skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The choice of title is interesting, if a bit misleading, so I'm gonna run with this. It's often suggested that there are two types of capitalism: one productive, competitive and free -- the other gripped with cronyism, protectionism, and exploitation. I don't buy that. There is just one type of capitalism, and while at times it may look more like one or the other of these poles, it always tends toward the latter: monopolistic, state-sanctioned "crony capitalism" that puts allows business owners to prioritize their own profits over the collective good. That's not to say that the sky is always falling: Scandinavian countries enjoy healthy markets and don't have absurd corporate welfare, for instance, it's just that the incentives for "good capitalists" to become cronyists are always present.

The problem with the "two types" thinking is that it is always in a person's a person's best interest to get something for free. Ironically, this rhetoric is often used by capitalists, fearful that leftism might become effective, by claiming their opponents are the ones who want free stuff. There are lots of ways to get things for free. For instance, you can steal your workers time and fail to compensate them (common in fast food), you can coerce a government into cooperation ("We'll move to India if you don't give us the tax breaks") or you can campaign to get your friends into the government.

The fallacy of libertarianism is a belief that capitalists don't want a state mechanism with the power to tax and regulate. That is exactly what capitalists want. They're given state protection via a police or military force, state welfare through tax write-offs and incentives, power and influence in crafting legislation that fits your worldview, and less turbulent markets due to stifling of demand. The alternative is Hobbes' "short, nasty, brutish" life - duking it out eternally trying to achieve efficiency instead of excess, competing endlessly, only to profit in the slightest.

It's often said that "it's in our nature to be competitive" but it's also in our nature to be cooperative, and corporations display this fact amazingly well- they use collective influence and power in numbers to achieve ends that small businesses never could. Until people outside of that system learn to cooperate well enough to bargain for their own interests (e.g. Labor movements), it's going to be smooth sailing for the "crony" capitalists.
In California, it (being represented by a lawyer in small claims court) is explicitly not allowed. I guess each state is different.
Thanks for posting about liblb!
You're making assumptions about other people's value tradeoffs. And, perhaps, simply don't understand what responsible gambling looks like.

I like going to a casino once a month with friends, always with a preset $50 limit. That translates to hours of great fun, food, drinks. I'll start the day with poker if we're planning to stay for a while, I'm good enough to turn a profit (which I spend on other pure-luck games). Other times I'll just suss out the slot machines while watching a game at the bar.

On the other hand, I never play video games... I just find them universally boring. $20 for 10 hours of gameplay sounds like a waste of time and money to me. However, I do understand why other people enjoy video games.

At the end of the day, I've seen self-destructive gamblers pumping the slots and subtly self-destructive gamers pay2playing... as well as responsible gamblers and gamers. To each their own.
> You are sterile when you come out of your mother's womb. All of the bacteria that ends up in your intestine are ingested, often coming from your own family members.

Is that so? I thought that fetuses shared some of their mother's intestinal flora, somehow.
Alternatively, because being a functional and happy member of modern society is predicated on full time employment (for health care, if nothing else), then there is enormous pressure to create these employments for people.

If we were to engage in universal welfare, we'd remove a false feedback signal and allow ourselves to focus on what actually creates value rather than what pays rent, food, essential health care and education.

I don't think there is much debate that not giving people access to those things is bad. But we seem strangely averse to just making them part of the core of our society.
In the 2D animation industry it's mostly irrelevant since we are animating on ones, twos, and fours (every single, second, or fourth frame at 24fps) depending on what is happening in the shot.

There is also not nearly as much tweening as you might expect. Sometimes animating on ones just cannot accurately give you the same effect as letting a persons brain fill in the missing info. Which is why watching The Hobbit in 48fps pulled me out of the movie at some points; I appreciated the extra clarity, but there were details that would have otherwise just been a blur that became distracting.
https://protonmail.com/blog/encrypted-email-spam-filtering/

I remember there was a recent paper that dealt with this, too, but I can't find it right now. But it basically demolished this argument that it's impossible to stop spam if the email is encrypted.
Healthcare is a vehicle to serve another agenda. That is the problem.

It doesn't matter if insurance is private or public if the costs of healthcare are too high. I don't see why there is no compromise. It's very bad for the future of this country.
Under Validation and Storage > Storing password securely: the theory

That code -- using sha256 to hash a password+salt, and store it in a db -- should not be there. Someone WILL copy paste it.

