skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Isn't the value of money a lie we all agree is true?
A TV series is like a collection of short stories, where the episodes stand alone;aA film is like a novel.
There is an ANSI standard for Common Lisp, though. And ML and OCaml have a “reference” type that was built for the explicit purpose of having mutable contents.
I love the concept! But the UI could use some improvement - I can't seem to use it on mobile at all...

...which inspires a thought. What if something like this were built on a messaging platform? All the UI would be solved pretty much by default, and the implementation could just be a message broker and a simple web UI for stats and registration. Maybe even surface the gameplay for spectators.

Cost might be an issue, though. SMS isn't cheap to automate, as far as I know, and I'm not sure what the best second best might be. Whatsapp?
My comment was is about inevitable philosophical gap between reality and any model or a simulation, which cannot be bridged in principle.

Yes, simulators as sources of sensory input to get similar experience are used, for example, to train airline pilots. Nevertheless, there is no airline which train its pilots on a simulator only. Algorithm, like a pilot, would learn a simulation, not reality.
I’ve seen several people miss the point on this termination.

You don’t make your boss look bad. That’s it. California is an at-will employment state.
There are no humans in the jail; a guard is always talking with an AI, and the AI player's role is to convince the guard to set the AI free.
To me as an AI novice this article seemed like a good overview. It did not address one problem I have with AI however, which is the inherent lack of transparency. That is, unlike normal programs, we have an input and an output, but the reasoning in between is a black box to human intelligence. This problem has to be solved before we can turn over any really vital tasks to AI with confidence IMO.
Thank you! much appreciated.
This was considerably funnier last time I saw it dubbed with Rod Stewart's "We are sailing"
Of Aviation Crashes and Software Bugs (2008)
In Smalltalk:

RemoveJpeg <- [:data | ...].
JpegData <- [:data | ...].
Undo <- #( RemoveJpeg, JpegData ).

As possible implementation of undo could be

undoAction: document with: undoList
undoList do: [:aBlock|
aBlock value: document].
If you are curious about why you are totally wrong, his comment was NOT unnecessary, and it DID add substance.

I had never heard of Mitch Hedberg, and therefore did not get the quote, and now I have enjoyed several clips of his comedy routines.

I agree with the pthreads, many people on HN are far too quick to hit the "that stuff is for reddit" button, and could definitely lighten up a bit.
You can be guaranteed that most buyers don't do the same math. You see this all the time where e.g. things like extensions or other work adds substantially more value than they cost to carry out.
> just because you've never encountered a black swan in the wild, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Great point. We can't know that a machine learning algorithm used to make predictions won't be wrong if the future turns out to be significantly different from the past. A swan-classifier trained on images of white swans would fail hard if given pictures of black swans.

That said, people find it useful to use machine learning algorithms to predict the future, as the future tends to be similar to the past, at least in the limited domains to which machine learning is currently applied. As compute increases and we learn how to write machine learning architectures[0], we don't need to distinguish as much between 'machine learning' and plain old 'learning' and much of what philosophers have thought over the years about the problem of induction, and relevant domains of induction, becomes relevant to the topic.

[0] Or learn them. Jeff Dean mentions experimental success learning RNN architectures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzoe2G5g-w4
The String and &str thing is a common criticism of Rust, but I feel it's a bit shallow when said without context. Maybe it's just me, but it makes sense when you consider Rust's ownership semantics (which are a new idea in language design, so you can't really look at how other languages solved issues arising from them).

Basically, when you have the notion of ownership/lifetime in a language, you have to make a distinction between an owned and a borrowed thing. When you pass an owned thing to a function, you give up your ownership of it, and can't use it anymore. When you pass a borrowed thing, you keep the ownership, and the compiler tries to prove that, based on ownership info it has, it lives long enough for the operation to be safe. Just as String and &str are owned-borrowed counterparts, you also have e.g. Vector<u8> and &[u8] (the former is an owned vector, the latter is a read-only, borrowed view into that vector) and many more examples of this dichotomy.

I don't see how this could have been solved in Rust without having those two types.
I was on a wide body a few months ago and we had a very sudden burst of pretty intense turbulence -- we'd apparently hit the wake of an A380
Annual note to self: most of the world exists outside the tech bubble
This, a million times. Any (meta) discussion on OOP without giving a precise definition of it is futile, for the devil lies precisely in those details that are omitted from the discussion.
With so many varieties in cookers itself - I wonder why they decided to show up bulb upfront - beats me.
Apparently we went through some magic event that only Haskell is entitled to be the one and only functional programming language.
It’s suspiciously alt-right in tone. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he posts or follows t_d
Great post, I appreciate contributions like these to the HN community.

> Be in the right place, at the right time, with specific skills, and in a position to take risks.

You can't enter the industry but I can...

So where would you start looking? Or do you think the 90s was a different environment where you could solve a problem on your own. Now to improve efficiency, do you need the support/funding of an established company?
People who notably stop thinking are those living in totalitarian regimes who are afraid to incriminate themselves by careless speech. If TV in general were capable of turning people into morons then no TV shows could be made. This is because screenwriters, presenters, etc, couldn't learn their craft without watching thousands and thousands of hours themselves.
On the other hand limiting it to one hero of a kind per game helps quite a bit. Overwatch had the problem of very static team compositions early on because they didn't copy that particular feature of MOBAs. I haven't been following that closely but I assume changing that helped quite a bit. Of course they might still have some issues because of the small number of heroes available in the game.

