skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just fyi, POTS is digital up until the very last mile. While the network is digital, it uses time multiplexed serial PCM streams under the hood. Aside from the delay imposed by fiber transmission at the trunk level (~40 milliseconds from one side of the US to the next. If you're using a long distance network that packetizes the connection or sends a call on some weird route, that can certainly increase), the g.711 encoding delay should be fixed at 0.125 milliseconds.
Apparently involving the media is cheaper and faster. Right move in this scenario.
I had an application with a performance bottleneck once, and people kept telling me that the solution was to upgrade node.

I ignored them, ran a profiler, found a bottleneck and fixed the bottleneck.

Sounds obvious but not everyone is familiar with performance optimization.
I think it sounded good because it was clean 64K end-to-end. No trickery with transcoding a bunch of times along the way so someone could save a nanopenny.
This is pretty obvious if you consider the time value of money
And it is immoral as well to use your immense wealth to swing elections and impose your views on what should be a democracy, but increasingly is becoming a pay-to-play oligarchy.
The Future of IT Is Smaller, Faster, Specialized
Most programmers who attack C at the moment are frontend web javascripter kids and rust/functional language snobs, who both never used C and keep repeating the same stuff.

You just have to witness the number of "OMG, you did that in C? Wow!" that are posted every time someone posts a basic C program on a forum. There is a whole crowd that thinks C is some arcane stuff only to be used by by magicians, and if you're not a guru it's gonna kill you.

And then you have the Rust people who chime in and point a list of C problems that are in fact C++ problems.

And then you get the "but anyway modern processors do not execute the code you tell them to execute" guys. Sigh...

It goes every time the same way...
If you have two convex shapes (like a circle and a rectangle) which have the same center, if you think of the center as a target, and throw darts at the target. The dart will be more likely to land in the intersection of the two shapes than would be derive by multiplying the probability of landing in one and the probability of landing in the other. If you were talking about independent events, like rolling 1s on two dice, you'd get the probability of both things happening by multiplying their independent probabilitis: so 1/6 * 1/6 = 1/36 probability for snake eyes. Another example would be the correlation between weight and height. If you took the median weight and median height, and took say the 10% of the population around that height and the 10% of the population around that weight, the overlap would be more than the 1% that would be calculated by taking 10% of 10%. The GCI says that for any reasonably distributed variables, this inequality (the probability of falling around the central tendency of all variable) will be greater than the product of the probability of falling around the center for each variable taken independently.
> Also: perhaps, $1500 per day today is reflective of our buying power in a way

(A little sarcastic, sorry:) Yes, if we ignore all of the things we buy that have gotten more expensive, it's like prices have deflated.


Overall inflation measures a collection of consumer prices, the average of which has trended up since that time. It is a general reflection of buying power, dollar for dollar.
Let's take the middle two from each row: Pfizer and AstraZeneca. In 2013, Pfizer spent 13% of revenue on R&D, while AstraZeneca spent 17%. Google spent 12.9%, Intel spent 20.1%, and Microsoft spent 13.5%. Apple typically spends only 3-4% of revenues on R&D, but it's an outlier in the tech industry.
I'd be interested in seeing implementation of the machine learning systems from "fluid concepts"
No I feel you, I do agree their sync tech is the best. I switched back to Mac so I no longer care about the linux support.

I've really gotten into photography. Shooting in raw means I easily add 10-30 GB of data a week. Just want a cheaper option for more than 1 TB.
Things About Life I Wish I Had Known 10 Years Ago
Music in Ancient Greece
1) In Canada, annuities are covered by Assuris, so that's not a concern. I imagine that Europe has similar protections.

2) Is balanced by the upside risk that I live to 117 and run out of money. And frankly, I'm much more worried about that than I am about stiffing my heirs (at least once college is paid for).

