skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A few comments asked if the limit is 100%. The answer is yes, but it use some advanced math. Luckily the main steps are nice and easy to explain theorems. So if you blindly believe the theorems then you will be fine.

First, it's easier to think about

q(m) = 1 - p(m) = PROD (1 - 1/prim(k))
{m = 1 to k}

i.e. the proportion of integers that are not divisible by any of the first m prime numbers. We want to prove the limit of q(m) is 0.

We need an auxiliary result. It is well known that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes is infinite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_r...

SUM 1/prim(m) = + ∞
{m = 1 to ∞}

["Intuitive fake explanation": There are infinite primes, they are not so far away, so the sum of 1/primes is infinite.]

The second result is usual in complex analysis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_product The real version says that if we have infinite numbers x(1), x(2) ,... x(m) such that 0 <= x(m) < 1 then

* If

SUM x(m) = + ∞
{m = 1 to ∞}

then

PROD (1 + x(m)) = +∞
{m = 1 to ∞}

and

PROD (1 - x(m)) = 0
{m = 1 to ∞}

["Intuitive fake explanation": For the first result, (1+x) * (1+y) * (1+z) > 1 + x + y + z . So if x + y + z + ... goes to infinite, then (1+x) * (1+y) * (1+z) * ... goes to infinite too. The second part uses a similar idea, with more hand waving and the fact that log(1+x) ~= x.]

Now we can join both results. If we take x(m) = 1/prim(m) then using the first result we have that

SUM 1/prim(m) = + ∞
{m = 1 to ∞}

and then using the second part of the second theorem

PROD (1 - 1/prim(m)) = 0
{m = 1 to ∞}
More interesting is exactly why floating point 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3, and it's due to the way rounding is defined in the IEEE-754 standard:

> An implementation of this standard shall provide round to nearest as the default rounding mode. In this mode the representable value nearest to the infinitely precise result shall be delivered; if the two nearest representable values are equally near, the one with its least significant bit zero shall be delivered.

If we convert from decimal to double precision (64-bit) floating point, here is how they are represented in hexadecimal and binary:

0.1 -> 0x3FB999999999999A = 0011 1111 1011 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1010
0.2 -> 0x3FC999999999999A = 0011 1111 1100 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1001 1010
0.3 -> 0x3FD3333333333333 = 0011 1111 1101 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011 0011
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^

Taking 0.1 as an example, here is what its binary representation actually means:

sign exponent mantissa (marked using ^ in the table above)
0 01111111011 1001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010

The exponent is encoded as its offset from -1023, so in this case we have 01111111011 which is decimal 1019, making the exponent 1019-1023 = -4.

The mantissa (BBBB…) is an encoding of the binary number 1.BBBB…, so with an exponent of -4 that makes the actual number 0.0001BBBB….

Applying this for each of these numbers:

decimal binary
0.1 0.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010
0.2 0.0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010
0.3 0.010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011

Then if we add 0.1 + 0.2, this is the result:

0.00011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010
+ 0.0011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011010
-------------------------------------------------------------
0.01001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011001110
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

However we only have 52 bits to represent the mantissa (again marked with ^), so the result above has to be rounded. Both possibilities for rounding are equidistant from the result:

0.010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110011
0.010011001100110011001100110011001100110011001100110100 <==
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So according to the specification, the option with the least significant bit of zero is chosen.

Converting this back to floating point format we get 0x3FD3333333333334. Note that the least significant four bits of the mantissa are 0100, which corresponds to the trailing 4 in the hexadecimal representation.

This is not equal to 0x3FD3333333333333 (the result of conversion from decimal 0.3, and also what would have been the result here if the rounding was specified the other way.)

Therefore, floating point 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3.
Seems like he wasn't the only one, look how the word leisure was used before:

school
(n.1) Look up school at Dictionary.com
"place of instruction," Old English scol, from Latin schola "intermission of work, leisure for learning; learned conversation, debate; lecture; meeting place for teachers and students, place of instruction; disciples of a teacher, body of followers, sect," from Greek skhole "spare time, leisure, rest ease; idleness; that in which leisure is employed; learned discussion;"

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=school
> What data do you have to support that assertion?

TFA.

The generational declining male labor participation rate. The economy is being geared towards knowledge work and has been going that way for some time, yet men are participating less, and women are participating more.

That very dynamic would seem to suggest some underlying issue, and IMO the issue is that generally speaking, a large portion of our society is incapable of doing the type of work the economy is geared towards and rewards most heavily (outside of finance).

Here[0] is an example article about the differences in academic behaviors between men and women.

