skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The question is whether the business would respond ethically by paying fair compensation for the program the employee created. The answer is almost surely no, so it is ethical (in my book) to extract the compensation by force.

Probably not legal though.
Sharding is exactly that. It only works if multiple blockchains can interoperate. The common protocol would be Ethereum or whatever.
Hellas Sat 3 launched successfully
It's a benchmark for transistor density, nothing else. Of course a single company could grow faster than transistor density can scale. The only possible insight, if you can call it that, is that facebook owns more square centimeters of transistors now than they did in 2012.
Oh excellent. What led you from that article to this post? I don't see a direct link between the two.
The pretense of tying the state of the system as is to biology seems to amazingly silly. We are the product of billions of years of evolution. Society is a much more recent artifact that has already seemed to go through several stages over thousands of years none of which has had time to leave much of a mark on the underlying biology.

In the words of jack nicolsons character in as good as it gets sell crazy someplace else we're all stocked up here.
Isn't that what Cosmos is doing?
Usually with BSD you can apply new patches to old systems without any trouble. No need to upgrade everything.
Thanks for that article!

Whenever I see this kind of thing come up I think of the chicken nuggets scene from The Wire.

tl;dr Just code to the spec, and leave your creativity for your own time.

https://mortonandgeorge.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the-wire-on...
I was under the impression I was responding to the question

>> How have slaves ever historically created leverage?

They do it in all of the ways that other people do.

> Because what you just wrote sounds an awful [lot?] like a defence of slavery.

I will note that in another thread from today, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14651019, you can see people speaking with approval of a company that funds training for its employees with a provision that, should they leave the company within a longish period of getting the training, they owe a large lump sum to repay the training costs. This differs in no way from a traditional contract of slavery, under which, if you want to leave your current employer, you must pay them a large lump sum.
Yes, but descriptions that reduce complex interactions to their simplest form -- e.g. baseball is "grown men hitting a ball with a stick" -- is an old trick to conceal complexity for dubious motives.

It's true that baseball is, in fact, grown men hitting a ball with a stick, but it isn't merely that. We all understand that that description is designed to ridicule something that is much bigger than its parts.

So, yes, yours is a literal description, but it's also a clumsy and unnatural account that's crafted to manipulate the reader.

Which is fine, as far as it goes; I just think your argument would be stronger without it.
Finally, an excuse to learn to use theorem provers and include them in my research as an auxiliary tool!

Note that they claim performance similar to TensorFlow in CPU only. But a direct translation of this to Python TensorFlow code could run in GPU, and is probably easy to make. It wouldn't be proven, but it would be much more likely to be correct than the code you have constructed for your research just now.

Also as scribu states, this doesn't allow you to prove final goals of the system like "classify images with 95% accuracy", nor does it save you from insufficient or inaccurate data.

(Edit: added last paragraph, finished reading paper)
Can you point to an instance of this in the Rust project or another comparable community?
PyImageSearch is absolutely fantastic. We couldn't have got a top spot in an AI hackathon without your blog: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OreCICEcQWY&t=2m45s

Looking forward to your book. Keep up the great work.
Chrome team wasn't actually that big when they launched; IIRC they got their Founder's Award soon after I started at Google and all the team member names fit on 2 PowerPoint (well, actually Google Presentation) slides. This was almost 2 years after they had launched for internal dogfooding, so the initial team was likely quite a bit smaller.

I would chalk it up to the massive amount of experience among the early team members. Chrome was started by ex-Firefox people. The initial tech lead for Chrome, Ben Goodger, was the former tech lead for Firefox. Chrome Extensions were developed by the guy who invented GreaseMonkey. V8 was designed & led by Lars Bak, a veteran of Beta, Self, StrongTalk, and eventually tech lead of Java HotSpot. Google literally hired all of the world experts in the technologies involved and had them put together a new browser.

Rather than Chrome being the story of huge resources, I see Chrome as an example of what a small team of highly-skilled, highly-motivated experts can do.

Edit: I found a full list of team members and description of their background from a blog post at launch:

https://s.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome-team.h...

https://www.niallkennedy.com/blog/2008/09/google-chrome.html

It really was about 20 people, and they all have extensive resumes working on products like Firefox, HotSpot, GMail, Google Gears, or other Google products.
Considering that the DA threw everything but the kitchen sink at the Cosby case, a retrial would be either unlikely or unfruitful, given the judge's intentional leaking of juror's names to the press and hinging his judicial career on a guilty verdict prior to the trial, a second trial could result in legitimate claims of malicious prosecution, making any conviction easy to appeal and ultimately overturn by a higher court.
>But reading McMH does not compete with browsing those real estate listings. So it's probably fair use.

