skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm working on this full-time. We sell our model as a pre-diagnosis tool. We tune the parameters to ensure low false negatives (less than human doctor), though the false positives are higher. However, it whittles down the queue substantially. For non-clinical uses, depending on your use case, you can actually skip the negatives designated by the model. For clinical use cases, you might use it to prioritize your read queue and/or highlight areas of interest.

Feel free to reach out to me if you are curious. I can talk in great detail.

BTW, you can purchase insurance for activities like these, though I cannot say I've seen a legal case yet, so I dont know exactly how it would work out.
That image was removed from Wikipedia due to copyright violations, but the "How to knoll" bullets are the first image in https://www.curbed.com/2016/7/18/12215158/always-be-knolling...
What do you want? How is '''the differences are probably explained by a complicated mix of factors, but that genetics likely play some role''' '''a genetic explanation, should one exist, says absolutely nada about policy, "supremacy," how we should treat each other, or really anything else. I also strongly believe that a good faith inquiry into this question (and acceptance of whatever the science reveals) is a pursuit orthogonal to "white supremacy"''' unclear?

Fact: IQ results differ by race, even though 'races' are a badly-defined concept. Fact: Socioeconomic factors are a lot of this. Postulation: There might maybe be a genetic factor somewhere. Assertion: This doesn't justify treating people differently by race.

What is unclear? What do you object to? You seem to find the idea that there might be any, miniscule genetic factor to intelligence that is more or less common in a specific 'race' as equal to white supremacy. Am I misreading you?

(And note I didn't say anything about which way genetic factors might go. If they exist they might be opposite the socioeconomic factors, who knows.)
I've found a lot of great new artists through Spotify's discover weekly.
I presume the parent was talking about couchbase's SyncGateway offering, but maybe not.
>Modern Life has gone to some rather weird places that were simply inconceivable until incredibly recently.

You'd be surprised.

Humans are not animals. They can have such worries and desires regardless of their material status.

Even people in eras that were horribly materially constrained, had to fight wards, work their ass off, people in anything that we can define as "First World Problems" had similar (and even more extended) concerns.

The movement of existentialism in Europe, for example, was created and popularized by people who had participated in major wars and struggles, and then were left to make a living in the ruins of post war Paris and Berlin and such (Sartre himself was drafted, caught, and spend a year as a prisoner of war in Nazi camps).

And there have been people with wanderlust (desire to travel to "random countries") for as long as there have been people -- including tons of people in dire economic situation, from third world countries, and what have you, sailing etc.
There are way more than five people per train at any time of the day or night. Besides all the people with night and early-morning jobs, there's also the fact that bars are open until 4 AM. They call New York "The City That Never Sleeps" for a reason.
nice doc made about him : https://m.youtube.com/watch?ebc=ANyPxKqbOng3dL_bQTCCpf3LIH_8...
> In my experience, telling them to "just trust it" and such seems to not help much.

Just call that recursive function something else. Give it some other name, and say that we must take it for granted that this other name is a function which is already debugged and tested by another team of programmers:

(defun our-member (item list)
(cond
((atom list) nil)
((eql item (car list)) list)
(t (member item (cdr list)))))

Here, we rely on member, a standard function in the language already, and so there is no recursion.

We first convince ourselves that what we have works.

And then, final step: since what we have works, it means that our-member is a correct implementation of member, which means that the two are equivalent. Equivalent functions are substitutable. And so we can just perform that substitution: replace the member call with our-member.

By the way, it occurs to me that Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher and Bach might be a good source of ideas on how to deal with presenting and teaching self-referential topics.
Are you married, or in a long-term partnership?
Right next to a Foo Bar
Thank you, we've updated the headline.
Satisficing, not optimizing. gotcha! ;)
To answer that, look at the ratio between median house price and median income. Historically, that's around 2.2. Freddy Mac says 3.5 is the new normal. It got up to around 4.7 before the 2008 crash, and peaked around 10 for California.

This is a measure of whether people can make their mortgage payments. When that ratio gets too high, foreclosures rise.

The Economist has an interactive chart, but, annoyingly, they don't let you see the absolute ratio number, just its trend.[2]

[1] http://www.freddiemac.com/research/insight/20160531_how_to_w...
[2] https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/08/daily-...
Would this (posted earlier today on HN) be a possible candidate? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14947768
Exactly. I love my sister, mother, a few of my best male friends, and my wife. Love doesn't equate wanting to have sex with someone. Most humans happen to enjoy sex so given the proposition of commiting to a single person sexual attraction (hence visual attraction) becomes an important factor.
It seems like they have tons of meaning in terms of squares, parallel lines, and many parts of triangle geometry, including the Pythagorean theorem and the angle sum in a triangle being two rights angles.
Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage?

It's hard to see how that makes sense.

