skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have a really dumb version of this without any ML at work, it uses the API on our Ubiquiti Unifi's controller to get a list of devices connected to each of our 4 AP's.

Its good enough to see if somebody is in a meeting room and unavailable or if they are probably free.

If you have more than one device on the network that belongs to one person, it uses the device that has been connected to an AP for the least time (theoretically that's the last one that moved)
I disagree.

Constructor injection in Spring is more test-friendly; in turn that tends to allow us the liberty of more aggressively modularising the design. With other injection types either more bookkeeping is required to cleanly set up tests; or alternatively, "unit" testing becomes more integration-esque.

It's a second-order effect felt in the many small decisions that lead one to the mudpit.

That's why I used the analogy of dark matter. It's not directly observed, but it has gravity.
NTFS itself is directly derived from HPFS.
We just recently switched from MySQL to PostgreSQL. God we're so glad:

- add a null column to a big table => have fun and plan your maintenance accordingly. Good luck estimating it. This is basically a no-op in Postgres

- partial indices; absolutely important for big tables. Think about ticketing systems where in general the number of "open tickets" is much lower than the closed ones

- being able to use advanced SQL features like window functions can easily be underestimated; you can't use potential you don't have

- renaming indexes, just like that. If you're into refactoring and lessen developer surprises, you want to have proper names and fix accidently mistakes or just legacy stuff

- in my experience (but I'm no DBA), the logging of PostgresSQL is much more useful then what I get with MySQL (e.g. deadlocks or slow logs)

- the EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output is ... what you get is beyond comparison to MySQL

The only technical downside we experienced with Postgres (but in comparison, these things are benign):

- limit of length of identifiers; even with aliases. This can trip ORMs which try to do some clever naming under the hood

- you cannot change the order of columns, you can only append at the end

To me, everything I do with Postgres feels much more predictable, whereas with MySQL it always felt a game of gamble.
Brian Eno – On Generative Music and Visuals
Tesla unveils its new ‘sleek and low-profile’ exclusive solar panel
> You are arguing that by performing the algorithms for perception, one is conscious.

Pretty close -- my argument is that for an entity to be intelligent, self-aware, and perceptive, it must also believe itself to be conscious, in the sense that it believes it has "experiences." Furthermore, and most importantly, if an entity believes it is conscious, it is conscious.

> I am arguing that algorithms alone aren't enough, and that yes conscious is still some unexplained physics that takes the results of those perception algorithms in our brains and generates our awareness and experience from them.

There's so much undiscovered truth about physics that it's always possible there are important, still completely unknown properties of physics that play specific roles in consciousness. However, that's mostly speculation (like the article) and there's no real evidence for it, whereas it's becoming increasingly intuitive to some AI researchers and myself that such a 'Holy Grail of Physics' yet-to-be-discovered property does not seem to be necessary.

Many AI experts presume that by scaling and adding complexity to models that are pretty similar to today's AI models, we can achieve general intelligence. I think that this logically requires the intelligent agent to believe itself to be conscious, and therefore be just as conscious as any human, albeit in a different way. The combination of intelligence and self-awareness are logically incompatible with a lack of consciousness.
While I personally like the GPL philosophy, I think that its days in protecting free software is numbered.

The purpose of the GPL was to encourage companies to publish their software under the GPL (want to use readline, got to use GPL). The long term goal was to create an environment where GPL software was so much better than the alternative that closed-source software would just whither.

This made sense in the 1980s. Remember that gnu was started when RMS found that he couldn't modify a program he needed - at the dawn of proprietary software.

This was a time when software writing was a small-scale operation (emacs was written by one? individual, Unix by two or three, etc.) and college students/professors could easily outnumber commercial software houses.

It actually worked for a while - gnu actually won a objective-C compiler purely due to the GPL.

Now, on the other hand, nowadays software companies are huge and have huge teams. Even without llvm's academic base, Apple would have enough cash to build it on their own.
That's the reason why Berkshire Hathaway is out of the index, while based on the market cap, it should clearly be in (~400B).

That being said, the correlation between DIJ and S&P is close to 100% so for all practical reasons (from a long term investor point of view) it should be OK.
Look out for ISBN 978-3-8007-4395-7 "Evaluation of MicroPython as Application Layer Programming Language on CubeSats" in the "ARCS 2017 Conference Proceedings" - paper should come out soon enough.

I have a presentation under http://plamauer.space/presentation.html - hard to follow without moderation, but pros and cons are at the end.
I'm naive to medical science so forgive me if I'm wrong.

Aren't there numerous famous examples of medical breakthroughs exploding into the scene? Penicillin and vaccines coming to mind. (at least I don't think those slowly crept up on us?)

I don't think a miracle cure is around the corner, but I can see why the layperson may feel like it's plausible, when you look at the miracle cures we have learned about growing up.

