a corporation."

So it certainly seems possible. Note that you would have to "sell or otherwise dispos[e] of all of his or her ownership interest in the business entity" in order for this code to apply. So it sounds like it may be possible for a company to include a non-compete in an offer to buy back your shares.

Again IANAL and this is not legal advice.
No, anything that has residual radiation will be entombed in clay/rock/etc. The total amount of material and radiation from this will be trivial compared to coal waste.

"...Nearly every major river in the Southeast has one or more unlined, leaking pits on its banks filled with water and holding coal ash from power plants. Containing millions of tons of toxin-laden waste, these pits are unlined and have leaked arsenic, mercury, thallium, selenium, and other contaminants into the rivers and the underlying groundwater for decades. "

https://www.southernenvironment.org/cases-and-projects/coal-...
Andy Grove’s Warning to Silicon Valley (2016)
It's a pretty shallow clone of even Heroku.
Don't apply to universities. Come up with a strong proposal for a research project, think about professors at the less popular research universities that you would want to work with, and see if any of them would be interested in having you as a student. Then you can apply and if the graduate program admissions department is not swamped with 95th percentile applicants you have a much better chance of getting in if the professor wants you in. If that professor happens to be on the admissions committee or is chairing the department or however the administration is set up at that university at the time you are applying you may even get the GPA requirements waived altogether. Professors are always up for competent students that are interested in the field, in working with them, and that can publish a lot of papers. As a student the last thing you want to do is get into your dream school only to end up being advised by a "difficult" professor.
Surely (multidimensional) analysis is the term used in mathematics for a more rigorous investigation of the basis of calculus. In physics, vector calculus is taught as a tool and the course is called vector calculus (or maybe multivariable calculus.)
Congress's answer will be a carve-out for elected officials, just like the Financial industry insulated itself against software patents.

Then the GOP will rail against this saying the government is corrupt - it's a win/win for them.
I was going to chime in, but you nailed it here.

Absorbing losses until your competition goes out of business is called price gouging. It's considered unethical and in many current cases is actively punished worldwide. Advantageous access to funding is usually (but not always) the enabler.

In the early 20th century US Industry invaded Brazil with much lower interest rates and absolutely decimated Brazil's budding manufacturing sector, to which it has never recovered. Then there's Wal-mart in the US -- Amazon's strategy is not unlike Wal-mart's was (ream the competition in a price war with lower prices and ginormous investments in logistics technology, which bring competitive cost-savings). It's impossible to beat that triad (low prices, being flush with outside capital, huge investments in cost-savings). Other businesses without all that money can't keep prices low and invest heavily at the same time. Another advantage:You hardly need to advertise. You make a name for yourself with the good deals you give everyone.

I don't think it's fair. I don't shop at a wal-mart, I don't use amazon, and I don't use uber(never have). That's about the only solution I can see: don't patronize scumbags.

Maybe one day the banking system will be less democratic. For now, the bankers pick favorites and those favorites become ever more favorable, because the goal of these schmucks is the centralization of wealth-- so why not get to centralizing it?
Try not to forget that Trump got 46% of the popular vote, to Hillary's 48%. And don't fool yourself, those numbers are comparable.
Item #5 is the key. Nuance dominates the ASR market for IVR based speech applications. BlueWorx has a MRCP product for IBM Watson. I press the Google team constantly to provide ASR for IVR solutions. We move most customers off clouds because of either (1) poor telecom performance/quality, and (2) lack of enterprise ASR for IVR self-service.
You have to give them your money to find out.
The community deserves a ton of credit for coming together or this investment. Special call out to CoreOS as the conversion from etcdv2 to etcdv3 which was was critical to the effort!

Disclosure: I work on Google on Kubernetes.
Depends on whether whatever you are doing is something with a finite goal and has clear steps (e.g, deliver a prototype, complete testing, complete a presentation, prepare for a test etc.) or something that is more exploratory and you are not really sure what you are looking for. Most of the work we do is of the first kind. In that case, the amount of work accomplished is directly proportional to time spent*focus. For the second type of work, there is no correlation. You just have to train your neurons to try all combinations until something clicks. People who are not doing research or art (i.e, most of us, despite what we'd like to believe) can and will see more results if they spend more time. You need to be able to recognize whether you are doing type 1 or type 2 work and plan accordingly. Time and focus is not going to help in type 2 work beyond a minimum. If you are doing type 1 work and stretching yourself, recognize the trade-offs you are making and don't burn out.
SES-10 Mission
Ron Gilberts Post Mortem of Maniac Mansion
My mother is coordinator of edtech at a small catholic middle and elementary school that fully invested in iPad education when it first released. It works as well as the commenters in this thread can tell you.