No facet of the fair use defense is based on the fact that one is exploiting a market for the work that the rightsholder currently isn't. On the contrary, the fact that one is exploiting any market at all with the work is a strike against any fair use defense.
I think a lot of the smaller details this article glosses over contribute to FB's ability to run on so few machines. For example, comparing my anecdotes of FB's internal network (they probably have the most organized/mature IPv6 network on the planet) with those of my AWS public cloud experience, I'd reckon that a lot of FB applications would require architectural redesigns to operate in that kind of environment.

The real question isn't "can FB be hosted on AWS?", it's "why isn't FB competing with AWS?" because what they've already got is much better for the range of applications that they deploy.
I think you're underestimating how big the cryptocurrency market will be.
Interesting guess!

Let's see. What if I take all mentions of each language on HN's who's hiring threads, vs % of women interested in each language?

There is correlation!

Chart:

- http://i.imgur.com/mcN6Ghz.png

If we take out the 2 outliers (r, go) - the correlation is 0.61.

SELECT *
FROM (
SELECT word, COUNT(*) c FROM (
SELECT SPLIT(REGEXP_REPLACE(LOWER(text), r'[^a-z]', ' '), ' ') words
FROM `bigquery-public-data.hacker_news.full`
WHERE parent IN (
SELECT id
FROM `bigquery-public-data.hacker_news.full`
WHERE title LIKE 'Ask HN: Who is hiring?%2017%'
)
), UNNEST(words) word
WHERE LENGTH(word)>1 OR (word='r')
GROUP BY 1
HAVING c>30
) a JOIN (
SELECT LOWER(WantWorkLanguage) language, COUNT(*) responses, ROUND(100*COUNTIF(v='Female')/COUNT(*), 2) perc_female
FROM (
SELECT SPLIT(WantWorkLanguage , '; ') WantWorkLanguage, Gender v
FROM `fh-bigquery.stackoverflow.survey_results_public_2017`
WHERE WantWorkLanguage!='NA' AND Gender!='NA'
), UNNEST(WantWorkLanguage) WantWorkLanguage
GROUP BY 1
HAVING responses>2000
) b
ON a.word=b.language

(caveat: "go" is an overloaded word)
I don't think there's an ethical consideration here; it's a transactional relationship, value delivered for wages paid. If the company could get the job done cheaper in a different manner, it would do it and dismiss the employee. Is that defensible? The employee is creating value for the company. They're holding up their end of the bargain.

Companies exploit employees all the time; if something made by an employee happens to be particularly valuable, it's not like the company gives the employee a big chunk of the profits. It's not like big hits can be manufactured on demand or incentivized by bonuses, so why would they let the employee keep some of the windfall?
Just a couple of weeks back, one of my colleagues worked an extra 25 or so hours, but wasn't paid for the full amount. He went and had a chat with his boss on Monday, demanding to be correctly paid.

The office door was shut, and when I saw him an hour later, he told me he had decided to not worry about the money "for various reasons." He's still expected (required) to work all overtime, it's billable, he's just not going to be paid for anything beyond the standard 40 hours.
How is this a "developer" machine? Glossy screen and apple chicklet keyboard.
A well-known psychiatrist with bipolar disorder, Kay Jamison, published a book titled "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament". In her own words:

"The main purpose of this book is to make a literary, biographical, and scientific argument for a compelling association, not to say actual overlap, between two temperaments- the artistic and the manic-depressive- and their relationship to the rhythms and cycles, or temperament, of the natural world. The emphasis will be on understanding the relationship between moods and imagination, the nature of moods- their variety, their contrary and opposition qualities, their flux, their extremes (causing, in some individuals, occasional episodes of 'madness')- and the importance of moods in igniting thought, changing perceptions, creating chaos, forcing order upon that chaos, and enabling transformation." (5)

Some of the persons mentioned: Byron, Tennyson, Melville, William and Henry James, Schumann, Coleridge, van Gogh, Hemingway, Virginia Wolf. I think she presents a compelling argument that extreme fluctuations in mood, when coupled with an enforced rational thinking process results in more interesting creative output. Granted, their lives may still suck.
Folks over at JetBrains built a whole big tool to handle things like this[0], so there is some non-joke motivation. Still, it's nice that Racket can handle this perfectly well in plaintext.

--

[0] - https://www.jetbrains.com/mps/
Bulk SMS Communications Web Tool
Hi everyone!
My team and I just built a web tool that allows a user (in this case, event coordinators, coaches, group leaders of any sort) to quickly send SMS texts out to group(s) of recipients. A recipient can respond directly to that SMS and it will only go to original sender. So for example, if you're coordinating a huge company picnic with 200 people, you can send out a mass SMS text notifying everyone that the parking lot is full and that people should park across the street. The use cases are pretty open ended.

