skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's definitely true that there is no one size fits all. It's unfortunate that we can't truly tailor learning individually in a class setting (well maybe technology can successfully change this, but I still don't think it's the case). When teaching one on one it is much easier to quickly hone in on a specific student's difficulty, but rarely are you afforded the opportunity.

Also I don't want anyone to think that I believe that rote learning is bad per se. Memorizing basic steps is extremely important. That is what allows you to focus on the important aspects of a problem as opposed to the details. For example, you would be a fool to try to learn German grammar before you get a good enough base of vocabulary. In fact, I think one of the best first steps when learning something new is really memorizing the basics well.

However, I come from the perspective that rote learning has been overdone. Most people come through their math education and never leave that learning style. That is what I find unfortunate and wish were different.
One of the first things I thought of when I got a vive is building an app to let one intuitively navigate and understand four dimensional space. I never had the time or talent to hack something together though so I'm glad this exists.

Something similar but less polished can be found here: http://www.albert-hwang.com/blog/2016/6/what-does-vr-reveal-...
Can you expand on what "Client Provided Session" means?
What's remarkable about conservation of mass in the author's example that's not already formulized in the Law of Conservation of Mass?
It puts me in mind of the three minute degree[0]

> Education can produce what the Village wants.

> "A row of cabbages," Number 6 objects.

> "Indeed," Number 2 agrees. "But knowledgeable cabbages

[0]http://daviddeley.com/profdeley/thegeneral.htm
That sign has been there for at least a decade.

Cap pis turistic.
CTs main problem is that it has no identity or culture of its own. It's biggest draw is that it's close to other cultural hubs (BOS and NYC).

Why pay crazy taxes to live in a place where the only thing to do is leave?

I guess if you like soul-less cities, shopping malls, highways, cheap chain-restaurants and identical suburban neighborhoods then it's a good place to live.
Yeah but what you really want is base-emoji. https://github.com/pfrazee/base-emoji
The Linux cloud swap that spells trouble for Microsoft and VMware
Is this sarcasm? "Of course" makes it sound like it is, because it's certainly not obvious, but you know, Poe's law, and you linked to it.

If it's not, I'm curious why this theory holds so much sway for some people, given its glaring flaws. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what it's saying, but just because an engineer can add $1M in marginal revenue to Google's bottom line absolutely does not mean they deserve $1M in salary, because they can only do that using the construct that was created by the other engineers at Google in order to make that much money for Google. If they couldn't make that $1M on their own without the rest of Google's help - the existing brand, infrastructure, and ideas when they join - they're not being "exploited", especially if they're also shareholders. And the longer you spend there, the larger a shareholder you become (unless you choose to sell your share to someone else, which many do).

And to say that the value of a product can be based on how much labor it took to make is completely insane - mud piles can take tons of labor to make, but they're usually also completely useless. The amount of effort expended did not imbue those mud piles with any sort of value to anyone.

This isn't to say that I think the current ownership structures of companies is ideal and can't be improved upon, I don't think that. But I find what you linked to be filled with such flawed reasoning that I'm curious what people see in it. Or maybe it requires operating under different axioms.
Asset prices move because bids /and/ asks change not because the number of people who hold the asset increase.
I agree with you, but if I were an admissions officer I would also like to see the SAT/ACT be two different numbers: one being your score when you took it as a freshman and a second from late in your junior year so I can see the delta. If you're a great test taker and both scores are equally high I can see that, but I can also see the case where someone with a very low initial score might have improved it greatly to an average score and I can infer that they might not have the best IQ, but that they are at least working hard at improving, which is also a valuable signal from an admissions perspective. Maybe we should standardize when the tests are given and that there be multiple scores recorded over time.
A DARPA for education. I like that idea. EARPA. By what metrics would we measure their sucess, since people can't seem to agree on that?
> There is some prep for ugly contingencies(pthread_atfork) but it usually just works.

Actually, that's not true. Perhaps it's theoretically possible, in some cases, to make your threaded code work with fork with the appropriate pthread_atfork() handlers, but in general, it's a total mess. Thread A has a lock, thread B calls fork(), thread B tries to acquire the lock. The lock is held, but thread A is not running in the child. That much should be obvious.

The usual fix is to write a pthread_atfork() handler for every lock in your program. Before forking, it locks all of your mutexes. After forking, in both the child and parent, it unlocks them. You can see the holes in this. One simple hole is that fork() is async signal safe but pthread_mutex_lock() is not, but most people won't fork() in a signal anyway. The big problem is that you now need to make all of your locks recursive and figure out, globally, what order to lock them in. This means registering your atfork() handlers in exactly the right order, something which is more difficult than it sounds. Another problem is the performance implications of acquiring all the locks in your program.