3) If you had $1M and withdrew roughly 4% for the rest of your life, there's also a decent chance it would be worth a lot less than $1M when all is said and done and you're eating capital. Remember, you're no longer a long term investor, you can't ride out ups and downs, you have to keep paying the bills during down periods, excaberating your losses.

I'm firmly of the belief that annuities are one of the best types of insurance you can buy.
Plenty of investors are risking other people's money, though. Venture capitalists themselves are prime examples of this.
Is there a specific section you think I should focus on? I think his point about agreement being sort of brief and shallow while disagreement forces you to explore ideas that haven't is oddly relevant here. Despite the fact that we're disagreeing even a lively debate between us would actually be shallow because "is Fox News/Breitbart propaganda?" is a dead horse beaten until it's dust.

You might be a special exception but I assure you that I, like most people, wouldn't be adding additional insight at all. I'm more than happy to let other people do it, I just don't see the point in participating. I just wanted to let you know that thinking it's just some liberal bias against conservatives that makes people think Fox and Brietbart are propaganda is pigeonholing these folks into a very convenient "idiot" bucket. If it was that simple they'd think that about every conservative media/news organization.
personal anecdote: I signed up for munchery after receiving some discount codes via marketing email, and a few more discounts from referral incentives. I found the food to be high quality and the delivery service to be adequate. However, once my discount codes were used up I stopped using the service because they could not provide competitive pricing even in my very expensive zipcode (a nice neighborhood in Brooklyn).

I really wonder what was going on. At a fundamental level, when competing in an ultra-competitive market (food delivery), you have to take price seriously, and they just didn't. Everything they were offering was 25% more expensive than similar delivery options from neighborhood restaurants.
There is no settlement involved, because there is no legal claim, technically. None of the logic around legal settlements comes into play at all, so the devil's advocacy here is misguided. The NDA is outlandish and is clearly designed to shut him up and cover up the mishandling of the case.

This might be different under UK law, but if he had sued you might have a point. Then I'd expect gag, non-disparagement, forefeiture of claims and so on. I've signed those personally and understand that. But if I haven't sued you and you gag me for what I deem fair? Well, sounds like I should potentially sue because someone is not operating in good faith, and it ain't me. That move alone would make me want to discover your internal communications about handling me and in this case, I bet they're awesome.

Keep in mind they're writing him off from saying "they fixed this! They're the good guys!" which sure, seems unlikely, but if a company takes care of something without a lawsuit a gag seems counterintuitive and in bad faith.
you only need to leak a few bits here and there once or twice and the connections can be linked together
Ask yourself why the USSR was unable to compete with the US economically, and could not even feed itself (Kansas in the 1970s was known as "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union". Why the Chinese could not compete with the US until they switched to free labor. Why N. Korea is starving and regular shipments of food from the west keeps things from getting much worse. The Middle East is not known for exporting factory goods.

The examples go on and on.

Where forced labor still exists there is something else propping it up or subsidizing it - like I mentioned with prison labor.
I think it's can be more the realisation that the achievement you thought you wanted wasn't actually what was important to you. For example seeking fame and status because you have low self-esteem is famously not a great way to feel better about yourself.

Further even Maslow acknowledged that the level taxonomy he came up with was fluid. How could it not? Being a model and not a description of reality. Self-actualisation is a really broad categorisation that can include things that to another person might look like "a life just lived" but has real import in reality.
Free as in no time or labor spent by themselves. At least that is what I think he meant
Where this fails is that most insurance companies have pre-negotiated prices substantially lower than the sticker price.

Sometimes you can get a cash discount that is similar, but not always.
from someone whose entire base of scientific knowledge comes from employer-led seminars

You forgot to add that the scientific information is limited to the FDA approved label.
I'd take the $mil and develop some of the productive ideas i have, not worrying so much if they don't quite deliver.

Also, I had a dream when I was younger that I'll die when I'm 73 and my lifestyle generally points to the sense in not assuming too many years beyond retirement age, which here in Blighty might hit 70 by when my time comes around.