Personally, I hope Google ignores the angry people on all sides and does the right thing. I think it's ok to have principles and standards and to stick by them when the situation is tough. (Otherwise, what's the point?)
One such issue is nihilism, the kind you're showing here. Growing out of it often makes people happier, unlike growing out of love.
Maybe it's justified. There's some big fear mongering and public shaming by the MSM against conservatives, especially lately.

https://imgur.com/a/c1RnG

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6rantp/does_any...
for example?
>>...feeling like I'm taking crazy pills...

Include me as a fellow confused person. My read is a bit more succinct: "We value people who are different, but, we don't talk about what makes us different."

I am not good at hints, subtleties or reading between lines. Behaving properly in such a nuanced circumstance is really a non-starter for me and I'd rather disconnect completely than walk through that type of minefield.
If we were completely asocial, independent creatures, then perhaps. But humans - and therefore their genes - have always lived and died in groups, and even a primitive tribe may stand to benefit from having a small amount of individuals unburdened by child-rearing. From the point of view of the gene, what's important is only that some part of the family tree propagates; the number of dead-end branches doesn't matter. Therefore an increase in reproductive drive could easily be deleterious to a particular gene's long-term survival.

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the role of child-free individuals in our era of evolutionary adaptedness. I'm just pointing out that evolutionary dynamics are a lot more nuanced than "more children = good", especially in social animals.
Yes, the commercial entity backing the ML program, and possibly multiple associated entities would be held responsible, or at least dragged into litigation. You can get insurance companies to write custom policies for such things, but I dont think there has yet been a standards-setting case -- anyone know of existing or in-progress case law in this arena?
My bad. I meant to say "look for a lifetime partner", not just "look for dates".
Has anyone tried out rxdb on the client with couchdb as server? I'm affraid mostly about the scaling issues when you sync with many clients
Leaning In, but Getting Pushed Back (and Out) (2014) [pdf]
Segregated Valley: the ugly truth about Google and diversity in tech
A Silicon Valley kingmaker wants to fix what tech did to California
I more or less agree. I feel as if Steam is starting to look like the Android app store. It's at the point where legit games have to worry about SEO. That being said I think it's really hard to define super simple games that deserve a place to be seen and played vs. super simple copies and exploits.
I don't want to put words in your mouth and would be happy to hear more of what exactly you disagree with in these quotes.
Nevertheless, here's my take:

>> Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

> He's telling this to a $650B company.

I assume your reaction is towards the "bad for business" and I agree, without any supporting evidence he is not qualified to tell google what is right.

> And then just to cover for himself, he says:

>> I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.

I assume you see a conflict between striving for diversity / equal representation and opposing positive discrimination ("Discrimination to reach equal representation").

Looking at the context of the quote I think his argument is consistent though: Assuming biological differences account for a part of the representation gap, it is unfair to use positive discrimination to reach 50/50 representation. At what ratio fair representation lies depends on how much the biological differences explain for and as long as we don't know that, we don't know how much positive discrimination is fair.

>> Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

I don't think I understand your pov enough to answer quote 3 and 4 but would be happy to see you expand your opinion on them a little.
Nothing at all, thanks for the heads up!
> The earliest solution wins

Minor minor quibble, but: not really. The earliest solution wins, unless there is a 10x better solution, e.g Google. There were a lot of good enough options, but after a certain benchmark "earliest" stops mattering.
>I think that the illusion of time speeding up as we get older is due to getting into a routine where we do the same thing every day, and the brain begins compressing memories as our everyday experiences become less novel.

That's part of it. Another part is that, even if everything you see is novel everyday, if you are 1 year old, a year, e.g. getting to 2 years old is 100% increase in your life experiences. Getting from 31 to 32, not so much. It gets exponentially less, to the point of going from 40 to 50 a mere 25% extra lifetime for a whole decade. Whereas a decade when you're 1 is 10x more lifetime.
USDA is censoring use of term 'climate change', emails reveal
Tesla seeks $1.5B junk bond issue to fund Model 3 production
Please feel free to edit the (original, but click-baity) headline. The Techmeme version is Sam Altman's project The United Slate aims to help elect ~five candidates in California aligned with its 10 left-leaning policy goals but isn't set up as a PAC (the Techmeme version is too long).
Thats actually not totally true. Internally, Tcl has two value types, string representation and actual value representation. Everything DOES have a string-representation though- some are made up (like file handles, fileX) and some are just ASCII forms of the values underneath (like integers).

Tcl is cool because you can manipulate the string form of values incredibly easily, but people confused this with "Everything is a string". It should be "Everything can be manipulated like a string".
Even if it wasn't, it's a great hack.

I am surprised they haven't gotten pulled over and charged with... something.
>Fight angry outrage with threats of angry outrage?