> Remember that the majority of programmers are men, and the majority of STEM faculty at research institutions are men

I'm trying to speak in aggregate, but I do concede that most of our profession is male. The entire population of our profession as a percentage of the workforce is rather small though[1], as compared to something much more accessible to the average person like being a truck driver[2] (which itself is going away sometime in the next 5-10 years, only exacerbating the problem being discussed here).

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/09/why-gi...

[1] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...

[2] https://www.bls.gov/ooh/transportation-and-material-moving/h...
Indeed, CDNow started before Amazon despite later being merged into Amazon.

I used to buy CDs through CDNow using Telnet in 1994-1995.
Clickbait doesn't mean any remotely catchy title. It means sensational and misleading titles. More data can make you more wrong and that's exactly what the article is about.
We've been working with Orleans for a few months to build out the next iteration of our infrastructure. I have nothing but good things to say about it. One of my favourite aspects of developing with Orleans is its single-threaded nature. Because a grain can by default only process one call at a time on a single thread, it's easy to make guarantees about data consistency inside that grain regardless of how many processes are reading/writing to it at once.

The idea of a stateful grain is also really powerful and something we're harnessing extensively: if everything is a grain, all of your data is already cached in the activated grain so there's no need for a separate caching system. Additionally, any updates to the data are immediately available to the "cache" before you send it to the database. So transient data can be cached even if you're not sure you eventually want to persist the data. This allows you to do partial application of data to grains, and then eventually commit the data to storage (in the case where writing is expensive.) This of course is totally possible with more traditional architecture, but its impossibly simple in Orleans and it's hard to go back once you get to use it.

I also want to give a big thanks to the folks who are active in the Orleans Gitter channel. Honestly probably the most helpful open source community I've ever encountered. They're extremely thorough and always willing to help.
> Note that this will still not solve the 0.1 + 0.2 problem from the OP, since the nearest float to 0.3 is not actually the same as the nearest float to 0.1 + 0.2.

Interval arithmetic can be used, although that requires double the storage for all the intermediate results, and extra work.

For example, .1 can be represented by x=[x0, x1], where x0 and x1 are floating point values bracketing .1, and similarly .2 can be represented by y=[y0, y1].

Then z=[z0, z1] can be computed by "z=x+y", where the interval z respects the sum of both intervals x and y.

When printing, you can determine the smallest representation within the interval z.

I'm not sure if it's worth all the trouble though :)
Eric Ray at Gravatar
Also should be mentioned it was an incredibly sensible taxation policy to cope with the boom bust cycles of mining, we have a progressive income tax system, a progressive corporate tax policy isn't far fetched

Sadly it only came into effect after the boom and raised very little money before the mining industry ad campaign shut it down.
The problem is that capital is mobile, and that mobility is arguably increasing due to digitisation. In other words, if a country raises tax rates on returns to capital, capital simply relocates somewhere else. I've suggested a solution above (or it might be below by now), but it's complex...
Able-bodied? Sure. Able-minded? Not quite. There's a huge surplus of middle-age men more interested in pointless office politics and political propaganda than doing good work, conducting themselves respectfully, and maintaining competence. And a dearth of the hardworking, skilled variety.

This isn't just a training problem, it's a cultural issue.

Praising charlatans like Scott Adams, and worse, failing to recognize their lack of ability and their motives is another cultural issue.

Ultimately, the reason we have so many unemployed is because we're stupid. We suffer from a cultural stupidity partly the result of longterm political propaganda campaigns by less-intelligent politicians and industry leaders who can't gain support any other way (because they are also stupid). If America wants to slip back to the level of a third world country in terms of political systems and the average education of the citizenry, a higher unemployment rate is just par for the course.

We have people unfit for training.

As an aside, how can the American workforce maintain world class competency and compensation? We need to interact with the best in the rest of the world. Bringing them here and giving them the option to stay in a safe, fair environment is best. On the flip side, engineers need to believe they are being compensated fairly for their efforts, and not take so many pains to prevent the industry from developing better ways of doing things.
A drone is not a person, so while assaulting a police officer is a violent felony, killing the drone is just more resisting arrest and possibly property damage, which doesn't add to the justification of deadly force unless someone gets hurt in the process. Under Connecticut law, deadly force may only be used for self defense or to apprehend felons who inflicted or threatened serious physical injury (to a person).[0]

Tangent: Interestingly, that hasn't always been the case. Before 1986, Connecticut had the fleeing felon rule derived from English common law, which permits the use of deadly force against any fleeing felon. That rule is still in effect in at least eight states,[1] so in those states it is not a crime to use deadly force against a person fleeing arrest for stealing a car, possessing marijuana, or severe shoplifting. However, deadly force is still illegal under civil law. In Tennessee v. Garner (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that deadly force violates the Fourth Amendment except for self-defense or violent felons. The majority opinion makes several interesting arguments for why the common law is obsolete: more crimes are felonies, fewer felonies are subject to the death penalty, and guns make it easier to use deadly force.[2] Connecticut amended its criminal law to match the following year. Garner itself has largely been superseded by Graham v. Connor (1989) and subsequent cases, which take a more holistic approach but still require use of force to be "reasonable".[3]

Diclaimer: IANAL

[0] http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2011/title53a/chap95...