- ed

I'm not 40 yet, so waiting for literal decades before some speculative pay off seems like too hard-headed a form of sense to fit my character!
www.airbnbhell.com

Lots of crazy stories!

Their business model seems to rely on people willing to roll the dice on their safety and security to save (or earn) a few bucks! It will undoubtedly survive this little blip of negative publicity, but people really need to be wary of this organization's complete lack of customer service (when things go bad).
Depends how you look at it. With the $5000/month you wouldn't have to work for money, so you could devote 100% of your time to whatever it was you wanted to start. Even if you needed capital, you should be able to get a loan relatively easily given your guaranteed 5k/month lifetime income.
This Is Almost Certainly James Comey's Twitter Account
I just took a look. It's 48kB uncompressed JSON. You can easily load this into a browser tab. Why is it an API?

To save anybody from copy-and-pasting it, here's ten seconds of playing around:

> ghibli

Object {films: Array(20), people: Array(16), locations: Array(25), species: Array(5), vehicles: Array(3)}

> ghibli.films[0]

Object {id: "2baf70d1-42bb-4437-b551-e5fed5a87abe", title: "Castle in the Sky", description: "The orphan Sheeta inherited a mysterious crystal t…uta's science to make himself ruler of the world.", director: "Hayao Miyazaki", producer: "Isao Takahata"…}

> ghibli.locations[0]

Object {id: "11014596-71b0-4b3e-b8c0-1c4b15f28b9a", name: "Irontown", climate: "Continental", terrain: "Mountain", surface_water: "40"…}

> ghibli.people[0]

Object {id: "ba924631-068e-4436-b6de-f3283fa848f0", name: "Ashitaka", gender: "male", age: "late teens", eye_color: "brown"…}
Yep. That's the entire point.

The company might make a lot of money off you. But, they might lose a lot of money if you live too long. The risk is transferred from you to them, and you live with a specific fixed income for the rest of your life, however long that may be.

You don't worry about the economy going up and down or interest rates rising and falling. You don't worry about living too long and running out of money. You don't worry about living too little, and dying with most of your money still in the bank. You stop worrying about the future.

Sure, the math may add up to "that company is making a bit of money that you might have made", but when I retire I want to not give a shit about the future anymore. That's why it's a good deal, to some people.
The phone next to it is vibrating?
That is not the number to be worried about; that it is "an average of 16 percent of the food the kitchen was producing" is, because "Wasting an average of 16 percent of food produced is above the typical 4 percent to 10 percent that most restaurants waste" (both quotes from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-21/munchery-...)

Also, that was over a period of almost two years, so 'only' about 1000 a day, and the company claims most of it was donated to charities.

From those two Bloomberg articles, I don't think that's the main reason they need more money.
The Confederacy couldn't even produce shoes for their soldiers. That's why Lee had gone north to Gettysburg - there was a shoe factory nearby.
Chatting about a New Age of Home Buying and Home Ownership Investments
It's a terrible service for almost every user who thinks their microblog messages are even being seen and the UI is cluttered with noise. The design of the platform itself prevents any sort of meaningful conversation; so it's not good for that.

It's really good to follow celebrities, experts or other personalities as a news digest though. And a good place to find a pulse on social topics. I killed my account I had for many years and just use it to search news and follow certain people or tech topics.

It's not worth the time investment for me to publish. It might be for those trying to build an audience to sell stuff to or get speaking engagements or prep their profile for optics to get a new job. But even then, most people would be better off focusing on building an email list instead of a follower list for those things.
The willingness to cite a preprint would seem in and of itself to be a form of peer review, no?
The foosball table at my last place of work definitely saw use. It was away from work areas, mind you.
The Design of C++ by Bjarne Stroustrup from 1994
I'm not saying that one can't imagine a better study. I'm saying that the notion that the researchers committed a "sin" and that it did "not even occur to the researchers" to use a different design is unsupported.