If you're interested, send an email to beta@texted.io with the subject “Texted.io Beta” if you want an invite! You’ll get 1000 texts (to send or receive). In exchange, my team and I just ask for some project feedback!
Thanks, Alex
Yes, and here is a whole movie to explain why: http://canwetakeajoke.com/

> But are you really gonna die on this hill?

Yep, its tasteless, but the alternative allow folks like you to edit what I read and eventually think. I rather deal with the filth then the sterile world of what is acceptable to you with only approved targets of derision and protest. Being in fear of every word uttered to be outside the bounds for some person who might hear would be the purest kind of horror.

Freedom of speech is there to protect the ugly not shine the widely accepted.

> And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

Why not? Since that is the whole course of history. People don't lose rights overnight, it comes one drop at a time.
Sounds cool, but how do you "state a formal theorem defining what it means for the system to be correct" when the task is classifying objects in an image, for example?
>Because you need a lot more than three or four amendments, each of which might not be ratified.

They would be separate battles, sure, but I think 3 or 4 amendments would solve a majority of the underlying structural problems we face.

A few well-chosen amendments would break our current congressional gridlock, allowing laws to be passed to further address systemic problems but don't themselves require constitutional amendments.

1. voting rights & auditability

2. gerrymandering / district drawing

3. campaign finance

Just these 3 changes alone would radically shift the accountability and representation of politicians in federal government. It would be transformative in terms of policy shifts.

>If you look at the list of lies told by trump, you'll find that they each need amendments to fix, not just laws passed, since it laws are only as good as a president that enforces them.

This is not true. Trump is only 'protected' from Impeachment because the house is not representative of the nation. This is caused by (1) gerrymandering districts and (2) setting an artificial 435 maximum on the number of house representatives. Fixing (2) doesn't even require an amendment, technically, and would shift the electoral college such that Trump would not have won in the first place.

>A parliamentary system is more useful.

It would be interesting for a state to actually adopt a parliamentary system.

>There isn't an oversight branch that enforces checks and balances, for example.

That is the Press. There certainly could be more explicit legal protections to formalize the role journalists play in investigating corruption and whistleblowers.
It's like the old Milton Friedman story told by Stephen Moore:

'At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”'
Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems. Look at email (based on SMTP) and the internet (based on TCP/IP). This statement only expects a successful new protocol to follow the same trend.
This is the final state of tech (until general AI). Fully-proven infrastructure, AI-powered user level features.
People are a disparate group and their needs matter only in proportion to their wealth. Something can provide negative value for a million people and be extremely valuable to bill gates and earn a lot of money.
It's bad for the same reason all short-sighted goals are bad. You can't repeatedly institutionalize short term goals over long term goals without suffering long term failure.

Sometimes people produce less for reasons that are actually very important. This should be doubly clear in software, where "line of code" are not an accurate measure of successful work.
The first step would be to stop using C (and any other memory-unsafe language). The vast majority of these problems come about by memory corruption tricking the computer into executing attacker-delivered code (or ROP gadgets).

Yes there will be other security flaws like missing access checks, etc. But none are so pervasive nor so devastating as out-of-bounds read/write. If C arrays were bounds-checked by default then the majority (literally) of exploits would be rendered void immediately. The Rust borrow checker, Swift ARC, or GCs would eliminate use-after-free. Combined that would drastically reduce all available attack surface.

The second step is to assign a separate identity to every piece of code, rather than running everything as the current user. Unless it has been initiated by a user action there is no reason for malware to even have write access to your files (or system files for that matter). The idea that any ol random bit of code that manages to execute should be just as trusted as the user is crazytown. IMHM macOS SIP is a good step in that direction, enforcing read-only access to /System and most of /usr.

The third step is to have pervasive copy-on-write, including in all filesystems by default. If your system does get pwned it should be a trivial matter of booting to a read-only recovery mode and rolling back to a known-good state.

The fourth step is to have more interlocks enforced by the system that cannot be overridden. For example there might be a legitimate reason to truncate shadow copies but why should anyone with admin rights be allowed to do so from a normal login session? That's just stupid. (For those unaware, malware now routinely disables Windows' volume shadow copy and nukes the existing copies to stop you from rolling your files back). Stuff like that should require rebooting into single-user mode or recovery mode.

There's always a lot of resistance to the idea of dropping C. Before you go replying with a counter-argument I urge you to stop and think seriously. We've been pushing secure coding standards as an industry for many years now. Everyone is well aware of the risks. We have tools like Address Sanitizer and Undefined Behavior Sanitizer. We have lots of static analysis tools. We have tools like valgrind. And yet... the exploits keep on coming. Despite the thousands upon thousands of years of effort poured into fixing it, we still routinely have new out-of-bounds and use-after-free exploits in critical C code. Even experienced developers get bitten by signed integer overflow and other forms of undefined behavior... and most C code is not being written by experienced careful developers. Embedded code is even worse. If you read the source behind your car's ECU you'd probably never drive again.

