skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think the biggest problem is the speed differential. That's ok, the rich can afford 140in 16K TV a few years before middle class which get it a few years before poor people. It is not ideal, but you know that eventually everybody is going to have it.

The problem of recent years is that the balance is slightly off. Housing, Education and in the US healthcare seems to have set an upper bound on the non-rich. Everybody else is getting net gain, the poor worldwide improve, the rich improve, the first world middle class progress seems to taper.

The rich progress should have tapered before the middle class, signalling that we are a few generation away from utopian post-scarcity world. The rich sailing away and all the rest squeezing under a glass ceiling is instead signalling that we are a few generation away from dystopian world with a superclass and underclass. Worse, if being in the underclass meant living like a middle class 20th century first world citizen, that would not be ideal but that would be quite good, however there is no guarantee it is such. Especially not when the current political wisdom is that if you are not middle class, that's because you are not worth it and social service is only there to scratch the charity itch of your better, no as a human right.
I'm may be mistaken, but I interpret jamescostian's comment as "every language has some problems, let's stop this sort of discussion". May you intended to detach the parent comment ?
Respectfully, I think a lot of comments on this topic are missing the point of the author's advice. Whether there is or is not a bubble, and if there is, how big that bubble might get, are irrelevant here. That's not what this article is about.

First, the author assumes there is a bubble brewing. That's not his thesis; that's his background assumption. His thesis is that, assuming there is a bubble, you should do X, Y, and Z, and not do A, B, and C.

So yeah, after reading this, we could argue once again about whether there's a bubble or not. But the more interesting argument is about whether his advice is sound. Not whether his assumption is sound.
Bitcoins are saving this Venezuelan guy's family from starving. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as value: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6d2w1b/bitcoin_is_...

This is not to say that there isn't an absurd amount of hype and froth right now, but if nothing else cryptocurrencies will continue to serve a purpose for anybody who needs to send money outside capital controls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogs namesake of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POG_(drink)
> Guess what, fast forward, people don't just want to stay on Earth, but will also prefer SF proper, Manhattan and/or Paris within 20 arrondissements.

Yet people live on the ISS, where there are no fancy cafes. How do you explain that?
I really like the approach described in these links. Targeted algorithms solve specific problems (e.g. ILP to decide ordering of adjacent lines) instead of someone trying to put together a Grand Unified Machine Learning Algorithm that ends up having to be fudged manually after it gets 99 cases right and makes an egregious mistake in the 100th one.

The more general problem Transit seems to be trying to solve (that no one else is) is having a map that can be kept up-to-date with transit alerts and diversions with minimal hassle. For example, it looks like their launch-time picture of Toronto's streetcars (in the first link) was generated when there was trackwork at the College and Bathurst intersection and the corresponding streetcar lines were being diverted around it.

The second link explains rather well the reasons behind some of the problems evident in Google's Toronto map. For example, the unsnapping issue for adjacent lines occurs a lot because streetcar lines are heavily interlined.
> What, if anything, will come after Facebook for human connection?

"If anything"? I can pretty much guarantee you that in 50 years (or 100, to stay on the safe side), nobody will be using Facebook anymore. The question is not "if" but "what".

Speculating on coming tech is risky, but my prediction is a two-way trend: graphic and text-based communication. Email is one of the oldest computer communication tools around (and basically a continuation of the millenia-old practice of writing letters) and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Text-based communication is ideal for formulating complex ideas and offers low storage/delivery costs. I don't know whether we'll still be calling it email, but I'm pretty sure we'll still be writing some sort of letters in 2100. On the other hand, private conversation is a lot more enjoyable when it is face-to-face, giving the participants the opportunity to latch on to non-linguistic cues such as voice inflection or facial expressions. Thus I would imagine that some sort of telepresence communication platform is going to be pretty important in 2100 (akin to Skype et al. today, though perhaps with elements of virtual reality).

tl;dr Facebook as a company isn't going to stick around for ever, but letters and visual chatting are here to stay.
Using that list, Cuba and North Korea immediately follow Bitcoin in energy consumption. Cuba or North Korea alone could never hope to gain control of the network: they could not supply enough power even if they redirected everything to malicious Bitcoin mining rigs. More realistically, even a country like Saudi Arabia (with a reported 272TWh) could not control the Bitcoin network in the long term--"wasting" 5.5% of your national energy consumption is not sustainable.

This "waste" is actually a kind of security all its own.
Milhouse: I'm really sorry... I kind of traded your soul to the guy at the comic book store. But look! I got some cool pogs:

[shows them]

Milhouse: Alf pogs! Remember Alf? He's back... in pog form!

