skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not so sure about this... just yesterday I got stuck behind a freight forwarding truck that was labelled with only the company name, a list of destination ports, and a phone number.

Lawyers, doctors, and bail-bondsmen still advertise via their phone number. Entire generations still go to phone numbers as their primary means of reaching someone remotely.
Just an fyi, if you are just doing a shallow comparison you can use React.PureComponent which will implement a shallow comparison sCU for you.
> Consciousness is entirely subjective. There is no objective element to it.

Conjecture!
There is a kind of technical "debt" imposed when you can't express the simplest solution in a straightforward way in the language you're using. I put "debt" in quotes because in a strict sense it isn't really debt, because you can't escape the payments by paying off the principle. It's more like a tax that drains away a portion of your effort every time you touch the code.
Does cash have a unique identifier that can be scanned for? If someone was trying to bring a wad of hundreds in a hole cut out in a book, maybe they'd be looking for that?
I always imagine it being like when I want to raise my arm. Except instead of "Raise arm" it would be "Fire z missiles"
I have this same non-background and work on the proverbial team of mostly PhD's. Short answer is yes, you can do it. Long answer is that you have to be really, really good to compensate, and getting to that point is absolutely exhausting. It's not about just going through a couple ML courses on coursera. You need to understand statistics, CS, and ML at a really deep level, and that means being good at applied math too. I was lucky to come out of physics and have a solid applied math background anyways, giving me a few years head start on that self study.

If you need structure to go through a few years of coursework on your own, you should go for the degree. If you just want to learn how to put pieces together and not learn how/why they work under the hood, you should opt for something else.

As with most questions about going nontraditional routes, you have to be really good to compensate, and getting really good is constant exhausting work.
Bingo. There is no historical law which states that more control enables more stability. Overly-controlling situations can just as easily cause more harm than good. China saw that play out repeatedly under Mao, while at the same time America's many attempts to control the Vietnam War ended in abject failure.

I think the real danger, however, is not what the CCP controls, but rather the peripheries that it cannot control, such as shadow banking and capital outflows (think the newly middle/upper-middle class Chinese family parking assets in overseas real estate; China's government cannot exert eminent domain in Vancouver or Miami).
Doing so would incur a large tax liability when transferring the funds back to the US. The reason Apple has been taking out bonds in the US instead of repatriating the overseas cash reserves is because it's cheaper to do the former to pay a dividend or perform a share buyback.
I should also say that phase transitions are used to describe the abrupt change in physical parameters as some external conditions are changed. Cellular automata to my knowledge don't really have continuously variable parameters.
Those are trivial concerns. Any law/rule/entitlement that we've ever created is based on context, historical interpretations, and relies on various human factors. Coming up with questions doesn't poke holes in the concept at all.

>exactly how much healthcare access is a right.

Its not that hard to make a distinction between cancer and catching a cold. Pretty much all laws take into account intent, credibility, reasonable justification and other vague ill-defined criteria.

>what if the required resources are not available in the same amount any more?

Based on available funds, the codified law would be either stricter or looser on the qualifying criteria.

>Are people's rights now violated,

Yes, they would be.

>and if so, by whom?

You should be able to sue the party given the task of dispensing healthcare and make your argument.
Scratch and its clones are a great way to start for kids without the problems of syntax errors.
Everything always works. It might not do what you want but it always does something.

Kids at my local coderdojo enjoy beetleblocks which is like 3d scratch
http://beetleblocks.com/run/
The files can be exported and used in a minecraft clone
https://twitter.com/damianmooney/status/843594021024993280

Microsoft have just announced a block based code environment for minecraftedu
https://youtu.be/3rKuSlgqePo

It seems like a way of coding that has really taken off.
I was at MCI on Sunday and can verify this. Even with pre-check, I had to remove my engineering pad from my carry on pelican case.
Apple Allows Scam Apps from Rogue Developers on App Store
So Django Templates also use dot notation lookups for dict, lists, and objects[0]

Dictionary lookup, attribute lookup and list-index lookups are implemented with a dot notation:

{{ my_dict.key }}
{{ my_object.attribute }}
{{ my_list.0 }}
If a variable resolves to a callable, the
template system will call it with no
arguments and use its result instead of the callable.