[1] See "Updating Garner’s Count" http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly...

[2] See "The Birth of the Garner Standard for Deadly Force" http://www.slu.edu/colleges/law/journal/police-use-of-deadly...

[3] https://www.policeone.com/legal/articles/1271618-How-to-ensu...
Texas is split inside itself:

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/texas

(The map is even still a lie; there are large counties that voted Republican, but the majority of the red by area is tiny little county populations.)

I also don't think that people are particularly stationed by their home state.
I suspected it was a tactic, too. I've simply complied, giving the number and then removing it (as I did for another account). Not an issue since these accounts were explicitly related, so I didn't care if Twitter could connect them through my number. Anyway, the “cheating” behaviour (pretending it's optional and then requiring it to unlock an account allegedly violating their rule) upset me too.
Why? Is decimal faster than arbitrary precision? If not, arbitrary precision should probably be the default (or binary).
The name of the German valley where the first specimen was found was spelled Neanderthal until early 20th century. But it's Neandertal nowadays.
> Your language isn't broken, it's doing floating point math.

Yes, your language is broken if you have no way out of floating point math. JavaScript, for example, is fundamentally broken.
Many languages in use today don't even have a (first class) concept of unions or structures, at least not in the sense that you are talking about. If you're talking about about "bloat" those contexts, you might want to start somewhere else...
As a (kind of) related matter, thought it'd be interesting to mention JavaScript is most likely getting arbitrary precision ints soon https://github.com/tc39/proposal-integer
>I don't see his conclusion of "you have to get lots of smart immigrants to fill in"

I wouldn't call a point made less than halfway through the article a "conclusion". He seems to place more importance on incarceration rates; from the final few paragraphs:

As we close this letter, I want to highlight that one bolded paragraph again

As we shall see, a single variable -- having a criminal record -- is a key missing piece in explaining why work rates and LFPRs have collapsed much more dramatically in America than other affluent Western societies over the past two generations...

If we want to see things began to change, we going to have to deal with this variable. Perhaps we should rethink our concept of incarcerating everyone found guilty of using currently illegal drugs. Maybe we need to rethink about how long felony convictions stay attached to personal records.
Regarding the price of TSLA, perhaps someone can help:
If Tesla were to somehow sell 500,000 Model 3's in 2018, and make a net profit of 15% on each $35,000 car (very high, the auto industry majors make ~5%), and somehow had all the capital necessary paid for, and no financing or other costs they would earn:

500,000 * $5,250 = $2.6 BB in profit

With ~160 MM shares outstanding that's an EPS of ~$16.

At $270/share, that's a P/E of ~17 -- cheap, but not incredibly so.

In other words, if everything goes perfectly, buying shares now would be "sort of cheap", equivalent to a ~6% return. Obviously, the shares have a lot of risk.

This is practically best-case. So how do you justify buying at these levels, with the risks involved? You can't say "growth" without modelling it. Do you expect TSLA to sell a million cars a year, or more with these types of margins? Where will the earnings come from?
The Internet Isn’t the Wild Wild West Anymore. It’s Westworld
They don't need an income; they have paid-off houses worth $1.2m that they picked up in 1972 for $100k.
The y in that is the supernatural stuff - the story. I wouldn't go to see a movie if it didn't have a good story. I wouldn't go if it was just a list of facts. But that's what the dull modern atheists types want me to do in life.
'yazbo you appear to have been hellbanned. I can't see why, so you might be able to appeal to TPTB and get it reversed?

To see this, open this thread in an incognito window. Your comments will probably disappear. I'm replying to the comment above yours because I can't reply to your comment.
Dreamscape’s Big Dreams for Immersive VR
Ashampoo+Photo+Commander+15+Final+Crack+++Reg+Key
Sysadmins and SRE types typically work close to the metal, where C is the language of choice (i.e. how the kernel and libraries are generally programmed). We don't typically grok FP; we understand imperative programming. Python is close enough not to disorient us, but LISP and its derivatives are pretty far out there in left field.
The problem is that threatened serious physical injury gets measured in terms of the state of mind of the police.