My perspective is that there are numerous awful diseases that we have sent into oblivion with medical science done by people with far fewer resources than our scientists have today.
Since when the belief that "a silver bullet exists for computer science research" becomes a thing?
s/tombs/tomes/ [0]

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tome
Really? Suppose both a SHA256 and a SHA1 hash were needed. How could it be possible that it's easier to find a simultaneous weakness in both?

I get that randomly throwing stuff together isn't favoured (like TLS's PRF SHA1+MD5 construction). But is there any actual work where requiring 2 separate full checks to be worse than just one? That is, needing to verify MD5 plus SHA1 independently.
Kako: Local Network Anti-Mirai Utility
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14067658
The designs of their physical products are generally good, granted, it's the implementation that is lacking, often severely.
I've tried work-sample testing with middling results:

-The more hoops a candidate has to jump through, the more likely they are to bail out of your recruiting funnel. This is especially bad for college/postgrad recruiting when you aren't the #1 employer in your field. Everyone wants to work for the Googles and Facebooks of the world. It's hard getting someone to spend a couple hours for your startup job.

-People cheat. We usually issue a short coding project, grade for correctness, then do a code review over Skype or face-to-face. Many candidates turn in the exact same responses. I've even seen people cheat and have a friend do the Skype session with a totally different guy flying out. Do you proctor your test in a secure center? Use an online service to lock down their machine and record? Both are pretty invasive. Switching up the questions constantly is tough and makes your signal noisier.

-Industriousness and raw intellect trump skills/knowledge most of the time. Sure there's a baseline level of skill required to train someone quickly enough, like I wouldn't hire someone who didn't know basic data structures, but work-sample tests are often biased to those with a very specific background. I don't want employees who are great at doing what I need today. I want ones who will be great at figuring out what to do years down the line.
10ft sections for tower?
So much bullshit... Don't believe everything which socket puppets are posting here. Really sad that people get paid for posting such shit here :(
This author seems pretty clueless about how things actually work and a lot of the assumptions are just plain wrong. For example, ubershaders are preferred instead of many small shaders because the overhead of switching shaders and recompiling them is expensive. It is not something that people build because it is convenient (rather it is quite the opposite!) and then specialize with fixed parameters.
Fascinating. Thinking about how GOOG is $824 right now, and how it's not in the Dow, I found:

"This quirk kept Apple from joining the index until recently. The world's biggest tech company, despite its massive influence on the economy and the markets, was excluded from the Dow Jones Industrial Average because its share price of about $600 would have given it outsize influence on the index. However, when the company split its stock 7-for-1, it became a viable Dow addition." [1]

[1] https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/18/the-30-dow...
You call Spring an outdated behemoth yet you have never worked with it. I've worked with EJB, Spring, Play, Dropwizard and a bunch of other stuff an I can tell that the current version of Spring is cutting edge and since they introduced java-based configuration you can really do stuff with it without the hassle which comes with other frameworks. Make yourself a favour and don't make a fool of yourself by bashing something you haven't even tried.
> It's gut/instinct thing. If you have a mechanical approach, anyone can game the system and get a job because humans can be like chameleons to present themselves as the right candidate, and they can study for the interview. Only way IMO is to have that 3rd eye or whatever you call it... instinct, gut feeling, etc.

This is ridiculous. Mechanical approaches can be gamed, but so can gut instinct. You just have to look at the White House to see that. A lot of gut-instinct voters got hoodwinked by a skilled self-promoter. And he's a gut-instinct guy himself, so he's getting led around by whoever's got his ear.

Gut instinct, though, is worse in several ways. One is that it's not transmissible. As a company grows, how do you scale? Another is that it's not necessarily repeatable. Was that person bad, or is your gut off because you're tired, depressed, or upset? A third is that it can't be consciously improved. If your mechanical process has a flaw, your team can discuss it and come up with solutions. But if your gut judgment isn't good enough, what can you do?

I am a big fan of gut instinct as a component of a hiring process. Often, thanks to experience, we perceive things we have a hard time articulating, and it's wise to pay attention to that. But I think it's a giant mistake to treat our subconscious as some sort of mystic oracle that we must worship and never question.
Large companies have big legal resources: if you mess up a contract with a big company, it could be game over for yours
> Laszlo Bock (former SVP of People at Google) did a great job summarizing decades of research around structured interviewing

Most importantly most companies interviewing don't get to pick from the pool of applicants that google gets to. And even more importantly most companies don't even get to pick from the pool of applicants that a typical funded (or soon to be funded) startup will get.

While I am sure there are things that can be learned from 'Work Rules' the question is how much of that applies to the vast majority of companies in America.
Salt production: http://www.saltinstitute.org/salt-101/production-industry/

A lot of the salt (~80%) produced in the US goes to road salt and chemical industries. For roads it's better if it's in rock form, so a lot (if not most) is mined. For chemical industry they can often re-use brining wells to hold other things later, so the great majority of chemical salt is brined.