The author has no idea what was or was not considered by the researchers, but she is happy to impugn their motives.

Given the choice between (1) run the study they ran, and have a large enough sample to get a statistically significant result and (2) don't run a study at all, which would you have preferred? With a population that is 5% black, it is likely that this is the practical choice the researchers faced.

Note that (1) doesn't mean we get all the answers to everything we might wonder about, but it would give an answer that could help direct future research. That in and of itself is a useful step to take, IMO.
I think it means the opposite. If a public offering is head, why do they even need line of credit?
People say that, but it doesn't always work that way. I've had potential employers say they won't proceed without that number, and that they would verify it. I, fortunately, was in a position to tell them to go pound sand, but I recognize that many may not be.
>implying ghibli is shitty
>not being a pleb

Pick one.
When I originally tried Twitter ~6 years ago, I found reading these soups of compressed writing, forced bad grammar, tags and @'s so weird, cryptic and confusing that I gave up immediately. It took me a while to rejoin and slowly get to 'get' it. I don't really imagine any of these new rules will be any more confusing to new users than the wild west of Twitter behaviours that was and still will be the norm.

I really wish Twitter would work on better tools and policies to prevent stalking, harassing and toxic behaviour. I understand it's a hard problem (no, "just remove nazi, sexist and racist pigs!" does not cut it at all) but I'd like to see them try.
Noble Family Histories Demystified: The German and Austrian Example
Canadians Adopted Refugee Families for a Year, Then Came ‘Month 13’
I think some of those factors are relevant, others less so. For example, in most jurisdictions judges are probably seeing the same defense lawyers just as much as they are seeing the same prosecutors. Also, whether it is beneficial to be "tough on crime" will depend on the jurisdiction. And then of course you have Federal Judges, who are appointed for life and thus not subject to that factor. I clerked for a Federal Judge in San Francisco, and he was very liberal. He thought through each case carefully and definitely wanted to know all of the relevant law, whether that came from the parties or from my own research.

But, even if all of those factors are in play, the most conservative, "tough on crime" judge sure as hell better care more about the rule of law than they do about an outcome in any one particular case. They need both parties to accurately represent what the law is so they can make correct decisions, even when those decisions are sometimes judgement calls that might more often go for the defense or the prosecution depending on the particular judge. Realpolitik should not infringe on respect for the rule of law, and to the extent it has that is a serious problem. I understand being cynical, but if that is how intelligent people view our judicial system working, then we are screwed as a country.
So, yes, value creation and value distribution are two different coins.

Centrality-of-control ... somewhat depends.

Danah Boyd in a Medium piece pointed out that Google's central-point-of-control of Gmail:

"Many who think about technology recognize the battle that emerged between spammers and companies over email, and the various interventions that emerged to try to combat spam. (Disturbingly for most decentralization advocates, centralization of email by Google was probably more effective than almost any other intervention.)"

https://backchannel.com/google-and-facebook-cant-just-make-f...

Though thinking a bit on this gives some indication of how and why, and by extension, what could be done to break this control point:

1. Gmail receives a tremendous amount of mail. It can recognise both repetitive content and patterns of behaviour, particularly by points-of-origin.

2. Gmail can standardise internally on forms of reporting and mitigation against spam. That is, it is its own standards-development organisation. Increasingly, I'm noting that one of the efforts of a would-be monopolist is to attack standards formation. Because standards lower the barriers of entry for other participants.

3. Google specialise in contextual analysis -- the mining of content, particularly (but not just) textual content -- for indicators. The same analysis which makes for improved ads targeting or SERP relevance features heavily in detecting and thwarting spam, phishing, and related antisocial behaviour.

4. Tightly integrated communications. Between formats, pipe-bandwidth (intra- and inter-datacenter), and processing, Gmail can respond rapidly to new threats.

In particular, Gmail has a "report spam" feature (as do many other mail service providers) which allows for rapid detection of what users consider spam. Where you won't find similar features is on any third-party email tools.