Don't make it easy for people to do something stupid.
The Impersonal Code Review
Samsung’s Galaxy Note8 will reportedly be the company’s most expensive smartphon
That's an effect of competition, not capitalism. As mentioned in the feature article, capitalism itself has a tendency to create monopolies and extract rents since that produces a much higher ROI than engaging in competition to produce useful goods.
Above what they carry is irrelevant. American's can get themselves on average up to 5-7k of debt[1], it's reasonable assumption that if one was determined, they could get $10k in credit.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/average-credit-card-debt
The third person who failed to notice I put ability before knowledge. Also the second person to bring up someone with talent as an example when the original argument is that talent shouldn't matter, and I'm saying there is an expectation that it does. (Unless they say they are a beginner)

If that famous Brazilian percussionist was instead a shitty percussionist with no rhythm - would he still be famous? Would he even be considered a percussionist by other people?

I have a feeling I'm either making my argument poorly or people are trying to read between the lines and missing my point.
Its true, but I'm not sure whether I would choose to be born in a Cholera ridden mid 1850's London or the Ghettos of Inner-City Houston today. We've solved some problems and now face others of course, but my question is whether the earlier problems were of a different kind...
Can you elaborate on which part of Delphi's VCL you are looking for?
The smartest way to program smart things
Have been in the industry for quite a while, and I think one of the often-overlooked non-technical reasons is they are hard to get an intuitive feel of, compared to ANNs. This might seem irrelevant, but think about it - someone who doesn't have a degree/rigorous training in ML or a ML heavy program (and this population is big in the industry, people who are looking to get into ML, from say analytics or software dev) will try out things he/she can identify with. ANNs are positioned exactly right for this - they're sufficiently sophisticated, you can quickly get a high-level idea, and there is the attractive comparison to how our mind works. So that's what people try out early amongst advanced algos. The industry doesn't give you a lot of time to explore, so once you have invested time to pick up ANNs, you tend to hold on to the knowledge.

I've also conducted multiple training sessions/discussions with small groups on ML, and it supports what I've said. SVMs are hard to explain to a general crowd; with ANNs I've enough visual cues to get them started. Sure, they mightn't get the math right away, but they understand enough to be comfortable using a library.

As an aside, a comment here mentions Logistic/linear regression dominates the industry. I think it is for a similar reason. They're simple to understand and try out. That doesn't make them good models, in my experience, on a bunch of real-world problems.

Now if you ask me about the technical cons of SVMs, I'd say - scalability of non-linear kernels and the fact that I've to cherry-pick kernels. Linear and RBF kernels work well on most problems, but even then, for a bunch of problems where RBF seems to work well, the number of support vectors stored by the model can be massive. If I weren't to be pedantic about it and excuse the fact that the kernel seems to be "memorizing" more than "learning", this is still a beast to run in real time. nu-SVMs address this issue to an extent, but then we are back to picking the right kernel for the task. This is one thing I love about ANNs - the kernel (or what essentially is the kernel) is learned.
[HW STARTUPS] Building an Effective Business Model for Your Hardware Startup
The link 302 redirects to "http://SRVHOSTNAME". Google cache (no images/diagrams though): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:G5RqIkY...

Edit: also, copyright date says 2009
Everything you wanted to know about initial coin offering but were afraid to ask
Is there a generic page scraper library or toolset? I can see a ton of demand here and it seems like something you could use on your day to day. Things like this actually seem like an outlier, I'd imagine airfare would be a huge one.
> It would be a full-time job for a year to even have a shot at these supposed grants.

How bad do you want to start a business?

How long do you think startup founders work before having something that is worthy for seed funding?
Your 68kb png infuriates me when it can be compressed to 28kb.
If they did, I would hope people around them recognized that their conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense.

I think I understand the sentiment, but I don't think the three are the same. And if they had similar results, hypothetically, they would be for entirely different reasons.

edit: I'm interested to know more about peoples' concerns about smartphones and other devices emitting harmful radiation. I've never seen anything conclusive at all, but my girlfriend is positive research will eventually reveal something, for example. Very curious if anyone knows more about this. Perhaps I'm totally incorrect.
> Actual capitalists, limited in number as they are, prefer free markets (e.g. no cronyism) because they'll make more money that way over time.

Citation needed.
There was a study a few years ago that came to the conclusion that Banksy is Massive Attack. New bits of Banksy art appeared wherever Massive Attack happened to be on tour at the time, and nowhere else at that point in time.

Of course, he could just be a big fan and follow them everywhere :)
(I'm on the Flutter team)

We're actively working on accessibility right now. It's one of our top priorities for the next few months.
I don't think these are bounties offered by the company. They look user driven. Many are hilariously undervalued with very poor specifications making them pretty much worthless (i.e. the example above).
If they live in a civilized country and they end up going bankrupt it's the state welfare system that's going to have to pay to fix up that mess. Meanwhile the scammers will be busy swimming in money.