Which leads to some interesting and confusing errors if you start iterating over `.items` and you get a callable and not the list you expect.

In [17]: a = {"a": 1, "items": {"b": {"c": {}}}}
...: a_box = Box(a)
...: a_box
...:
Out[17]: <Box: {'a': 1, 'items': {'b': {'c': {}}}}>

In [18]: a_box
Out[18]: <Box: {'a': 1, 'items': {'b': {'c': {}}}}>

In [19]: a_box.items
Out[19]: <function items>

In [20]: a_box.a
Out[20]: 1

[0] https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.11/topics/templates/#var...

EDIT: This came up because our JSON commonly uses `items` as a key for a list of items, which I expect to be at `a_dict['items']`, and it has nothing to do with python's `a_dict.items`.
Common problems with using distribution package managers for software development:

- not all versions are available, and the versions which are available is different across distributions

- even if the version is the same, the location is not consistent, necessitating search logic to find libraries to link to and headers to include

- even if the version is supposedly the same, the distribution may have enabled different options, fiddled with the package or otherwise made it unsuitable for your use. Upstream developers often loathe to support the version your distribution uses.

- multiple versions cannot be installed independently, and the version you need may conflict with the packages you are using on your system but are not dependencies of your project

- This likewise can cause conflicts between different projects you are working on, causing a need for VMs and projects like vagrant, which are very heavyweight and mean you need to maintain multiple copies of your preferred editor and IDE setup.

- Forking a dependency to fix or customize it (to submit a fix upstream or not) gets even more painful.

All of these are much less painful for language based package managers.
I agree that both the React and Redux docs are good, although I'm biased - I wrote the Redux FAQ and "Structuring Reducers" sections for the Redux docs.

That said, the official tutorials and reference sections can only cover so much info, and other articles often go into more detail. For example, the React docs discuss the idea of "controlled inputs", but Gosha Arinich's series of articles on React and forms [0] go into much more detail on the concept and how to apply it. The React docs mention immutability somewhat in the "Optimizing Performance" section, but there's other articles that discuss the why and how in greater detail [1].

Similarly, the Redux docs try to teach the basic concepts and important principles, but articles like "Redux Step by Step: A Simple and Robust Workflow for Real Life Apps" [3] and "Advanced Redux Entity Normalization" [4] go into a lot more detail on some useful real-world concerns.

In the last couple big React-related threads on HN, some people complained that there were no all-encompassing guides for React, the way there are for things like Django or Rails. A lot of that is because Django/Rails are much more convention-driven, so there really is more of an "official" way to do things. With React, people are free to pick and choose the pieces they want, and that means that a single guide is somewhat impractical. (The React team also does not want to try to push or enforce specific tools as "blessed", partly because Facebook has its own ways of using React that are different than the community, and also because they believe in letting the community build things that solve their own use cases.) As a result, in a lot of ways my list is about as close to a "guide" as you're probably going to find for React best practices and resources.

[0] https://goshakkk.name/on-forms-react/

[1] http://reactkungfu.com/2015/08/pros-and-cons-of-using-immuta...

[2] https://hackernoon.com/redux-step-by-step-a-simple-and-robus...

