skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's almost as if software technology can't magically solve problems inherent in the flawed nature of humanity.
> If there was a benefit to breaking down a file rather than replicating it, AWS would be using this efficiency to provide a better service.

Are you suggesting that AWS is doing every possible thing that would increase efficiency, or in other words, that AWS' services are optimally efficient? That seems very unlikely.
Why do you feel entitled to start a startup?

Everything you mentioned aside from your medical expenses is a choice. If you choose to prioritize things that prevent you from starting a startup, then you are choosing not to start a startup.
Please provide a little more detail. At the moment I can only conclude that you might have some pretty sophisticated customers.

I've personally never (knowingly) seen the EV extended green bar generate any positive change in general end user buying behaviour.
If someone wants to start a business and call it lifestyle, great for them. It usually tells their business is not all their is in their life, and that's great.

When someone else calls a business "lifestyle" just because it is small, i believe it is condescending.

If I called the CEO of the 20-employees plumbing company i sometimes use, and asked him "how's your lifestyle business doing?" he would probably hang up on me.
> AirBnB is the obvious one...they started it because they were literally a month away from being homeless

How much of this statement is real and how much is just a marketing narrative put together afterward to make project look better or humanize? I see this over and over in every segment.

I laugh every time I read that an investment/asset manager claims to had a paper route or lemonade stand and.or bought 1 stock and suddenly wanted to be an investment/ asset manager.
There's a handy PDF link in the top left corner; I don't know if it shows on mobile.
Well you've picked up on very difficult bit of semantics, and one that is probably worth its own discussion entirely.

The code is verifiable by a skilled engineer (in good faith) -- so there is a catch. Any body that produces a smart contract requires the trust of those who take part. Alternatively, it requires trust in one's own expert engineer to verify the content and functioning of a smart contract.

Where Ethereum is trustless is in the execution of the contract once verified. There is then no course for non-delivery if the code is designed this way.

So, it's trustless at one level, and requires trust at another. When I say it's semantics it's just this last point.

Personally I don't see the problems other see with that, because I don't see blockhain tech and tokens replacing everything all in one go, including the need for governing bodies and law. I don't see it as a choice between one or the other. For what it's worth, I'm closer to a socialist than the usual libertarian ranks that flock to these things. I think the world would benefit from the efficiency it could bring about, once the kinks are worked through.
They should make the first banner video they show "steady", using some kind of video editing software. It's not super-shaky, but it made me very very slightly queasy for a second, and I can't be the only one. What if one of the sufferers happens has $1.5mil to spend?!

Reminds me of SeaQuest DSV. The "Gazelle" (aka "Stinger"), a personal high-speed submarine craft.
> Torrent hosts do not have a monetary incentive to host files.

And on private torrent sites, where there is an incentive (usually non-monetary) to seed torrents, torrents really don't die all that often.
This article should be viewed not from a point of technology disruption, but from a point of marketing disruption. The correct analogy would be with Lexus rather than Tesla (apparently the latter was brought in purely for extra clickbaitness). Lexus offered no technical innovation, however gained supply chain optimizations allowed Toyota to launch a car that offered significantly more value per money then it was common for the market at that time. A flavor of exclusivity together with non-exclusive price tag made Lexus a huge marketing success. So is the Kwid marketing disruption? Could be. If it's a right product for the right market - why not? Is the parallel with Tesla relevant? Absolutely not, because Tesla is known first of all as a technology break-through. Of course, good marketing & PR played huge role for the Tesla's success, but it's still secondary. All in all, the article is about a successful product/market fit case. It has nothing to do with technology advances.
That is correct! Here's their proposed fix https://github.com/paritytech/parity/commit/e06a1e8dd9cfd8bf...
For the below paragraphs alone I think this article is more than deserving of the front page:

> Short of a supercar delivery, I have never witnessed such time and effort spent on a customer. Actually, that’s the jaded American in me talking. Power Renault Kattupakkam didn’t spend this time and effort. They devoted it. They invested it, in a way merely given lip service during the sales training most American salespeople allegedly get, and which clearly isn't building goodwill with customers.

> In the US, everything about the car ownership experience — from research to negotiation to delivery to service — has been utterly and depressingly commoditized. Any positive emotional relationship between sellers and buyers has been sacrificed on the altar of efficiency. With rare exceptions — generally limited to the ultra high-end — the American buying experience is a circle of resentment. It’s I want your time vs. I don’t have much time.