Namespaces + threads are fine, the only problem here is namespaces + M:N threads + no method for pinning a green thread to an OS thread, like forkOS in Haskell.
Walmart's scale is such that they could easily self-insure.
and what a trustworthy homepage! :D
Actually the EV takes MORE time fore those myriad tasks.

No, you still save time. Since those 30 seconds are folded into each non-car errand, they really come out of the errand/task-context-switch overhead. By requiring fewer errands, you actually save time.
22nm Process War Begins Due to High Price of Moving to FinFETs
Yea so you consider a two dimentional sphere embedded in a four dimentional ball. So it's a S^2 that is knotted in R^4.
I see what you're saying about the virtues being "different based on the situation and/or other variables." However, that doesn't mean you can't "improve upon" the ability to make virtuous choices.

In your dinner example, if someone has only math and finance education, they might simply say that fast food is the best choice for dinner. But if they get some nutrition education, suddenly they're wondering if maybe something healthier might be worth the financial trade off. So you can absolutely improve decision making with education. That example didn't include virtues, though it could include making decisions for others (i.e. your family) that improve their lives. Of course, wisdom about nutrition is a more direct example of something you might not teach or test for, but in this case, it is useful.

Sure, there are situations where the choices are just between two fast foods, and neither choice will seem wise, but again, if only taught the individual math rather than creativity, they might not realize that there's also a fresh produce market (i.e. a third choice!) hiding around the corner.
I've seen an outcry on Twitter over this move, with some 'developers' threatening to go console only.

My understanding is that for $100, Steam is an absolute steal compared to running the gauntlet of the the Microsoft/Sony console software certification process. If you honestly think your work is even remotely worthwhile to justify the kind of time investment even a basic game would require, I don't think 100 bucks matters all that much. Ron Gilbert (Monkey Island, Thimbleweed Park etc) today tweeted the minimum cost of certification on modern consoles is around $2500.
Computing by steam
> nothing wrong with monetizing that service with advertising

True, except for the various ways that advertising is typically unethical in manipulative design, the unjust and problematic imbalance of power between platform owners and the communities who use the platforms, the fact that ads are usually tied to privacy-invading tracking… besides those sorts of things, nothing's wrong.

> You are absolutely free to not contribute anything or even visit

This rhetoric needs to die. You are free to not go to the grocery store and buy food, unless of course you want food besides that you can grow on your own as a subsistence farmer. I suppose the fact that grocers operate at scale with very organized corporate models in order to consolidate their economic power while consumers are divided into being individual shoppers is totally irrelevant to the market factors here‽

If the supply side were divided into individual programmers etc. while consumers were all organized into powerful consumers' unions with near-monopsony, it would then be equally ridiculous and insulting to say "hey, you individual programmer — if you don't want to make the specific product the consumers' union wants to use, you don't have to; you are free to choose what you make".
Perhaps read a book. Just visit your local real or virtual library.

My point is not that articles on the internet are useless. But there is a certain tunnel vision in these discussions where we forget there are other _even better_ ways to spend our time.

Whether you want education or entertainment, paying $x/month to Google is not the right way to achieve it. Go paintballing instead.
$29/month feels alright if you're using it as a professional resource, i.e. you're an employed programmer.

As a student/learning resource, it seems quite steep. Yet, compared to traditional education, it's a screaming steal.

Pricing is hard.
Thanks! It's definitely a long road. Unfortunately you'll realistically never be able to learn the basics as well as people who fused them into their heads well over the course of 12-15 years of education, but you what can do is "learn how to learn". If you acquire the patience and confidence, you will be able to understand better what you really need to understand. It's a long road and a lot of work, but if you actively work towards that goal, you'll definitely improve more than you ever thought you could. Good luck!
I use Zapier. It works. Sounds as if its not even close to the depth of feature set you need, but for basic sync its beautiful.
I would assume so, yes.

Additionally, the same action might be perceived in a different moral light by different people. Just look at how the same events are reported in Breitbart vs. CNN vs. Pravda vs. Al-Jazeera (and read the comments on them) for an example of this.

The complexity of moral education is that you have to balance situation vs. individual vs. audience, and it's very difficult to do this in a consistent way. Propose any concrete curriculum, and it's almost guaranteed that some people will scream about how you're imposing your values on the rest of society, and at least one kid will take the exact opposite lesson from what you intended and do something you found morally abhorrent.
I imagine because being nationally standardized, the SAT/ACT more reliably correlate to IQ. A 4.0 GPA means nothing but an A in all classes, which may give some insight into Conscientiousness, but it says nothing about what the classes covered, what the school averages at, and is thus harder to correlate with IQ.