It is time to admit the truth: programming languages should be memory-safe by default. Period. Whatever the cost it is worth paying.
Creating ways to allow users to control their own groups and block content they don't want is cheaper, less controversial, and probably more effective in terms of user satisfaction.
> Its application code is still developed using PHP

This is surprising since 1) Facebook is most likely using Hack and 2) it could save a lot of money by moving to Go.

> Facebook’s entire site runs on HHVM (desktop, API and mobile)

Isn't Facebook running mostly on React? I'm guessing HHVM only really powers the API, business logic, etc.
OP here

The solution is very simple: as mentioned in the article, just use a newer kernel and always set memory limits for containers, the blog post is based on an older kernel (2.6.32) that quite a few people irresponsibly still use in containerized environments, mostly because EL6 is so popular among enterprises.

In newer kernels, allocations from object pools are now tied to the limits of the memory cgroups that requested them in userspace, if any, so you wouldn't incur in this specific issue and you would just effectively have a container not being able to use more than X MB of dcache entries (although there are probably other minor ones, for example related to sharing global kernel mutexes and such).
Uber but for Workers’ Comp: Company’s Plan Neglects Injured Drivers
https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Dell_XPS_13_(9360)

Continuous hissing sound with headphones

Open alsamixer and set "Headphone Mic Boost" gain to 10 dB (See discussion on reddit). Note that this does reduce the volume slightly.

You may also run the equivalent command:

$ amixer -c PCH cset 'name=Headphone Mic Boost Volume' 1
I just love this. For some reason, our ways of specifying what we want a computer to do (I don't want to say 'language') remain mired the same territory we started in with punched cards (which I actually got to use as a 10 year old, which was fun).

I'm not sure if this particular cut is the right idea, but it's good to see experimentation. A bias I have here is that I think these ideas should be rigorously separated from the concept that some sort of WYSIWYG editor will allow non-programmers to code.
We run the survey every year, and we plan to do more qualitative tracking of the impacts of this project as well.
The product being bought and sold is the same, by objective measure; and that's what counts in a business transaction, rather than a personal relationship.
There is little point to caching non-existent objects, the benefit disapares after a second at most.

The smart solution would be to expire these objects out of the cache reasonably rapidly.
Well, the stack around the OSI model seems to have lost to TCP/IP due to being late and overengineered, so possibly?
>other than actual food waste and spoilage, of which there was tons

Well yes. Not plastic bags but the overall level of wastage. (To say nothing of the energy/materials overhead associated with operating a restaurant.)

I have nothing against restaurants. I'm just saying that Blue Apron packaging waste is pretty small potatoes compared to a lot of other ways of obtaining food.
Bingo... I can't count how many restaurant meals I've eaten that could have been 500 calories, but have been unnecessarily inflated to 1500-2000 calories by adding butter/sugar/fat to improve the taste. I'm not saying fat is bad for you - far from it - good fats like avocado and olive oil are essential, but you can definitely tell that some restaurants (especially chains) have perfected the unhealthy sugar/fat/salt triad in order to maximize taste - this can't be good for you to eat every meal... (occasionally, go for it)
I wasn't arguing one way or the other. I wanted to see if people thought it was a massive boost or just a marginal one. Seems like you think its marginal.
World’s smallest Arduino measures 12 x 12mm
This isn't true in the United States if the business is organized as an LLC which is definitely the most common way of handling residential real estate. I, like bigtunacan, am very curious about this part of the story. It doesn't really add up.

EDIT: thinking about this more I suppose that one possibility is that the operator brother is taking basically all of the rent as income and the financier brother, instead of making a return from rent, is hoping to make a return from appreciation (selling the houses later for a profit). TBH this doesn't seem super likely to me either, but it's possible.

I really don't think that the author is correctly explaining his tax situation (which is fine. it wasn't the main thrust of the post).
I suppose the reason Facebook doesn't resell their infrastructure is because their endgame is to _be_ the internet. From their point of view, any site you're on that isn't Facebook is their competition.
I have a friend that works in the PL lab at Northeastern on a Racket Library. He uses emacs evil mode.
That's the original inspiration, but I thought people adopted the exponential rate from the original context as a bench mark for all sorts of stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law#Other_formulatio.... At best I can figure the problem with the auhtor's usage is that it's not relative to a per unit performance but rather a per enterprise performance, ie not a faster server but more of them over a unit of time. I'm not entirely convinced the restriction to a per unit basis is valid, but maybe that's a more meaningful definition than just arbitrary exponential growth.