The one thing you missed is that plenty of teachers won't spend the 15 minutes. The first time an edtech feature doesn't work in their classroom - usually because the teacher is using it completely incompetently - they just stop using it altogether. It took the school almost a semester just to get an english teacher to stop making the students use paper notebooks because she resented the tech so badly.

And you can see where the resentment comes from - lots of teachers do NOT tend towards technical literacy. A lot of them are older and underpaid, and they aren't going home and plugging away familiarizing themselves with contemporary tech to "skill up." The reason "kids can't use computers" is no doubt because plenty of their teachers can't either.
Having worked with people who use these types of magic GUI tools that "hide the complexity" of $VCS, this shit happens all the time.

When they exist, popups are clicked through and ignored just as they are in every other computing context. And in the end, these tools are just a shorthand for "I don't have the time, desire, and/or motivation to understand how to operate the tools I rely on for work."

Not to argue that that perspective is bad or wrong, it just is what it is. And when someone doesn't understand a tool that operates an inherently complex system, it will inevitably lead to misuse.
Some political campaigning group that intended to take online memes and run them as actual political billboards. The outrage was because it was pro-Trump.
A deal where we reduce immigration but ask people to sponsor as some sort of civic duty.

I'd suggest changing ask to allow, and remove any mention of "civic duty".

The Canadian government didn't go out and ask families to take refugees into their homes -- Canadians applied for permission to take refugees into their homes. And wasn't a trivial process; the vetting of refugee sponsors was probably more detailed than the vetting of the refugees themselves, since the government wanted to make sure that sponsors were going to be able to take care of the refugees and were not going to try to exploit them.

Even with the arduous process for groups to apply to sponsor refugees, the Canadian government had more applicants than their target number of refugees.
The last mile of personal data can be bought. Every US household pwned.

Given this analysis of Manafort, Cambridge Analytics and Russia, things are super scary.

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/62atvf/trump_russi...
In a token bucket algorithm you don't actually have a separate replenish step, it is baked into the next check you do. Similar to how in the example you linked the removal of the old entries is baked into the check step.

Check out my example: https://gist.github.com/ptarjan/e38f45f2dfe601419ca3af937fff... on line 23 with

local filled_tokens = math.min(capacity, last_tokens+(delta*rate))

that adds in any tokens that should drip into the bucket since the last check.
Consider this:

Most humans want trains to be safe (A). Some humans are lazy fucks and will risk hurting people or deliberately hurt them to save time and make money (B). Some humans know a lot about how trains work (C). Most humans don't know much about how trains work (D). Some humans don't know anything about how trains work (E).

A train is an object that operates at normal scales, in multiple senses. It is very natural for the state of the safety of a train to be observable to its users. They would know if its rusty and unkempt, if the doors weren't put on properly, if the engine is making unusual sounds, if the conductor looks shady and may be there to scam them. Group D may not know exactly how the train is going to kill them, but you don't need to be in Group C to recognise most design failures. The safety of trains is ensured in part by the size of Group D, operators (Some C, Some B) won't make enough money if Group D refuse to ride the train so they keep standards high.

Now software isn't quite the same as trains. Software has nearly everyone, like yourself, nearest to Group E. Group D is not insignificant - these are those who work with software at a design level, and can spot design faults. Group C are minuscule.

Closed source software means that the only ones checking Group B are the members of Group C who have, for whatever reason, gone the extra mile. Group D are as oblivious as E.

Open source software allows Group D to get involved in checking that the operators are more of Group C than Group B.