Since IQ+Conscientiousness is better than either alone, of course they'll want to consider both.
Honestly though, Barcelonetans get huffy if they see anyone from a different barrio.
See also Flatland (http://amzn.to/2qKFrOh, aff. link) which is a short novel in part about 2D shapes discovering the third dimension.

Edit: Didn't notice it was mentioned at the end of the comments, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14472395, there's a free version linked from archive.org.
My oil and everything else that needs changing is changed at the yearly mandatory service. You will have to do it in an electric car too so you're not saving any time here.

Actually, I don't have that. I have one service based on mileage coming up, which seems like it will be the only one I will ever hit before my lease is up. I've taken it in once for a firmware upgrade, and I've had my EV for a year and a half. (And the dealer washed my car, so for me, it was folded into a car wash errand.)
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14470251 and marked it off-topic.
Yeah, this is what I call the "Marine Model." You and I work like grunts; kick doors in; blow shit up.

However I feel that my experience has indicated that this only works when the brass are present and making such orders. When you're on your own, even when within the context of a organization or team, this is more easily prone to failure.

You talk about them being loftier goals, but maybe they're just different methods to solve different problems.

Anyway, semper fi.
> My understanding is that Fedex and especially UPS trucks are very highly optimized for their work and for fuel efficiency and that their routes are also extremely optimized (for example, UPS truck routes almost never include a left turn).

Apparently UPS trucks get around 10 mpg [1]. Not many consumer vehicles are that inefficient.

I'd be surprised if UPS's ORION is better at route optimization than a consumer app like Google Maps. From UPS's own press, it sounds like ORION doesn't account for traffic at all [2]. Even if it did, Google has the most traffic data. I don't know whether Google Maps considers the cost of left turns, but if it did, it would likely factor it in as an extra cost in the optimization problem, rather than a crude "no left turns if possible" rule as ORION seems to use.

[1] https://www.quora.com/How-many-miles-per-gallon-do-UPS-truck...

[2] https://compass.ups.com/ups-fleet-telematics-system/
A lot of great information here that can be used to think about the viability and sustainability of open source projects.
Please don't feed trolls.
Read prof. Martin Seligman's Flourish. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman
Yeah, I am always a little frustrated by the modern American conception that 'happiness' is the end goal in life. "I just want to be happy" or "I just want my kid to be happy" is a common refrain.

Why is happiness everything? If you just want to 'feel good', you could start a heroin habit; you will FEEL great. But is that a satisfying and full life?

I know for me personally, I might have been happier 'in the moment' five years ago, when I lived alone and got to do whatever I wanted whenever I wanted. I played a lot of video games, did fun projects whenever I wanted, and had a lot of spending money from a good job. I know for me, I am never 'happier' in the moment than I am when playing video games.

Even though I can't do that as much anymore, I feel much more satisfied and content with my life now than I did then. Now, I am married with a kid, and my life is way harder, more stressful, and less focused on my own happiness. However, I am way more satisfied in my life, I feel more whole, and I feel a sense of purpose that I didn't have before. Of course, I would also say I am happy, but not in that same way I was when everything I did was what I wanted to do for me.

Happiness is just one part of a full life.
Idea 1 simply states that wisdom and creativity may actually be more important than the intelligence or knowledge being tested for. It doesn't insinuate that we cannot cultivate wisdom, nor does it say that the two cannot coexist. Merely that we're only filtering based on those tests, without also considering wisdom.

I do not see the contradiction.
Technically, it does actually. Suppose we use SHA-256 as first hashing algorithm, the input space for the second is effectively reduced to the 256 bits of output from the first which is much smaller compared to the input space of the first algorithm.
What do you mean by lock-in business model?
SecureLogin Protocol
There is a lot of good in taking responsibility and not having excuses.

It is however also critical to limit scope and being clear about what is in ones responsibility.
Type soundness is overblown. A type system doesn't need to be sound to be useful, and the pragmatic approach taken by TS has turned out to be really useful.

(In the old days, type systems were just purely about correctness, so soundness was key, but those days are long past us, we depend on type systems for many different things now)
See https://www.blockspring.com. The add-on has prebuilt connectors for both postgres and mysql. Can also build your own connectors https://open.blockspring.com/blocks/new.
Does the IMPORTDATA function work for that?
Even at the current high price, I tried to buy more BC a few days ago but my vendor wasn't selling.

I agree with the notion that BC is similar to gold because it is an alternative to fiat currencies.

The author James Richards has the good idea of putting the dollar about 10% on the gold standard to loosely tie the dollar to gold so when money is "printed" at least part would need to be backed by a physical gold purchase.
It's cool to be able to follow the real stock purchase from other investors' brokerages!
The gratuitous thing is the dumb, tedious and unfunny crack not your COBOL capitalization (although you capitalized other things).