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3dyh6j/what_i...
That's a bit hyperbolic, methinks - Angwin & Tigas aren't in secret court or prison! https://www.propublica.org/article/heres-one-way-to-land-on-...
Another nit -- paid for via taxes.
This kind of "news" article does a disservice to those in need of mental health care by perpetuating the idea that certain well studied medications are ultra dangerous when in reality they are effective when administered properly.

What kills more people than both things combined? Not seeking help when needed
> Hopefully the fact that deception is now obvious will cause people to re-evaluate the way they use their trust networks

People only trust sources with which they agree with at first place. Communities believing in a certain narrative will not re-evaluate anything, and all communities believe in specific narratives. The web just made that fact more obvious. No amount of technology of fact checking tool will change that.

Only the people who understand that the truth is often a valuable asset will find these tools valuable as well.
It drew SkyTrain as an ordinary railway (part of the map layer), which is probably treated the same for transit directions, but nevertheless an odd choice visually, since it gets lost in the tangle of freight railways which are drawn identically and which SkyTrain frequently runs alongside.
> No one loses multiples on their investment.

Leverage is a multiplier in both directions. People do borrow money to invest in bubbles which is what can make the eventual pop so economically devastating.
Is 2017 the beginning of the end for the app economy?
AmigaOne X5000 review: The beloved Amiga meets 2017
Pages are also traditionally larger than a cellphone. On a 4"/5" smartphone, text in landscape orientation is much closer in font size and line length to a normal book than in portrait orientation.
It was a bug in ls. The intent was to hide only "." and "..".

https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/88875/why-are-filen...
Could someone explain this to a layman like myself, please
Maybe because boats didn't used to be particularly good at seafaring?

Dunno!
A personal anecdote from a non-historian:

Some years back I took a holiday in Malta.

Taking the ferry to Valletta, climbing the ramp up from the dock, I was shocked to see the scale of the fortifications. I knew it was a strategically important place, but what surprised me was how obviously the entire walled peninsula of Valletta seemed to have been constructed first and foremost as a fortress.
It's easy to forget the scale and scope of historical conflict and the effort that went into it, and this was a stark reminder.

The other thing that surprised me was that they had the old suits of armor of the commanders of the order, and I was surprised how big they were. I'm pretty tall (6"6) and was surprised to see the suits were close to my height. Presumably bigger than the men that wore them, but what occurred to me was "these are the guys who made it to the the top of their organization, the commanders, and they must have been very big for their time. This is probably an organization that values brute strength."

I don't know if that's a valid inference or not, but Malta definitely left the impression it was created by folk who mean business.

This linked article is really interesting context, makes me realize why Malta was built so well.
far older than that. deception and misdirection are evolutionary survival strategies.
Three joined economy seats you can't sleep in (it's shaped all wrong), it wastes a bunch of space (where the legs go), and it's not stacked.
To get a little meta for a second, do we have a universally accepted, value-neutral, standard idea of exactly what we mean when we say cognition? Individual tests might set different parameters and pay attention to different mechanics. Or do they?

To put my question a different way: how confident are we in our current map of the system?

I'm asking as a legitimately curious layperson. Perhaps this comment is naive, and if so, I'm admitting to my naivete in advance.
'centipede' is a rather pointed choice of title. So it's a centipede... of humans... with BS news flowing constantly between them...
I have no idea about Beijing or Moscow, but Paris, Berlin, and London were all located on swamps/marshes.
It started out as unintended behavior of some code in "ls" which was put in to skip "." and ".." when printing directory listings.

https://plus.google.com/+RobPikeTheHuman/posts/R58WgWwN9jp

The concept of a "hidden file" was an accidental invention.
" it is a published, peer reviewed, 2005 proof, and a rather simple one."

Proofs can be wrong or irrelevant in practice. An example is not being able to prove the tetmination of executing arbitrary programs. Sure I can: it's called a watch-dog timer. So, Im wanting it peer reviewed. Plus, it's critical to know for sure that and correctness composition to determine what to invest in for software assurance R&D.

"Nevertheless, it should be noted that no large or even medium-sized software has ever been fully verified, so I don't think anyone believes the problem is easy."

Never easy. :) However, I still think we should consider counting the deep verifications. You keep saying they havent went upward to verify a program of certain size as if it means something. I know only one that tried (Verisoft for Hyper-V). Most went downward toward the gate level including Verisoft where Microsoft's was just a side item. Verisoft did app correctness to some degree, down to C code, its compiler, the OS, the microkernel, and CPU tying it all together. DeepSpec just tied piles of high-level and low-level code together. So, such methods should allow us to achieve the same amount of complexity going upward using same abstraction and shortcut techniques. We havent done that much upward because they just been working the other way.

Now, what they'll ultimately achieve may or may not be that good. Best approach might be to throw DeepSpec's DSL's and tooling at a large, complex application whose code is FOSS and accessible. I suggest an application server with compression, encryption, caching, and error handling as a good way to stress that project from multiple angles.
Nah dude. You can tell me a million times to choose secure passwords and memorise them but I'm not going to until you give me a password manager.