I'm tired of feeling jaded about the American car buying experience so hearing something like this is very refreshing.
A crime.
And Brooks doesn't understand Musk. He's not saying current AI is a threat. He's talking about the very long term future. What AI will be like in 30 years, or even further.

Its inevitable we will eventually solve AI. And when that day comes it will be dangerous. How easy do you think it is to control a being thousands of times smarter than you? If it was invented today we would have no ability to control it. Our best AI control mechanisms are just pressing a button to reward or punish it for it's behavior. You can't imagine any way that would fail?

Our slightly larger brains made the difference between swinging in trees and walking on the moon. But we are only the very first intelligence to evolve. Its unlikely we are anywhere near the peak of what is possible.

And this will likely happen in our lifetimes. The median expected date estimated by AI researchers is in the 2040s. Sure they can't possibly predict it very well, but who else can? And there is something to the wisdom of crowds.
If we distribute OCI images via IPFS, problem solved.
You can just say your friend gave you a phone for the trip since yours just broke and you haven't had a chance to set it up.
Things like this are why I think Tezos, when/if it comes out, has a bright future. I want a formal proof for any contract I use with real-money.
I agree. On the other hand, at least now we have something that seems to mostly work, and that's a good start.
Cancers and other similar diseases are so difficult to address precisely because

My general understanding is that they are so difficult to address because we don't really understand them.

I have a condition that gets partly explained as "overactive immune response." I really hate the concept of autoimmune diseases and I hope that someday it will be mocked as "god, what those barbaric idiots believed back in the day."
I can't pay my phone bill with Firefox, for example, and have to use Chromium for that. It's a redirection problem between the company's website and the external payment service they use, been going on for years. Similar annoyances all over the place from all sorts of major corporations that all seem to invest the bare minimum in cross-platform QA.
I should have said I realized I could be better at the game of high school student looking to get into a good college.
Yes. This is how capitalism works. If there is an inefficiency in the market, there is an opportunity for a competitor to beat you on price or quality. If AWS is not incorporating these efficiencies into their tech, then Microsoft Azure will and beat them by providing either a cheaper or higher quality service.

If FileCoin actually worked as a better technology, Google or some big name would say they will start using it to beat AWS in the data storage game.

I'm not saying FileCoin is useless, it is useful to store 3D printed gun designs and illegal media, because it is outside the reach of the law. But to think it is a more efficient technical solution to data storage is a bit naive...
TIL. My level of knowledge apparently is at 2014 (e.g. http://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/twostroke-vehicles-are-th...).

The problem is, even if no new ones are sold, there will be a mass of old 2-stroke scooters being used/sold until they break...
Miscommunication there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pension_(lodging)

Pension has a totally different meaning in Europe in the context of accommodation.
A new business run by reasonably competent people is like a lottery in the sense that everything takes a certain amount of luck. Stated another way, there are sometimes obstacles that you can't see, directly, and so you don't know why you're failing. "Bad luck."

If you're really lucky, then luck doesn't affect your business.
No idea - maybe another way to think about it is im really bad when these constraints aren't in place
As I said here last week "Also the lead developer is some kid who believes very much in moving fast and breaking things. This philosophy may work for a social network site but not for other people's money."

This philosophy permeates the community of Etherum development.

Bitcoin disabled most of the smart contracts op codes for a very good reason.

I wouldn't recommend putting anything of value into an Etherum smart contract and find a project with more responsible developers who take a more "wait and see" approach.
Did they find that out? I thought they realised it's unprofessional and unacceptable to turn your users into hosting nodes.
Again, you haven't made any case for not using open source third party software. The other other example you've come up with was a close source proprietary internet service.

Very few people, for instance, use the official Bitcoin Core wallet.
You're wrong that Iridium is "struggling", they're in the process of launching and commissioning their next generation satellite system. It is used so extensively by the US DoD, NATO militaries, aircraft based phone systems and maritime systems that it's quite well positioned. It is the only real LEO truly global coverage satellite phone network that includes high latitude polar regions. The globalstar bent-pipe network architecture and coverage is a joke.
That may be, but if so, it might be worse. What's worse, not getting a lot of uptake for this idea that's been hard going for others, or getting the uptake because of trade-offs you made that make it a ticking time-bomb that may damage the reputation of the idea for years to come and set it back?
I understand what you're saying, but are other paths besides being born with a silver spoon.

My family was on food stamps when I was a kid. After college, I worked for a long time in finance before joining the tech industry 7 years ago.

My savings during the first part of my career gave me the risk tolerance to do startups.
>[scared the bejeezus out of me when I was little, I didn't realise for some time it was pure satire and no adult would be expected to understand him].