Seriously, take a moment to look at the text and the code. Beside the lengthy verbiage in the text explaining the motivation and choice, the code goes out of its way to be explicit, succinct and clear. All you had to say about it was 'BUTTS', sight unseen. Comedy gold, right there. Wouldn't it be easier to just say you got it wrong?
Strong men are socialist, reports study that previously reported the opposite
Happiness is a mindset, it's not about just external factors. I've met people in 3rd world countries that are almost starving, live under a dictatorship, and are very ill with no chance to see a doctor and they manage to be grateful for the few things that they do have. They are grateful to have a dog, or to see the sunrise, or have a close community even if everyone's not very well off.

You can't always control the world around you, but you can control how you choose to react to it. Tony Robbins is one of my favorite motivational speakers, and he was abused by his mother as a child. It was really bad. It astounds me to hear him talk about it though, he sees the silver lining of it and says, "It sucked. It did. But it taught me to be resourceful. And that's now one of my greatest strengths." (paraphrasing a bit)

That's not to say you'll be grinning like a shark every moment of every day. People have bad days and mixed emotions. But overall you can make your general happiness much higher by choice.
I don't agree with the idea that the value of bitcoin was always to evade taxes and launder money. Maybe that's a primary motive for many, but I don't think that constitutes the value of bitcoin in toto.

I have no skin in the bitcoin game--I've never possessed any bitcoin and don't feel any burning desire to in the near future.

As monetary transactions have moved to the electronic sphere, there's been an important shift from how value is verified. With paper currency, the physical form of the coin or bill acts as verification of its value (thus the focus on counterfeiting, etc.). The trust in the value comes from the physical object possessing certain characteristics. Electronically, though, in the current system, everything is based on verification by trusted institutions. So there's no way of Alice paying Bob without it being verified by Ted, who then makes a lot of money and has lots of control over the financial system.

Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency tries to get back to the idea of peer-to-peer financial exchange without needing that third party, which I think is really valuable in society.

I agree with the concerns being raised in the article that there's a danger of criminalizing peer-to-peer financial transactions, because it basically starts granting new power to institutions that were previously held indirectly by the currency issuing bank.

Also, if everyone in my city wanted to start trading in tulips, why should the government criminalize the tulip trade (as opposed to criminalizing not reporting the value of the tulips you own)?
As someone who is trying to sample anything remotely unfamiliar wherever I travel.. totally useless :P
As a broad policy, I don't know. I've seen a couple of teams here that have a remote worker. In both cases, the worker is onsite for one week each month.
You forget how it got that way. Parts were made in the USA, then shipped to China. Part production moved. Part production can move the other way, back to the USA. It tends to go where the devices are made. The same goes for raw material. The USA has resources to mine.

Moving any part of the supply chain tends to encourage the other parts to move. If part production moved, then both mining and device production would have an increased incentive to move. If mining moved, part production would have an incentive to move, and if that moved then device production would have an incentive to move. It all works both ways, with suppliers and customers tending to move toward each other.

So yes, we can put everything back in the USA, and it can be affordable, but we face an uphill battle. The battle is only lost if you give up trying.
I think one of the keys to happiness is to just look down and see how good you have it.
Most production compilers still depend on recursive descent because (a) it isn't that much harder compared to the generative approach, and (b) it is the best way to work in real error recovery or to support IDE services.
I don't know why this was downvoted. It could've been worded better but the argument should be analyzed more.

How likely is it that the current unicorns are actually just ponzi schemes? The ones bearing it are people who buy into the post-IPO share prices thinking it's the next Google. Ordinary folks don't have the capital and the network to collude.

Instead of downvoting (might have ruffled some egos on here), can someone offer a rebuttal to OP's argument?
Easily the hardest part of learning about string theory for me (via reading "The Elegant Universe" [1]) was grasping the idea of multiple other dimensions.

The book tried it's best to explain it by exploring a world starting with 1D and evolving to 3D, but it's still quite difficult to visualize, especially ones shaped like a "Calabi–Yau manifold" [2].

The one good thing I got out of learning about Calabi-Yau manifolds (and randomly reading another layman story involving Yau's clash with the guy who solved Poincaré conjecture) was a new interest in learning more about math and a getting a laymans grasp of topology. Although I later learned manifolds are quite an advanced subset of topology.

I enjoyed the linked video, I was looking for a way to better understand 4+D in a way I could wrap my head around and an interactive game makes a lot of sense.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Universe-Superstrings-Dimensi...

[2]
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Calabi%E2%80%93Yau_manifold