Fix it with technology, not with instructions.
>do we have a universally accepted, standard idea of exactly what we mean when we say cognition?

no. (sensory neuroscience guy here)
Toyota is staffing up a lab near Palo Alto to develop car simulation software. Zoox in the city is doing similar work, and of course Waymo.
Unlike many iTunes hate pieces this one offers constructive solutions. Yes. It's time to break this monolith up.
Whilst undoubtedly cool, and based on super-interesting research, it's worth bearing in mind this is a compile-to-Racket language. Anyone who's used a compile-to-JS language will be familiar with the drawbacks of this approach.
'Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department! says Wernher Von Braun.' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTKn1aSOyOs

I really really really strongly disagree with this. As the ones who are most knowledgable about the systems they're building, I definitely think engineers have a moral responsibility to make sure they're at the very least following applicable laws and regulations - I would argue that we have a moral responsibility to act ethically even in cases where it's not covered by laws or regulations, but I'll admit that's a bit more controversial.
Also a layman, but from my reading of the abstract, the net zero sum model is saying that ultimately the brain does about as well as it's going to, given its physical constraints. It's the equivalent of "no matter how much you overclock your CPU, you'll still be limited by thermal dissipation."
Android Kotlin – Null Safety
I'm glad I wasn't the only one. I was very confused for a moment after reading that comment. Never seen the acronym "SF" used for science fiction before.
Funny you should mention the lobby. The US auto lobby was the reason the US NOx diesel emission requirements are more stringent than EU in the first place, specifically disadvantaging European diesel cars (which are much cleaner overall).
I really enjoy your blog. When are you going to publish a math book for programmers, covering a broad selection of programming-related math topics? I think you mentioned this possibility in a past blog post. I'd buy it.

I'll also make note of your Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/user?u=615882
So they're saying, they can improve my neural function by also making me burn more calories?

Market cap 1T.
Hey now, don't go selling humans short. Life has been around for billions of years. Dinosaurs were blundering around for a long time before that asteroid hit.

If extinction is the goal we don't have to wait for an asteroid, we can nuke the planet today.

I think you're kind of avoiding the point that extinction isn't the goal. Perhaps, for a moment, entertain the idea we need to be a little more cautious wiping out other life.

We can probably wipe out quite a bit more, and still be ok. Much like you can loose an eye and still be ok. Probably easier to avoid losing the eye in the first place.
To be fair, it's not in the core, it's in the shell. The shell treats files that have FILE_ATTRIBUTE_HIDDEN and start with a ~ as if they also had FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM, but this only affects the shell. It doesn't leak to other programs that use the filesystem APIs directly. The shell has always had a different, more user-oriented view on the filesystem. It also does other user-oriented things, like replacing some filesystem names with display names (eg. C:\ -> Local Disk (C:),) letting you browse things that aren't filesystem objects, like remote FTP shares and files inside .zip archives, and synthesizing folders that don't really exist like This PC/My Computer, the Desktop, Recycle Bin and Libraries.
In other words, does this amount to abuse of an already maximally efficient organ, resulting in short term gains in exchange for what amounts to injury or perhaps chronic subclinical injuries?

From the abstract:

based on the assumption that brain
resources are subjected to the physical
principle of conservation of energy

Which is to say, nothing material is added to the equation, and thus, nothing useful is actually extracted. Conceptually, the idea is to question whether we're really just burning the candle at both ends, to get more light.

Compare to steroid abuse in athletes, resulting in a statistically significant shortening of lifespan.
CSR Racing Exact Hacks Tool
So in order to get a model on the market, you need to first get in on the market, right?
The USA is about 40 times larger than the UK in land mass, but only has a population 5 times larger.

You would need to increase your population from 320 million to 2.6 billion to have the same population density as us.

You have so much free space you could absorb the entire population of Europe. Logistics aside. Which makes some US citizens fear of immigration even more laughable.
Gates said the same thing, in fact he said that the US basically cannot not afford another war unless it's attacked on its own soil and if NATO will not pick up the slack the US will be forced to reconsider its part in the partnership.

This was said in Brussels in front of all of NATO.

The EU have been skimping on its NATO commmitments since the end of the Cold War this isn't a recent development.

Greece is actually meeting it's goals (likely because of its sick waving contest with Turkey) while Germany, France, Italy and even the U.K. do not.

As for Article 5 there has been already blood in the water since Iraq.
France basically said that if the US uses Article 5 for Iraq it will ignore it, Germany and Italy were also signaling the same sentiments.
Wouldn't a 51% attack means I could lose my house?

I seem to be missing how this would work or why this would be desirable.
Moscow region is swampy all right. And I've heard that Washington DC (being an artificial capital) is located on a swamp too.