Take an extreme case: Yahoo. I've long had problems with spam originating or transiting Yahoo's server space. What I've found is that whist Yahoo have a standardised reporting tool, they have not provided any support, nor are there any third-party tools of which I am aware for reporting spam in that format to Yahoo.

Running mutt, it would be trivial for me to pipe any given email, headers and all, into a report-generating application. Hell, I could dump spam to a dedicated mailbox, and run shell tools on that to handle 100s to millions of messages. I've built and used tools to do just that, back in the day.

But ... Yahoo never did this. Nor have any of the other major email service providers.

(I was approached at a spam conference by several people at email service providers who'd told me they'd written programs to read and parse the mail my programs were generating, which was ... amusing and heartening.)

There are dynamics which tend toward and reinforce walled gardens. Busting those is ... hard.
Why Classroom Technology Is Costing More Than Its Worth (2016)
You chose the wrong one. No matter what the article says, the $1M is more valuable. First, the safe withdrawal method of 4% is actually not safe - the safest method of withdrawal is called variable percentage withdrawal and not only takes into account the principle, but also the results year after year.

But more importantly, $1M lump vs $5,000 monthly annuity, always take $1M. Why? Because you are taking an asset class that can be converted into shares/bonds which has a higher expected returns than an annuity because it can compound.

What I mean is while the $5,000 annuity is guaranteed, it will remaing $5,000 year-over-year, which means it's actually decreasing in purchasing power year-over-year (unless there is deflation, which it's very unlikely). Wereas the $1M cash, if moved to bonds and shares, even if it performed at 5% annually, it will mean on the first year break even, but on the second year it will compound (unless you spend all the money). You could say you invest the monthly savings from the $5,000 but simply put it, $1M in shares has a much higher expected return than $5,000 monthly in perpetuity.
Ill take that 5000K per month, move to cheap state and reinvest 1.5K every month at 7%/year (ill find a way). In 23 years (58yo) i will save another million + will have spent 1million at 3.5K/month.
Free software is not about the right to contribute to the main tree or about the right to compete with businesses on equal footing, it's about the rights of the user to use, modify and distribute the software and derivatives as they see fit.
> I know, I know. When Obama is for something, you have to be against it because you have this thing with Obama.

Don't forget these protections were created in 1934, not 2016. They were removed in 2016, and reimplemented in 2016, but the new implementation will never come into fruition now.

This isn't just blind hatred of the Obama administration. These rules were put into place by FDR before the internet existed. This is blind hatred of regulation. This is blind partisanship against anything done by a democrat.
If his neighbours suffered damages they are free to sue AirBnB to recover their losses.
Bribe would be accurate if they were offering payment outside someone else's remediation process.

Apparently payments+NDA are part of the remediation process that they actually set up in practice.

There's also no reason to assume why a private remediation process should be universal and the same for everyone, it's not a court - it would be unfair to close down options that they advertised, but it's completely reasonable to offer extra options on a case-by-case basis if they want, even if they weren't included in the advertised remediation process.

The only thing that's might be viewed as dishonest is that their statement "The Host Guarantee will reimburse eligible hosts for damages up to $1,000,000." doesn't explicitly mention that certain conditions apply on how the Host Guarantee is implemented; though it does say 'eligible hosts' which quite likely is explained in the full Host Guarantee text as 'hosts that, among other things, agree to an NDA'.
Somewhat similar thought experiment I like to ask: if you could have either a guaranteed $1M or a random amount between 0 and $5M, which would you choose (and why)?

Then, what would the high end of the second range need to be to get you to change your mind (assuming the low end is fixed at zero)?
A party and half a mil on Roy Choi recipes doesn't seem like a significant factor compared to a peak burn rate of $5mil/mo or millions in prepared but unsold meals.
That's sort of my point though, unless you have that one person or group you know you want to follow there's no reason to sign up. Which makes sense, but isn't really good for Twitter.