---

Your busses vs trains scenario is interesting. Trains are controlled by widely available and auditable schedules, making them more open than the untracked antics of the completely closed source reasoning of bus and car drivers.
yes! js tooling sux ballz
well this also alludes to a classic scaling issue. I have family who worked in restaurants for years and one of the few things that would really drive revenue were banquets and other large catering events. From what I observed, it was almost like you play the daily nickel and dime game to put you in the running for those bigger opportunities as they come up.
As far as I understood it, it was a non-profit that Luckey funded to help promote Donald Trump's presidential campaign. It was seemingly going to do so through memes, though it never recognizably progressed beyond its initial promotion. It was derided from both sides; it was first posted for a sort of crowdfunding campaign to /r/The_Donald where it was lambasted as "astroturfing" and a corporate attempt to profit off of their community. The VR and tech community at large (which tends to lean left and anti-Trump) didn't think much of it until it was revealed that Luckey was providing the funding for it, at which point a great deal of his already waning community support dropped out from under him.
Uber Executive’s Lawyers Warn He Could Face Criminal Charges
Covert cache-based channel between EC2 instances (demo)
>> So, on behalf of my fellow Australians, I'd just like to thank J&J for selling into my country at a substantial loss

Are they really making a loss in Australia? Your source doesn't say that.
ERRATA: *maybe the banking systems will be MORE democratic
>You may think auto-sync will completely ruin your familiar “commit now, restructure later” workflow. It will not. As you’re working in your branch, you can still reorganise, restructure, reorder and rename commits in your branch. These changes will be incrementally synced to all other peoples’ machines as you go. They’ll initially see your mess, but then they’ll see all the changes you’re doing to make your branch look pretty. All happening without any manual button clicking/remotes selections/any other decisions from them. As this branch is yours, it’s a perfectly safe and does not require any human intervention.

One of the biggest missed opportunities with git is metadata about rebase and history-rewrite operations. If git stuck that information into the log it would be trivial for clients to understand that these commits appear to have different hashes only due to a rebase. The client could even compute the deltas from both tress to compare the supposedly "common" commits, validating that they really are the same (or maybe allow slightly differences to account for rebasing). If the commits claim to have the same ancestry but different deltas it would be up to you to accept your peer's work or to go review/merge.

No more "2 down / 5 up" commits because of a rebase; instead you'd see "3 new (2 rebased)".
It's great that this worked out. The article reminds me of something else that was on HN a while ago, and the discussion pointed out that the problem lies, at least in part, with refugees that aren't willing to integrate with the host culture. In this case, it appears they were willing.
This is the coolest thing I've seen in a while. Paper: https://gruss.cc/files/hello.pdf
(didn't want to give too much away, but when you've read the story and understand N.I.C.E. a bit more, you'll see how incredibly creepy Wither's nonchalance is. Should be a primer for working anywhere known for a culture of fear.)
That's odd. gc shouldn't be collecting anything less than 2 weeks old by default.
The internet outrage professionals need there daily quota of clicks and its a slow news day.
I think asserting the primacy of a domain model over a relational model - in particular, an OO domain model - is a recipe for pain, especially in a polyglot world. OO is for modelling communicating agents where coordinated behaviour is the desired outcome. Databases are for storing facts, not serialized objects; the ideal relational model would be pure enough that rows are almost Horn clauses.

I think OO is particularly poor at modeling the kinds of problems I've been involved with - all our perspectives are probably path dependent. My domains have involved lots of data transfer, manipulation, ETL, and transmitting tuples from one language to another; the interface between different modules is at the data layer, not the API layer, because the business of our business is working with the customer's data. In so far as there are core objects, they're things like schemas and transformation rules - configuration, metadata, information about the data and its transformations.

I particularly like the way it's possible to express global constraints over sets of data with relational algebra in a declarative style. Databases aren't (usually) built to evaluate these kinds of constraints, and I don't want to build stored procedure APIs or triggers that emulate them, but the conceptual model is powerful, much more powerful and expressive to me than anything I see in OO.

Wirth once wrote: Algorithms + Data = Programs. I'd put Data first; and in fact when I want to understand a big program, it's almost always the data structures and data flow which reveal more, than the control flow.
The biggest gotcha is that namedtuples compare exactly like regular tuples. Thus, two namedtuple types with identical elements will compare equal even if the type and field names differ. Usually that isn't what you want.

I've taken to using attrs everywhere for exactly this reason: http://attrs.readthedocs.io/en/stable/why.html#namedtuples