[3] https://medium.com/@dcousineau/advanced-redux-entity-normali...
Looks like the website is down.
We come come up with a test that detects the presence of gravity. Can we do the same with consciousness?
I'm picturing something similar, Asimov's "a Multivac terminal in every home". Arguably we have that now a la Google Search, but step it up to "a cloud terminal in every home". A monitor and interface [keyboard and mouse, gestures, whatever] with an internet connection; everything you do and "have"//"save" will be "in the cloud" with little to speak of stored locally. Whilst developers, creators, &c will have a workstation.
Good point, I didn't get the nuance from my first pass reading it.
I keep hearing this argument that companies won't repatriate offshore cash until they can do so at an arbitrarily low tax rate. What I don't understand is why they wouldn't continue to do what they have been doing:

- borrow in the US, potentially by issuing low-rate bonds
- use the cash to fund dividends or acquisitions
- OR using stock to fund acquisitions

It seems this gameplan would hold up until effective interest rates on blue-chip corporate debt are higher than the proposed repatriation tax. Apple offered 3.25% on its most recent bond issue, so it would seem that a 10% tax on repatriation would not be attractive.

What am I missing?
Wow, what a clickbait.
By answer, he meant answer beyond conjecture. I can always wave my hands and suggest that drawing a special medicine wheel in the sand makes consciousness, or that arranging some information-theoretic properties in a certain way makes consciousness, depending on how mathematically difficult I'd like my pseudospirituality to be!
Their uniforms say First Line.
Although it's not the greatest example. When Apple bought Beats and rebranded to Apple Music they still publish to Android via Google Play Store.. so they've shown cross-platform support?
>"For each item of a set, you will either include it or exclude it in one of the results."

I found this interesting. This may be a silly question(my combinatorics knowledge is limited) but what exactly is the relationship between power sets and "N choose K"?
Chip making a“Smart Overdraft” taking on bank overdrafts, becoming “plugin bank”
Most of the parts are not made in China. That's where assembly is, but very little of the value added content of an iPhone is from China (<5%).
I donated a lot when my father died. Just make sure you're not looking at the bag filling with your blood. We're programmed to think that our life is dripping out through that cord but be positive and aware that this helps someone and also regenerates your blood so it has its benefits.

Don't look and prepare mentally that you're not going to die there. I know it sounds absurd but the "fight or flight" situation kicks in and, like with panic attacks, the fear of actually dying probably leads you to pass out probably.
And Patek-Philippe won't even sell their million dollar watches to just anyone you have to own previous Patek-Philippe watches.

It makes me laugh it sounds so silly.

I want to buy that Apple computer?

Do you own an Apple computer?

No.

Sorry I can only sell you an Apple product if you already own one.
I don't know that it gets a lot of hate, it's just generally not considered to be an adequate production server database.
I teach data engineering and data science. I've taught at hundreds of companies. Yes, there are self-taught people doing data science in the real world. They're few and far between, but they are out there.

If you're coming from a programming background, I'd suggest becoming a Data Engineer with the goal of becoming a Data Scientist. I've had several students do that. They were general programmers who learned Big Data/data engineering and eventually became more technical Data Scientists. You can start to learn more about the whys here: http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2017/03/what-happens-when-you-....
This feels a lot like Bunch, and a lot of private reimplementations I've seen elsewhere.

I dislike these structures. Yes, Python lets you pull this trick. Everything, yes, can be represented as a dict, a list, or one of the primitive str/int/etc. types. But I find it's a lot clearer in the long run (and even in the short run), if you have a collection of heterogenous attributes, to define a class for them. Leave dicts (and the subscript notation) for homogenous collections of k/v pairs.

A class gives you the benefit of a type: you get a name, so you can recognize this bag-of-attributes from other, different bags-of-attributes, because it's been given a name. A class also — usually — gets you a list of attributes, and hopefully documentation about what those attribute's types and expected values are.

If you don't like typing (on a keyboard), the attrs package makes things easier[1]; it has the advantage, however, that you get a real class at the end.

The only place I've seen something like Box or Bunch work well is in config files, and even then, only at the uppermost layers of the config (some of the leaves, esp. when you start having a "list of X" in a config — X needs a type).

Python lets you do magic, but with great power and all. IMO, but this is one of those times: Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex.