Salt mines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_mining

Of all the salt production methods, non-brine mined salts have the least toxic or harmful byproducts - at the source. But they still go through processing plants to sift, grind and package the salt, and not every processing plant has the same quality standards. If you wanted to get really picky about it you should choose a mined, non-brine, non-processed, non-refined salt produced at a facility that follows modern standards. The easiest to identify would be "himalayan" salt, but many countries have ancient lake/sea beds and mine and produce salt in the same way.

In general, you can't tell how salt was produced unless the company very explicitly tells you. Even kosher and sea salt sometimes is processed or refined with additives or in a way that could introduce MPs. (In case it helps, only some places like Australia and the mediterranean have the right environment to solar-evaporate sea salt at a commercial scale)
Beware of PhotoKeeper
That says that Maurice moved to America leaving Jean-Michel with his mom when he was five years old.
Celery might be what you looking for.
It's very important when people save for retirement and think about different investment options.

There are all kinds of invest in gold snake oil salesmen around.
Google's hiring process is famously painful, and they lose a lot of great candidates that way. I wouldn't trust their insights to build a hiring pipeline.
It certainly does feel like job interviews are a coin flip to me after having done many interviews.
My landscape on artificial intelligence quantitative funds and DIY funds
Kraftwerk

Vangelis

Kitaro

Klaus Doldinger (esp. Constellation)

If you can't find something let me know.

Enjoy!
Probably not if they have actual work to do rather than memorize easily google-able trivia questions.
Interesting read. Anyone know where the vulns disclosed under so-called VEP are listed? Effectiveness the VEP policy, which the FBI directory calls "informal", would be measurable now when comparing disclosed via VEP vs undisclosed/disclosed via leak.
Yeah, my guess is that for trucking, we'll be looking at two drivers per N trucks, moving as a convoy. (Two drivers means one can sleep, and the convoy never needs to take long breaks.) You have to have someone there to take over if a truck goes down half way between Boise and East Nowhere. All the better if they can keep an eye on the monitoring systems for the convoy; taking over driving the lead truck will presumably also be an option for as long as it needs to be.
Now that printer driver will be written with code taken from a Github project MIT/BSD license and the company won't make it available to anyone, using firmware encrypted with TPM, thus getting full circle to those days while having higher profits for the printer company, thanks to lower development costs.
Been using it for a while. It's pretty good. Allows to do serious work in a controlled environment.
it most definitely is still that case. plenty of GPUs can not run plain C.

looking at the metal language I'm not sure I'd personally call that C++ given all the restrictions

https://developer.apple.com/metal/metal-shading-language-spe...

I'd be curious if you can create static arrays, strings or static strings, do string compares etc. not that I'd want to do any of that on a GPU but rather if you tell me the language is C++ there are a ton of things I'd expect to be able to do that I'm pretty sure don't translate to GPUs

maybe I want to declare a local static array and modify it. maybe I want to create static arrays of colors and search for the closest match. I feel like having a more common language would just lead people to bang their heads against the impossible or implement horribly inefficient algos not really understanding what's going on under the hood
Fortunately, from first-hand experience, Allen is churning them out himself in the form of students. He's a truly amazing professor, so while not exact, the clones are effective.

Many of his students are even involved in education in some way (incl. me, I make software for university bookstores).
And this was why postwar Germany lost its scientific and technical advantage and is now a ruined backwater - wait, no. Germany not only lost technicians and an aristocracy in WW1 and 2 but murdered those of its Jewish population that were not able to escape. Survivors defected to the US like Von Braun.

The loss of empire was after WW2 not WW1, and partly due to the US insisting (Suez) and partly because it became morally and economically impossible to subdue (Mau Mau etc.). The postwar British disease was labour relations, which were handled far better in Germany with worker representatives at board level.

(I might argue far more cynically that the aristocracy was by definition not a meritocracy, and that only its violent destruction by war enabled Europe to have a chance at becoming more egalitarian.)
(2014), and posted to HN before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10003615

But still fascinating!
They tend to be quickly forgotten. Thousands of schizophrenics were cured and released from asylums when antibiotics were discovered. Their mental health problems were rooted in having syphilis. Once cured of syphilis, they were no longer crazy either. Many people have not heard of this incident.

We prevented Y2K from becoming an Apocalypse. People now remember Y2K with derision, like "Those fools ever thought it was a threat. Ha!" When oil wells were set on fire as Saddam Hussein departed Kuwait, it was predicted they would burn for years and be a global environmental catastrophe. When it was resolved in six months, it was a footnote in stories with more human drama. It was not celebrated with the degree of fervor that the potential catastrophe was loudly decried.