Yeah, as a kid, I too thought Wonka was serious. It took viewing it as a much older person to see the satire there.
Read the Solidity documentation on visibility [1]. Public, private, internal, external, that really seem to mix overlapping concerns. In the visibility documentation, it explains that the default is public.

Then, in another section of the documentation, when talking about function types [2], not specifying internal or external defaults visibility to internal.

It doesn't seem like the simplest or most consistent way to express these concepts, and certainly not the safest way.

[1] http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/contracts.html#vis...
[2] http://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/develop/types.html#functio...
No rollback this time. The chain with this hack must have the longer Proof-Of-Vitalik.

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/887782650026631168
Are you saying everyone needs to write their wallet from scratch?
PDFBox from Apache has this: https://pdfbox.apache.org/1.8/cookbook/pdfacreation.html
Hold on to your hats boys, we might be getting another hard fork!
This guy is smart, and dead on:

- People who don't understand AI are afraid of it; those who do know how fragile and limited it is.

- The call for "regulation" of technology that doesn't exist is too vague to be useful.

- It's the AI in self-driving cars which has the most potential to immediately kill/save thousands of people, and it's telling that it's not this technology that Elon seems to be calling to be regulated. Whether or not regulation is the right thing to do, any argument for/against regulation of self-driving cars could be applied just the same to a hypothetical super AI, but the former is tied to real, practical problems which exist today.

Brooks clearly knows what's up.

Also, to add my own commentary:

- The dystopian robot future we should all be afraid of is not the [paperclip maximizer](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) Musk and friends wave their arms about, but marketing/business algorithms that have ripple effects at the scale of societies-- the Facebook, YouTube, and Google ranking algorithms are examples of this. We could shortly be in a place where large scale human behavior is shaped by algorithms with more data and insight about collective human behavior than any single human could have, and it will be used to optimize for money making instead of stability, fairness, or cultural values. Some society-shaping decisions/policies could even be made without any human awareness of the reasoning behind them. This is not less scary if they're being made by fragile/flaky algorithms.
I wouldn't care for a pdf viewer in the browser. What is the usecase for having this in-build?
>>Yes. What else can they do? Most traffic is secure and the internet is moving more and more towards secure traffic everywhere. ISPs can't intercept the content of the traffic. So, they might block the IP of the server but they can't block the information if it is shared in social media for example

That is funny right there, see the difference is people have a CHOICE to get their news from facebook (which facebook is not a news organization but anyway) or some other source

I however do not have a CHOICE in broadband internet providers, I use comcast or Nothing, there is no other option for me.

I have CHOOSEN not to use Facebook instead I use other services to communicate with friends and family, I can not CHOOSE the use another ISP as none are available

See the difference...

But continue to educate me on how uninformed I am on this issue despite my near 20 years working professionally in the field
Time for another hard fork!
I fully expect in 30 years few people will die from cancer, but instead we'll be dying from things like antibiotic immune staph and strep.
Your a troll
I admittedly waste quite a bit of time on Reddit and am no fan of the_donald but I totally agree. Unfortunately that doesn't suit the narrative being pushed here.
If the company was still owned by us I do not believe a $90K salary is a given, especially prior to that person going full time to run the company at a higher efficiency.

We have reason to believe our lease is good indefinitely.

We think there are other things of value in the company than the lease. Starting one of these places yourself isn't cheap, easy or quick. Making sure your dorm is listed in new hire/intern/founder material takes time and connections, generally from former residents.

It also takes experience and skill to properly lay out houses and incentive structures which motivate residents to cooperate and be good to each other. Some of our systems are pretty elaborate. For example: we manufacture large batches of dish sets and silverware each with a different animal. Residents are assigned an animal, and only allowed to use the dish set with that animal. This has lots of utility: it means residents have to clean their dishes before making more dishes, it creates personal responsibility around abandoned dirty dishes so the kitchens do not become hellish, and it mitigates the variation in the definition of "clean" one might find between an undergraduate intern and a doctor doing their residency. We also believe it is a key piece of what has helped prevent the dorms from ever having a flu outbreak.
These mistakes are predictable and inexcusable.

The Ethereum developers sold a vision of smart contracts, where the code is the contract. However, their hubris lead to them attempting to implement a complex language, instead of starting the endeavor with a small, simple, verifiable language. Similarly, their belief in their own infallibility lead them to write code that is not tested, and to create capabilities that are literally untestable.

This was bound to result in multiple massive failures. The dao was one. This is another. There will be more, because it's an overly complex implementation.