It's hard to see how that makes sense.

Not threats of angry outrage, actual angry outrage. The left's tactics should be used against them, in greater degrees, until they cease using those tactics.
I think it is an incredibly positive thing that TensorFlow, Caffe2, Torch and multiple open-source systems are competing actively in the space. These are all active projects, with open-access support facilities. This is all of enormous societal value and we all reap the benefits in numerous, usually invisible, ways.
Can I talk with her for long periods of time? And if we don't talk, is it awkward? Do we have the similar goals? Do we have the same family values? Do we have an understanding for each others hobbies? Do I like the family I marry into (which was a bit complicated by the fact that her family lives in Iran, I first had to go there visit them)? Do we both want to develop or does she want to stand still? Do we share a similar interest for the world? Can I stand our differences (our main difference is that I definitively like to socialize more with people I don't know while she is rather introvert)? Can I be honest? Don't I want to have an affair? Can we resolve conflicts fast (in a former relationship it took a week, which killed me)? Do we like to eat similar stuff (imagine a vegan and a fast food junkie glued together...)? Can I stand her voice? (I actually first fell in love with her voice which surprising as I am very much guided by hearing sense)

Many of those thoughts I had. Quite simple stuff at times. I had two years two think it all through, see how she behaves in everday life. So at the day of the wedding, I knew I got the best I can get.

There is always a partner to find that can be more attractive, more intelligent, better at XYZ. But when you've done your due dilligence, all the boxes are ticked in a way you are ok with it, you have found the partner you really need.
New York's subway system runs 24 hours, and many residents rely on late-night/early morning service.
> “Ninety-nine percent of property owners in San Francisco know what they need to do, and they pay their taxes on time — and they keep their mailing address up to date,” said spokeswoman Amanda Fried.

See there is the problem ... we are talking about the other 1%
> Haskell is used by, to a first approximation, no one. Which was my point.

Unless you have a very loose definition of"no one" that simply is not true.

Just off the top of my head:

Haxl at Facebook
Bond at Microsoft
Supply chain management at Target

Also see:

https://wiki.haskell.org/Haskell_in_industry
The coverage of chain-in-command in this answer is so on point. One could literally follow each sentence to determine the culprit of any issue. Bravo - A+ in troubleshooting.
Alcohol makes it worse.

I've stuttered all my life and still do, far less noticeably now. I've largely overcome it through mental will and practice. Speech therapy teaches you a bunch of tricks and techniques, practice and repetition eventually makes them second-nature. For me, it mostly came to becoming aware what your body is doing during a block -- you're always aware you're having a block, it's harder to notice the tension in specific muscles. Once you learn to recognize it, you can back off for a sec, let the tension dissipate, then approach it again. It's a terribly slow impatient process at first, but just like any skill, you practice it and you get better at it. Eventually you float in and out of Flow state.

It's definitely changed me... like any skill you practice, it makes you far more disciplined. I feel I'm more patient. I do have scars, and it does sometimes come back, but if I was able to largely overcome that through mental effort and determination, a lot of other things feel far less daunting. Builds a sense of resiliency and gumption.

But back to alcohol, it's not just your physical skills that get sloppy, it's your mental skills too. I'll go out for a social drink, but sloppy drunk is reserved only for kareoke. The it-doesn't-happen-while-singing bit is true.
That's exactly what I was asking.
It's not erased from memory - it's widely known.

Perhaps an article a year even on HN.
They literally just made up a random number
https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-24-2015/_Iy_o-.gif
For those of you getting overwhelmed by The Stoic article of the day on here....

This piece is short and well written. It is definitely better than 90% of the "Introduction to Stoicism" articles I have read.
Imperative programmers learn special purpose constructs like loops that only work in simple cases. But since they are so wedded to them, they only reach for the more general tool in more complicated cases. Thus they blame the general tool for the complication.

Just do away with the special cases, and us eg functional calls as the basis for your control flow needs. Then recursion becomes simple.

If necessary, one can introduce loops as a special case later---if working with legacy code or languages that don't properly support function calls. (Eg languages without first class functions and tail call optimizations.)
I'm not sure UWP can be judged yet. Slack and Spotify, amongst others, just announced UWP apps.
>>Haskell is used by, to a first approximation, no one. Which was my point.

> If that's your point, then I agree.

You are agreeing to something that is false. See my reply to the grandparent.
"Early programming" was essentially systems and embedded programming.
Of course men and women are different on average

Many people would disagree, and some would have you fired for saying that.