I know that it isn't very popular in the cryptocurrency world but I really don't think all regulations are absolutely evil. Unfortunately I think some of them are going to figure it out the hard way.
Thank you! I'm glad to hear that. Being one guy doing all the coding and graphics that's all I can ask for.
This is the exact reason many Chinese don't think we Chinese in mainland could have democracy. I guess there are more people think that way than a decade earlier. Because middle and upper class there are really enjoying the party, and most of the rest are trying their best to rush to the party.

I believe it's not a question of chicken and egg. It's all about part of the system starts to be able to have the environment to support the iteration of new generations better prepared for that (Not sure it has to be democracy, I don't believe it's foundation for many good things, but at least some system people are more fairly treated.).

However, given rulers are fully aware of this and how the system is currently structured, there is no way to have this kind of thing even in just a tiny part of the system. The best chance is after the collapse of it, but people would suffer and there is no guarantee it would emerge, spread and prevail. And my life span is too short. So there is no real hope for this.
I'm not exactly sure what's meant about __metatable, either. I merely quoted directly from the project website:

https://github.com/rvirding/luerl

I assume they don't fully implement some of the metatable semantics, such as __gc on tables or operator overloading. They don't mention lacking coroutines, but the interfaces are missing from their list of supported interfaces.

Coroutines aren't just about green threading or async I/O. I often write tree walkers similar to this:

local function walk(t)
local function walk_next(node)
if node then
coroutine.yield(node, "preorder")
walk_next(node.left)
walk_next(node.right)
coroutine.yield(node, "postorder")
end
end

return coroutine.wrap(function ()
walk_next(t.root)
end)
end

for node, order in walk(tree) do
...
end

Basically, coroutines allow you to easily reverse consumer/producer roles such that both consumer and producer can be implemented in the most natural style. That's hugely helpful when dealing with complex data structures and complex code flow, and Lua is somewhat unique in providing stackful coroutines. (Scheme is perhaps the only other language providing something at least as powerful--call/cc is even more powerful. MoarVM has stackful coroutines, but they're hidden behind Perl 6's narrow gather construct. Though, FWIW, the gather interface works well for the particular example I gave above.)

I understand that Erlang is all about message passing, which can provide similar semantics. But when programming in Lua, stackful coroutines are a huge asset. They don't require copying of messages and are basically free--creating a new coroutine has about the same cost as creating a function closure in terms of memory, and invocation costs are the same as a pcall, which means there's basically no significant performance impact. More importantly, because they're stackful you can generally call unrelated module and library routines without that code needing to be aware that they're running in a coroutine, or that a function they've been passed might yield the coroutine. (The only niggle is if library code passes a function, which itself might yield, into another coroutine. In that case the function might yield to the wrong resume point. But IME this is very rare, specifically because coroutines often obviate the need rely on callbacks as an interface for result production. Aside: Does Erlang support passing functions--and closures--to another Erlang process?)
Apparently spreading malware is pretty high value, actually.
postgrest.com vs postgres.rest: this is a bit confusing. Why not pick a different name?
Alignment isn't a minimal benefit; it is super important.

It's not just for neatness; either. Alignment shows where differences are between similar lines. And not necessarily consecutive lines. For instance, if we rapidly flip the editing window back and forth between two buffers showing similar code, we can see the differences as the moving parts in a two-frame animation.

Even in proportional fonts, the digits 0 to 9 get the same width. Why? So that tables of figures will look reasonable.

We don't want 1111.11 looking narrower than the 100.00 in the preceding row.

I want everything to be crisply aligned between lines like:

xr = x * cos(theta) - y * sin(theta);
yr = x * sin(theta) + y * cos(theta);

This makes it easy to see where the differences are. Any gratuitous deviation from the alignment is visually distracting. I want to be able to scan the thing vertically y and see that I have two x's, two y's, cos/sin sin/cos, and -/+ at a glance.
Given that the insurance companies know exactly who the patient is, exactly what treatments he is receiving, and exactly when and where they are happening it seems like it would be pretty easy to uncover a scam if there was one. And they have a lot of incentive to do so!
> More like what has always been considered "China" got taken over by the Kidan, then the Monguls, then the Manchus, each time forcefully, but then slowly emerging as a "More Unified China", rinse and repeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_States_period

> The Warring States period (Chinese: 戰國時代; pinyin: Zhànguó shídài) was an era in ancient Chinese history following the Spring and Autumn period and concluding with the Qin wars of conquest that saw the annexation of all other contender states, which ultimately led to the Qin state's victory in 221 BC as the first unified Chinese empire known as the Qin dynasty.

What historical event created the first unified Chinese empire in your alternate view of world history?
But… you don’t really have to use Gmail to use most of Google’s other products, just as you don’t really have to use (actively) Google+ to use other Google products either.
Nope. Historically proven false multiple times.