It doesn't matter, though. Only dumb-fuck crypto futurist suckers have ether exposure, so it won't matter that they get zero'd out once a competent team enters the space. That said, the space attracts incompetence like lights attract moths, so it'll take a while to find a team that is technically competent and also has the marketing chops to get traction.
Yeah I've definitely seen Arteezy on PA hit neutrals until he gets a few non-crits in a row, then go gank.
> Denormalization when done right should NOT result in duplication

Isn't that what it is by definition? Can you give an example of how would you denormalize without causing some sort of data duplication?
Given that you don't need to work anymore, there's no issues with just moving out of the US
Well then ethereum is not for THOSE people.

It is fine if you don't like those features. But it turns out that a lot of people DO want them.

The people who want to court system can already use the court system. Now we just have more options and choices.
Reminds me of the Winston Churchill story:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "

Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"

Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"

Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.”

We've already established that they will fork. Now we are haggling about the price.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/300099-churchill-madam-would...
Discussed at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7004927.
I'm not sure where you concern lies... you mentioned millions being poured into a fight against gun laws to prevent deaths?

Assuming that might have been misspeech, it's easy to see why autonomous vehicles have so much more interest. The interest isn't in preventing human death, the interest is there because not only is it a more fascinating problem to solve, but it saves everybody time and hassle. Lowering the number of deaths is just a great effect.

Focus on a problem isn't always about sheer concern, sometimes the focus is so much higher just because it's a problem more people feel they can contribute to solving. Parkinson's law of triviality...
> Firefox’s decline is not an engineering problem

possibly. however for me, technical problems are why i avoid it in general.

i still use it a bit, as i'm lazy about switching between user accounts with various services and separate browsers makes this easy.

sadly, nearly every day firefox will crash, often when i'm not even using it. it happens so often i don't even get annoyed anymore... it's just normal. my system is a fairly new build and nothing else crashes (or at least, so infrequently i don't recall anything).
Takes longer for such a change to propagate than for the miner to just move his coins. Unless you implement it as some kind of history tracking for wallets, but then the hacker can just send a tiny transaction to literlaly every wallet around, and everone's paying the 50% cost.
I believe there have been scam wallet implementations for BTC in the past, though I don't have any info.

They're your coins. Throw them off a bridge if you want. Meanwhile, people who stick with core tech have been burned zero times.

Why does the obsession with shiny new convenient thing outweigh people's good sense not to risk thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars? If that amount of money were printed out in front of you, you'd take extreme measures to protect it. "Don't use an un-audited third party piece of software that controls the fate of your life savings" is the most basic step.

It occurs to me that you might be arguing against this because you have a large sum stored in some third-party tech. If that's the case, I urge you to snap out of it and transfer your coins somewhere safe immediately.

I say "snap out of it" because that's the phrasing I would've used with myself, right before I lost money in Mt Gox. The only reason that happened is because I never stopped to ask myself "Is this a good idea?"
If it tastes good, then it's not trash.
> No, being Turing complete makes it impossible to be 100% secure and trustworthy, by definition.

Being Turing-complete means it's possible to write some contracts/programs for which certain features are undecidable by analysis.

It doesn't mean that programs that could be also be written in any more limited language can't have all the properties about then that could be proven in the non-Turing complete language proven when written in the Turing-complete language.

> It is possible to have trusted contracts, iff their logic is (mathematically) proven.

Trustworthiness of programs (including “smart contracts”, which are only loosely analogous to traditional contracts) is about whether the actual people using them get what they expect out of their behavior. Mathematical proofs of formal properties may be useful to that in some cases, but are not generally sufficient.
Same! Complete! Nutrition! More efficient!

Please, it’s a bottle design. Is Soylent trying to create a following like Apple fans? At least Apple makes good products.
I agree that it was a key to the success; but it will also be a key to it's failure.

Because it's a financial system, and normal sane people don't want money that is demonstrably worse for nearly all the things that normal sane people do with money.

Ethereum is a great political statement, and a fun toy... but when you recast the worse is better story into this context, you're just demonstrating that you don't really understand the meaning of the words that you are mindlessly parroting.

Thanks for warning us that you're about to release a terrible book, with an incredibly stupid central idea.

You might as well have just written that MySpace is the future of social networking. Because while crypto will have an interesting place in the future; only a complete moron would make the argument that Ethereum is a success, or that worse is better applies here. Congratulations on being that moron.
They probably only do it outside of EU.
"normal people" should learn not to use shitty services like Netflix and friends. Maybe by putting a big red warning when someone visits their page or something.