As far as the presentation, it accurately notes that as far as we can tell, the average difference in ability between men and women is very small or zero. But there is compelling evidence that men and women do naturally differ in interests (the "people vs things" thing), which if true would directly lead to unequal representation in various fields.
The MTA spends about twice as much per ride as the London Tube. It doesn't need more money.
Alright, I'll accept that definition of rant. I certainly agree that the unsubstantiated biological statements were an awful rhetorical tactic. Thank you for sticking with me and providing the quote that most irked you. It irks me as well.
If 30+% of the country passionately supported penis-enlargement pills, it would have been received much differently.
Currently using this. Haven't tested heavy scaling though because our app doesn't have huge scale needs. BUT, will say things are looking promising. Theres are some[1][2] improvements to replication and general speed landing/landed.

As far RxDB, in our limited tests, using only the query-sync feature speeds up everything a ton, not to mention optimistic updates. Overall it's been pretty great, and developer is very active.

[1] https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/495
[2] https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/470
[2]
The trains on the 4/5/6 lines are already the full length of the platforms. (As on every other NYC subway line except for the G and a few of the shuttles.)
> I had a stutter growing up, it was terrible. Whenever I got noticed I just froze up, I particularly remember one English teacher who knew I was bad at public speaking yet repeatedly calling on me during class to read sections (more than other kids).

It sounds like the English teacher had a sadistic streak.
The author of the paper is well-read, and the people criticizing his science understand neither the underlying science, nor what it implies for the problems they profess to care about.
The real problem with these sites is that it is super easy to overfit to historical data. Try enough indicators and enough parameters and you can fit historicals to the dot. Except, no one knows how the model performs on a go-forward basis. On Wall Street, these are often easy to debug -- you just run on live data, often with live trading to see if the signal is real. However, with economic data, the velocity of new data is too low to really test models on a go-forward basis...so you just have a theoretical model, likely overfit, that has little predictive value.
Agreed that it's a bug in the client, but these bugs are going to be ever-present in the transition to IPv6.
Not true. What you describe is the mindset of a 17 year old who never was in a relationship that lasted more than 2 weeks.

Yeah, when I was that age I was only going for the looks too. Now, 15 years and 3 long term relationships later I am looking for something else: someone who I can trust, someone who is mature enough to consider marriage+children in a few years, someone who I can laugh with, someone who is mentally stable. Looks are now pretty low on my priority list, I've had enough sex that I know it's not everything.
For me, after two weeks, we sat down together and discussed the "big questions" in our life to make sure we were compatible. We were at the tail end of our undergraduate degrees at the time. e.g., How many children we wanted, our general career paths, where we wanted to live, stance on religion (particularly with how that relates to children) and probably more stuff that I can't remember. Neither of us wanted to waste much time, so we wanted to know if there were any deal-breakers before going much further.

Almost 8 years later, and we're happily married. :-)
China's new “Citizen Scores” will rate every person in the country (2015)
Whose deontology?
I apologize if the title seemed misleading. The code execution part is built on a serverless framework, FaaS https://github.com/alexellis/faas. At some point, I might be able to incorporate the web page itself as being executed through FaaS, but for now, it is served up through a service that runs alongside the serverless code execution.

That being said, I chose to go with the FaaS so I could support more languages for execution of code than AWS or Azure currently does. Which I am working on adding more languages as develope new features for this project.

Please let me know if you have any other feedback.

Kind Regards
>In my experience, telling them to "just trust it" and such seems to not help much.

I've sometimes got past the "leap of faith" step by replacing the recursive call with a call to a built-in. e.g.

>>> sum([1, 2, 3, 4]) == 10
True
>>> def my_sum(xs):
... if xs == []: return 0
... else: return xs[0] + sum(xs[1:])
>>> my_sum([1, 2, 3, 4]) == 10

It's often easier to accept this definition, because trusting that the built-in will work is comparatively simple. You then ask the audience what would happen if you replaced the call to the built-in with a recursive call.

Edit: It appears I've written an identical comment to my sibling.
Lessig's Mayday PAC did pretty poorly (spent $10M to support 8 candidates, only two of them won their races).

Did The United Slate take lessons learned from Mayday PAC into account for its strategy?
The naive Fibonacci takes O(fibonacci(n)), which is exponential. Roughly O(1.62^n). Not merely quadratic.

I think a good example of (mutual) recursion that actually makes sense is eg implementing some state machines.
Let's be super clear: if this guy gets fired, it would not be because he expressed his opinions. It would be because he has abhorrent opinions that will forever affect his ability to work with women, whom he has decided are inherently incapable of working at Google.
Agreed, these are good indicators because people are actually backing these "predictions" with money...as opposed to theoretical models with no skin in the game.
> Collective ownership of that capital and "the means of production"

There is no such thing. You've just reinvented the same kind of Communism that the Soviet Union ran a 70-year-plus experiment on. It doesn't work. Control of how capital is used always comes down to a small fraction of humans making the decisions.
Whereas now it's mostly moving a mouse around and clicking.