I think the reason is simple, "Braindead" style. It's just that lizard folk prefer the marshes, so that's where we have to be.
Hyperbolic? Being a better writer is useless...

I think the context that prefaces the question betrays a misunderstanding.

When you really start digging into crafting messages, you start finding out things like the medium you work in actually changes how you should structure your message. Famous examples of why this should be done exist, like the first presidential debate that was both televised and broadcast on the radio. People who saw the television thought one candidate had won the debate. People who listened thought the other had won.

Twitter as a medium promotes a certain kind of content. Learning to be a better writer isn't going to change that. If the goal of learning to be a better writer is to prevent some sort of decline in writing as seen on Twitter? Don't learn more about writing.

There are so many different kinds of writing and being better at one doesn't mean you will be better at another. So really you're safe learning most of writing. Unfortunately, you're bound to run across ideas like using a hook to attract attention as quickly as possible.

Then you run the risk of joining the hyperbolic tweeters.
Dated: "2014 Jan 15"
Playtesting Adventure [video]
A lot of people /don't/ want to stay on Earth.

(And people also want to go to Antarctica... There are multiple "colonies" there, by Chile and Argentina, thousands live there in the summer, and about a thousand people winter over there, and tens of thousands of tourists travel there annually... All this in a place that is illegal to mine, illegal to claim nationally, and even illegal to build new permanent structures by international treaty, thus essentially illegal to build a city or anything like a real economy, which would require mining at least for gravel.)

The interesting thing about people is that there are many different kinds with many different motivations.

Although I do suspect that space settlements will be even more urbanized and centralized than Earth cities. The extra costs associated with living in space are reduced by living in larger settlements/cities (think surface area to volume ratio), and just like on Earth, economic productivity will increase with increasing population density.
Could you explain what phase is? I understand haskell types, and I suspect Template haskell mostly works as an AST translator. A Google search on macros and phase, just turns up diet and bodybuilding preparation advice!
What does that even mean? Even in the Arctic, Antarctic, and Sahara there are wild animals that can survive.

Just because there's no room for a house on the side of the Rockies in Colorado doesn't mean people don't hike it or animals don't inhabit it.
React Blessed is a really fun library too! Makes terminal tools a bit easier to write
Just send them feedback!

https://gfycat.com/AnyLegalBlackmamba
The fear isn't due to space, but jobs and the perceived toll on social welfare and other facilities.
One way to look at creative thinking, is as local-maxima vs global-maxima searches. Someone who's searching for a local maxima, very close to the current state of the world, will produce ideas and work that show steady and consistent improvements. At some point, these finding-local-maxima will hit diminishing returns, but at least the process is predictable and very likely to bear some fruit.

In contrast, attempting to jump far away from the current state, and finding a brand new global-maxima, is a much more risky endeavor. The first couple iterations may produce results that are even worse than the current state of the world. But in the long run, it avoids the problem of diminishing returns, and can lead to occasional breakthroughs that are vast improvements over the status quo.

It seems to me that creativity is basically about foregoing the easy and predictable local-maxima-search, in favor of a more adventurous global-maxima-search. The first few iterations of your bold new idea may sound kooky and klunky, but once it's been developed with sufficient rigor and polish, it has the chance to give a much bigger payoff. Someone who's too focused on the small details, and getting every detail ironed out before committing to something, may find such an endeavor far too uncertain to undertake, thus missing out on what could be the next big thing to change things up.
Thanks for bearing with me, and responding, even if it might be more efficient for me to wait and read the next parts.

It seems like if the quicksort of a list L is defined as equal to the concatenation of 1) the quicksort of the subsequence of L consisting of items less than the pivot item, 2) (the list containing) the pivot item, and 3) the quicksort of the subsequence of L consisting of items greater than the pivot, then we can prove properties like "any two items of the resulting list are in sorted order" by case analysis on whether each item is part of (1), (2), or (3).

Maybe you would interpret "the quicksort of L is defined as..." to mean "if you're in state quicksort(L), you can proceed to state the-concatenation-of"? If we're working in the realm of mathematics, don't we get definitions, equations, and inductive proofs for free, without making a state machine do it?

Edit: Reading more, I guess I'm just doing the sorting inside the "next-state relation" of a state machine, so it's done in one state transition, and saying you could look at quicksort as one way to factor the relation, which by math is equivalent to other ways to factor the relation that resemble other sorting algorithms.
Will they be the same drawbacks given Racket is designed to be easier to transform from there?
Exploring Code Generation with Caché Method Generators
But come to think of that, immigration doesn't target flyover areas - not so many immigrants come to middle of nowhere places. Instead the (desirable) coast areas get packed.

Maybe the fears of immigration are laughable, maybe not, but your argument doesn't hold water.