[1]: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/attrs/16.0.0
That's the power of defaults. Italy changed to an opt-out program for donation, rather than opt-in.
I think it's definitely worth considering other solutions, as Dan himself has mentioned that Redux isn't for everyone. Redux forces you to apply some constraints and make some tradeoffs. I personally like those constraints and tradeoffs, but I can understand it's not for everyone!
File layout of a search engine
I think that jQuery isn´t something that yuo need to look for good code practices, rather it´s simply shortcuts to javascript functionalities.

Look at normal javascript pages, then try to rewrite them using jquery if you really want to learn.
This is a good point. If your new, some 1 on 1 guidance is definitely appreciated.
More options:

Primitive accumulation: give me that money or I will chop your head off.

Taxation, whereby I create a new form of money: everyone must pay me taxes in purple snail shells or I will chop your head off.

Debt, whereby I create money out of thin air, assuming people trust me: I will give you this "gift card" in return for $50. Now my balance sheet is $50 cash as asset, $50 liability. You have $50 gift card as asset. So purchasing power has gone from $50 to $100... temporarily.
Generating necklaces and bracelets is fun too, see eg. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304397512...
What do you work with, that you need these functions so frequently ? I never once even thought about needing or wanting any of these features
That is sort of true from a grid perspective, but the math doesn't really work out well for geothermal. Geothermal has high capex, low opex, so you need it running 24/7 to amortize the high capital costs.

If you combine it with renewables, you get high fluctuation of demand from the grid, which selects for the exact opposite technology (higher opex, lower capex). Natural gas fits the bill, so that is where the market is going.
I could see Netflix or Hulu, depending on price.

But I would hate to see it happen because I think that Apple would ruin Netflix.
How Quantity Trumps Quality?
I lack the expertise to comment on the sensitivity of the cellulose specifically, but the metro stations where I live will perform random stops as you enter, and the monitors are in plain sight. Notebooks, stacks of paper, and note cards are usually pretty clearly detected by whatever software they're using to help highlight items. It seems weird to me that there could be such difficulty with TSA scanners versus the small, older ones set up at stations here.

(St. Petersburg, Russia, just for reference for the location)
Creating fake sci fi interfaces for movies, a very cool concept. It's inspiring to know that whatever makes you happy there is potentially a job doing it.
Something to note: the article features a link to the author's previous piece, titled "China's credit excess is unlike anything the world has ever seen."

So are we honestly meant to believe that the biggest credit expansion ever can be whisked away by the first ever orderly bubble deflation?
It's interesting to contrast this with the Pizza Hut down the street from the Great Pyramids: http://imgur.com/PWtf3DV
Sounds like you're confusing 'simple' with 'easy'. Rich Hickey does a good job of contrasting the two in Simple Made Easy[0].

The essential part of Redux is only 44 lines of simple code [1]. You can understand everything that it is doing. That is simple. It doesn't mean that it's going to be a great experience to work with (you might want to add some abstraction on top to make it also 'easy'), but it is definitely simple.

[0]: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

[1]: https://gist.github.com/gaearon/ffd88b0e4f00b22c3159#file-sl...
I think it means a lot of people are going to lose a lot more money than $1 Ether would have meant.

1. The halting problem states you can't predict what a turing complete program will do, until you run it. This means to some degree, that you can't predict what your "smart" contract will do, until it does it. Thus turing completeness causes security to be far, far harder than non turing completeness. This is how you lose the millions of dollars as the DAO did after it passed audits.

2. Competing implementations of consensus code in different languages greatly increases breakdown of consensus. (more millions have been lost over this, and it created a fork at about 10 percent the value of the old chain.)

3. You can buy things with bitcoin. What can you buy with ETH? If you can't buy anything with a currency, it's not a currency.

Thus, human resolved chain rollbacks? Check. Failed consensus between implementations? Check. Passed audit yet totally failed smart contracts? Check. No place to spend them? Check. New tokens given out all the time forever? Check.