People have a way of sweeping good news under the rug, forgetting it was ever a serious problem and finding something new to loudly bellyache about.
Maybe the answer then is to push the decision down to someone for whom the hiring is a big decision, and who does not have to work at scale. An individual group manager has a lot of incentive to make a good hiring decision if the person being hired will be working in his group. And the manager does not have to hire so many people that he needs to consider it a large-scale project and adopt corresponding expediencies. Things can remain personal.

And if the organization for some reason needs to work at scale, add an initial lightweight sanity-checking and routing to the correct group. But keep the main hiring decision with the group the engineer would be working in.
Of course we should be more critical, the methodology here is far from perfect. But right now, people have much faith in interviewing, and this research suggests that this faith may not be justified. As you mentioned, this is not the only research that reaches this conclusion. There is also the work by Daniel Kahneman[1] which I find pretty rigorous and draw the same conclusions about interviewing.

So obviously, the title of this article should be "Maybe interviewing is not that useful" instead of "The utter uselessness of job interviews", but besides this I find your comment unjustified.
In fact, it's quite the opposite, I believe this type of work contributed to make us more critical by questioning some basic facts about interviewing, that i would have never questioned just a couple of years ago.

> Over time I’ve become more skeptical about this kind of psychology research (as more studies fail to replicate)

ok, this is interesting, where is it mentioned?

[1] Think fast and think slow. There is this short article which mention some of the results and has been discussed on HN a couple of times already.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/dont-blink-the-ha...
Fatigue failure was poorly understood at the time. It still is incompletely understood, but much better models have been constructed to predict it. Fatigue damage goes up as the cube of the load, and the Comet was pressurized at 35,000 feet rather than 20,000 for the Stratoliner, meaning much more load.
Easy link to the relevant table from the paper: http://imgur.com/a/YRFTh
I've done a bunch of consulting and contract work, and that can be fine. But it's expensive, because to be continually finding new work, you must continuously invest in marketing, and every time you do something new there's a lot of switching cost. A company also needs a lot more supervisory capacity to be monitoring people who come and go, so it's not cheap for companies, either.

It's also limited. I can be much more productive when I do one thing full time than a bunch of things part time. Depth takes time, as does keeping up with changes. You just can't get as far with fractional attention as with serious focus.

And uncertainty is also uncomfortable. Many people just want to settle into a solid, reliable situation and do the work. They want to be able to plan their future with some confidence. Even if they can make more money juggling a variety of things, they'd rather make less and have less chaos.

So I don't think we'll ever get to the point you suggest.
Just don't forget that the competition isn't a perfect driver, but a human one. That's a much lower bar.
Writing "TODO: generalize to other regions" in a crazy N^3/N^4 approach to merging load/stores is like writing "TODO: solve prime number conjecture" in somebody's hand-rolled two's complement addition code.

Maybe it happens, but it ain't gonna happen with anything like this code :)
It doesn't have necessarily to be burnout! For instance, I would also rather do an hundred million things than working.. It may be just a part of "growing" (as in moving along)
One of the biggest job creators is the government, with their massive budget and public needs. Yet we are often lead to believe that we need to coddle billionaires so that they feel comfortable enough to lay a few more jobs, and starve the federal government of revenue and responsibility.
Regarding remote drivers: probably for the same reason we don't have remote harbour pilots.
Until version 12, the Opera web browser had a menu with a big list of CSS override styles that worked like Firefox's Reader View. Some were for page development/debugging, some emulated small screen devices, and a lot were there to improve readability. I have good vision and used the Opera CSS overrides and still use Firefox Reader View frequently because many web pages are poorly accessible even for people without disabilities. When Opera went to the WebKit rendering engine the CSS overrides were removed. I still miss them.
Wow, thank you for posting that video, incredible to see all that old gear still in perfect working condition, wired up and ready to go.
> I find it quite problematic that researchers get to talk about their own research and present it as facts without anyone taking a critical look.

Are you suggesting anything out of the ordinary is going on here? Doesn't one have to present their work as legitimate and wait for feedback? So long as they are open to that feedback, I don't really get this argument?

> Over time I’ve become more skeptical about this kind of psychology research (as more studies fail to replicate) and, as is often the case, here the sample size is quite small (76 students, split across 3 groups), predicting something relatively noisy as GPA. It is unclear to me that one would be able to detect reasonable effects.

So present that back them as a refutation? Are you waiting for someone else to do it? Why are you debating the reliability here?
Okay, but wouldn't that also apply to prices?
Everyone loves to put Big-O up on a pedestal, however many times the constant costs can outweigh the rest of the algorithm. Cache access times in particular can be brutal for non-linear access patterns.
Crazy X axes on those graphs.
(As I said on the other comment) wouldn't that also apply to prices?