Free markets lead to regulatory capture over time.
That data (AOL search data) wasn't intentionally released so while pseudonyms had been used, no serious effort at fully (or more fully) anonymizing or protecting users had occurred. Here the intent is to be able to produce data sets where individual identification will be statistically unlikely if not impossible (by fuzzing the data), or where individuals can refute the data because there's a statistical chance the data is a lie (probability biased in favor of truth so that the aggregate data is still useful).
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14615377 and marked it off-topic.
How can it be that there are not decades of thorough, prioritized studies on the connection between air pollution and cognitive impairment?
Most things don't make money. That doesn't mean you won't. Why would anyone play a frustrating game where you die every 2 seconds? With crappy graphics? Or should I say flappy graphics. Of course for every one of those there are 1000 that earn nothing (most I ever made was $20). But building games is still a worth task, just don't assume 50K a day income.
True, but even so. Most bubbles see at least a few players stake long bets against them (e.g. housing), usually whoever is rich enough to eat months or years of margin calls.

Letting pessimists enter the market rationalizes things that much faster. For something like BTC, the market is actively pressured to stay irrational because any non-holder who expects prices to drop can't enter - you only play if you're bullish.
To be clear, I think you're right that no tracking is better than trying to protect data.

However, it's important to understand that 'anonymization' is very different than the practice of "Differential Privacy."

I'm no expert but here is how I understand it as a simplified example:

Imagine your information is stored in a spreadsheet. It is storing your weight, height, zipcode, age and name.

The 'anonymization' spreadsheet would still have a unique row dedicated to you (similar to a spreadsheet) and it may replace your name with an ID# or an encrypted string. Now, just like in the AOL dataleak that information being stored as a single line item is still easy to backtrack as there is likely no one else with your weight, height and age combination in your zipcode. So a hacker can identify a single person.

Differential Privacy would store information differently, perhaps in separate spreadsheets, one that is list of heights, one that is a list of weights, etc, etc. No two spreadsheets would store the information in the same order (#3 on the height list would not be #3 on the weight list) and it may even contain some incorrect dummy information.

There would be some sort of algorithmic relation however that allows a system to create outputs in which the data has meaningful information (trends, means, standard deviations etc) but it can not be back-tracked to identify any single unique row.

Differential Privacy allows us to see the trend "Males age 45 are taller on average than Females age 45" but not say "User #155083 is age 45, weighs 195lbs, and lives in zipcode 10001"

That's a big difference in privacy, and while it isn't perfect it is a step in the right direction. While I wish more companies would adopt a no-data policy, it is at least better that they are responsible as can be with the data they have.
Someone started charging for this service near the end of my time at University of Washington. I think the university implemented their own notification system so that class registration didn't become pay to win.
Well, using it manually is just cumbersome. API Gateway is not specifically designed for Lambda, so it has lots of settings which you would think are just default for building your API. Using it through Cloudformation or Serverless is way easier.
> The value of this model is more than the cost of them doing your tax returns

It's likely the value Google got out of scanning your email wasn't worth that much in terms of modelling profiles for ads.

Probably because having both your search history and "anonymized" Google analytics, plus the sea of data that comes from owning Android is more than enough data that Google/Doubleclick needs.

From a purely capitalist perspective I'd bet the utility of them scraping this data no longer outweighs the privacy costs.

But at the same time Google is still scanning attachments for child porn and likely other data out of national security interests. And they still can access your data on a case-by-case basis which from a FISA perspective is a rubber-stamp away from accessing your data from 2 hops away from someone who may or may not have done something bad.

I personally will not weigh using Google vs any other email service in terms of privacy any different after this measure. But I still appreciate their efforts to reduce the "standard pratice" nature of scanning private email. If I do use anything Google-related I will not associate my personal identity in any way with the service, which is still requirement for Google play.

You can still use a fake gmail account and prepaid Google gift cards bought with cash to disassociate your identity from using the service. Although that's still well beyond the investment the majority of people are willing to make.

Regardless privacy comes at a cost these days. Good OPSEC > trusting cloud services privacy policy. You can either not use the services or invest in protecting your data when using them.

I will still cheer on Google's efforts to make those of us who care about privacy live's easier. I'm not naive enough to ignore how their business model works but that doesn't mean they always have to take the easy route and hand everything over without considering the costs - as many ISP/Telecom companies seem to do.
Quality is objective? I don't think so, not unless you mean something different by "quality" than most people.
> If someone has to violate the law to produce value, then it is likely that they haven't really "produced" any value.

Imagine you created an app that allowed Gay and Lesbian couples plan their wedding, and you operated in states that haven't legalized same-sex marriage.

Are you stealing from the commons?

Just because a law exists on the books, doesn't mean it's a just law.