They blew up the suspected police killer in Dallas because they believed he presented a grave threat to officers.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/09/opinions/dallas-robot-question...
Chocolate Geodes
Segment is supporting developers to work on open source for 3 months
Who would have thought that actually adding value to peoples lives is hard. Much harder than paying someone to force others to see something.
I intend to write some articles on it very soon. I am just shocked to find someone like yourself on HN. Will favourite your message and be in touch soon.
For this reason R has a function for comparing results of floating point math: all.equal()

it is quite tricky as it might show that .1+.2 is 0.3, but this is only due to the fact that default output is a subject of default formatting (i.e. occulting more precision numbers)
Limits of Computation
Milk that lasts for months
The people long on TSLA are not expecting a payout by 2018, much like investors in Amazon did not expect a profit in 1998 after a 1997 IPO.
Those things will find their way out… but the nuisance for common legitimate well-behaving users will be kept, likely.
SpaceX to launch “silliest thing we can imagine” on debut Falcon Heavy
It is interesting, but not all that surprising that ineffective management strategies are slowly being flushed out of the market. That human stock picking is pretty bad, is widely known, sorry for the pickers, but I'm sure there are other things that they can do to actually create instead of destroy value--reallocating their labor is a huge benefit for society.

The real questions for me with this transition though are:

-With all these people passively investing, are we going to see reduced competition within industries because you don't have active, non-diversified, significant, institutional shareholders to drive aggressive competition against other industry participants? In fact, we may get the opposite where institutional shareholders don't want to see aggressive competitive moves because it is profit destroying for them on both sides (aggressor spends money to return less than the defender loses in profit--lose, lose for investor in both companies win, win for the consumers of this industry).

-How good is price setting if there are less and less actively managed funds? Are there new inefficiencies that are created by all this passive investing?

-Where aren't the machines taking over? Obviously, something like replicating an index is a great exercise for automation and programming. But truly maximizing return? Who is successfully, consistently beating the benchmarks with active strategies automated or not?
I don't follow TSLA closely, and have no opinion about the stock, but I suppose the bull case would be that much of the revenue will come from selling things besides cars - batteries and home power systems I would guess. The car is just a battery with wheels that you can use to store all the extra solar power you generate from your Tesla roof. The bet is that this isn't (just) yet another car company, it's the energy company of the future.
Convince me.
No. Even though I said let's pretend disability doesn't exist, this is from the SS website:

> Social Security pays benefits to people who can’t work
because they have a medical condition that’s expected
to last at least one year or result in death.[0]

The program I was talking about would be more something like retirement+disability, proved by the government with a set retire date (say, 65) and any withdrawals before hand would be at a lesser rate (if proven unfit to work, but not only of a medical condition).

Specifically in the U.S.

[0]:https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10029.pdf
It's true, it wouldn't start well or end well. But using military equipment at a long range, like a drone, does add a dehumanizing component. And killing people that are just like you is really the nastiest part of any civil war (since both sides are very culturally similar), but it doesn't seem to stop the killing.
It's probably a very old decision, from times when most desktop computers had one CPU and threads were mostly used to keep GUI responsive while the application was churning data in the background, so there was little interaction between them.
Because they can target you with you Facebook and Google ads.
>The people long on TSLA are not expecting a payout by 2018

This doesn't represent a single year payout, it represents a hypothetical annual payout of dividends.

If the payout comes later than 2018, then you should pay less for it today. So what year? How much will the earnings be? How will those earnings be achieved (how many cars sold)?
What is money, really?

Money, today, is not in sync with a world made of matter and with the needs of a changing world. Your city needs to build a new bridge, a subway station or a new hospital? It has the engineers, the architects, the workers, the machines and the materials needed, you can begin construction right now, but if there is no "money", nothing will get done.

How absurd is that?

I just came back from the dollar store and the amount of energy, time and resources that went into the production of useless crap is absolutely mind boggling.

UBI is inevitable, but for something like this to be possible, our use of money will have to change. It will need to be in sync with the real world and right now, the resources of this world are diminishing and its environment is being degraded. Meanwhile, real human needs are not met.

We cannot artificially maintain a life style of over-consumption and wastefulness with a UBI. Things have to change. The population growth will need to be controlled. We have to stop wasting resources. No more planned obsolescence.
While you disdain Haskell's use in the industry, there are researchers much relevant to the IT industry than any of us, that happen to be on payroll from Facebook and Microsoft.

Maybe you should spend some time learning how FB and Microsoft use Haskell, you might be surprised with what you find.

As a clue, try to find out how C# and VB got LINQ, maybe you will find the right MSR paper by a certain Erik Meijer.
> Where do we draw the line?

Beliefs that cause an increase in death by suicide probably need to be looked at to see if they're really that important.
Dr. Tyler Cowen has a related video series about these issues (Complacent class, New era of segregation, Americanized stasis, Missing men, ..): https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-uRhZ_p-BM4Pei6Xlr_A...
Facebook Updates Stories to Reveal List of Your Viewers – HotHardware
Look Out Tony Stark, This Company Is Developing a Real Iron Man Jet Pack Suit