Every dollar that goes into bad ideas is taken directly from the good ideas. Smart contracts can never be smart until oracles are solved. Oracles aren't solved. ETH has all the technical odds and history stacked against it, however some how, the people that bought them aren't dumping.

There's a saying that the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.
The key is not that your motivation is simply ideological but that it's rooted in widely-acknowledged concepts of social justice. And it's not even "are you a corporation or are you human?" but "are you fighting for social justice or to line your pockets with cash?". We can distill that down further to "who benefits more: society or your wallet?".

To steal an example from rayiner elsewhere in this thread, let's say you're a restaurant in the segregation-era south in a jurisdiction that requires restaurants to have separate seating areas for white and black people. Let's say you decide to break the law by having a single seating area for everyone. That would be civil disobedience because you're going out of your way to improve conditions for marginalized people at considerable risk, not just of prosecution but of being boycotted by racists. In other words, you breaking the law benefits society more than it benefits you.

This isn't what Uber is doing. Sure, let's say that Travis is ideologically motivated because he feels he has a fundamental natural right to make money using any and every means he sees fit. So that means Uber is breaking the law because they feel the law gets in the way of their natural right to line their pockets with as much cash as they can however they can. It's a purely selfish motivation.

And moving on to Ross, it's the same thing. He was raking in bitcoins hand over fist from what he was doing. He can say "selling anything should be legal" all he wants, but if the end result of him breaking the law is that he gets rich, then he's ultimately doing himself a favor more than he's doing society a favor. And he really shot himself in the foot with those attempted hits. That took all the wind out of the sails of his "I'm not hurting anyone; I'm just helping connect people to each other". He tried to kill people. Worse, he tried to kill people because they stole money from him. There was no ideological motivation for the attempted hits. It was just "this guy stole from me, he has to pay". There goes his entire defense.

And ultimately, "civil disobedience" isn't a defense against conviction. It's an argument for leniency in the sentencing phase. It doesn't exist on paper, either: the only reason the concept exists at all is because judges and juries have broad discretion in sentencing. It's just like how first-time offenders tend to get off easy: there's no law saying "if the convicted has no priors, you have to give them a lesser sentence", it's just based on the logic that someone with no priors is probably someone who made a stupid mistake and not a career criminal. Going back to civil disobedience, the upshot is that if you can convince the judge and/or jury that you breaking the law had a net benefit to society, you might get away with the minimum punishment mandated by law. But if the main consequence of you breaking the law is that you got rich, why would any judge or jury care enough to let you off easily?

Edit: Just to make this clear, IANAL & TINLA.
Saving chars is often a poor reason to design a language feature.
True, but it saves a relatively small number of chars (~12) and does so at the same time as:

A) Giving off a signal that you're dealing with an object rather than a dict.

B) Making it cumbersome to swap out some of those selectors with variables.

C) Making it difficult to deal with the attribute not being there (with a dict you can say .get("attr2", {}) and it returns a default.
> the year indication goes to 9,999 and Schwilgué is supposed to have helpfully suggested that in 10,000, someone might paint in a "1" to the left of the year window

I hope that's a true story, it's such a practical solution.
There's actually objective tests you can perform with people with agnosia, example:

http://m.nautil.us/issue/47/consciousness/we-need-conscious-...

> In fact, even our sensation of the present moment is a construct of the conscious mind. We see evidence for this in various experiments and case studies. Patients with agnosia who have damage to object-recognition parts of the visual cortex can’t name an object they see, but can grab it. If given an envelope, they know to orient their hand to insert it through a mail slot. But patients cannot perform the reaching task if experimenters introduce a time delay between showing the object and cueing the test subject to reach for it. Evidently, consciousness is related not to sophisticated information processing per se; as long as a stimulus immediately triggers an action, we don’t need consciousness. It comes into play when we need to maintain sensory information over a few seconds.