Each composition doesn't have to be perfectly balanced against every other either and the system of picks and bans helps.
Wikipedia has a good entry on the subject:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_cuisine#Influences_...
Bonderman off the board after one insulting comment. Travis not off after "Susan Fowler, Waymo, Greyball or the rape-file." There is no equivalency here.

But even if, implausibly, Benchmark is the messenger, shooting the messenger is still wrong.
I had the same experience. I tried the US keyboard because I was starting to use Vim-bindings and stuck to it. Now I have actually more trouble with keyboards that use my locale (mainly because of muscle memory).

For umlauts, I use the US-intl keyboard, which works great. The only thing that bothers me a bit is that I can't configure vanilla Windows to use capslock to switch between US and US-intl (which works on my private Linux machine).

On another note: I find it really strange that most keyboard locales actually change very little except for screwing up programming symbols...
My company uses the same technique at scale to serve animations into emails, often at thousands of gifs generated per second and streamed to the user. Interestingly, when you stream gifs frame-by-frame, some size optimizations are not available to you but there are plenty that are. (cropping, transparency, etc)
uh, it's not either... if you believe women are socio-politically disadvantaged in the tech world, then it makes sense to offer them help
That's true. I was thinking about using simulation as an addition to being embedded in the real world. Simulation is necessary to plan complex actions based on reinforcement learning (model based RL). When AI can do simulations, it can check a few steps ahead to see how things will go and select and act in a proactive way as to maximize rewards. When interacting with people, the AI will need to model people's state of mind and knowledge, in order to infer how they would act and react. When using a device, an AI would need to control it and know what to expect from it. In almost any non-trivial interaction, AI needs to simulate in order to adapt to situations. Since it is impossible to rewind reality (like a game) in order to try another action, the agent needs to do that in its imagination (simulator).

By the way, humans are good for simulating some things, but quite bad for others, and it still doesn't stop us from being the most intelligent agents. I think AI only needs to simulate a little ahead in order to act much more intelligently than today, because today, AI is mostly reactive, or feed-forward, like a simple reflex.
The ML/OCaml reference type is an opt-in feature with its own type and explicit syntax, it is not the default used pervasively everywhere. That's the key difference that makes ML programs easier to reason about.
Explaining the Segwit2x Hard Fork and Bitmain’s UAHF
You're right in that nothing about this is specific to OO or FP.

However, under this model, you really don't want your actions in the actions list to change after the fact. That means those actions in the list really shouldn't be modeled as "objects" with object-like mutable internal state and all. In fact, you'd probably need them to be as lightweight as possible, which means no sticking methods on them.

With those constraints in mind, OO-style code brings nothing to the table.
Actually, that's not true. GMail proxies images, but doesn't do a lot in the way of caching. They actually cache the DOM when moving between messages for a short while, but a browser reload will reset it.
Or just force the user to click the link before the comment box is enabled for that posting.
My grandfather at Dunkirk
Thats auper nice
And without compression.
And precisely what sia and storj do
This is very interesting! How far does the 'missing generalization' impact go? I.e. your Nalgene grammar file (nice reference, didn't know about Nalgene) is used to generate both flat input strings and nested desired outputs, which you use to train your network on (if I understand correctly). This file seems to contain quite a lot of hand-written varieties like "please/plz/plox/...". After training the network, I assume it is capable to also handle inputs not seen in the training data? Like someone writing "please?!11"? If not, I don't really understand why'd you'd train a network in the first place: you have put in the effort to create a grammar, so might as well use that one to use the actual conversion to a tree, no?

Totally not trying to be negative here, just trying to understand your workflow a bit better.
equality of opportunity should mean that equivalent effort should yield equivalent results, right?
Last time i checked my local usenet, it was alive and thriving
I wonder if there are other mitigation techniques that would be effective. For example, hiding all comments for the first N hours of a post's life, then showing all comments at once. This way, the incentive is towards writing the best comment you can, quickly _enough_.
That's exactly what he(or she) is criticizing.
Yes, I've often thought that too, and really as humans we are running simulations all the time in our head. That's kind of what imagination is.

We run through conversations, physical events / muscle memory, are constantly predicting the world around us - we often don't even remember moving through the environment on regular routes unless something unusual disturbs our running predictions.

It's super interesting to see some of that come through, sure in a more 'brute force' manner, but we randomly brute force bumped through the world as children too, until we pruned our selection trees.
At the political level, short term dogma triumphs.

It is more important to be seen saving money now than _potentially_ saving money and improving living conditions in the future.

There is a distrust in design; it's the market that is always right, isn't it?

And the ruling generation is _very_ pro car; it gave them a freedom that they witnessed growing up.
>he wrote about a world where TV is omnipresent and people lack any intellectual cricism and curiosity, and tried to persuade readers that TV was the cause of this intellectual laziness.

If you look closely you can see huge swaths of that today. How many people actually formulate their own political and social opinions without seeds or entire forests planted by television news? They literally tell you what your opinion should be in many cases.

A common cited example is the Nixon/Kennedy debate. People who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won, while people who watched it on television thought Kennedy won, and that was when TV was in it's infancy. The relevance of that is people started voting based on visual appearance rather than competence of the issues. Unfortunately Nixon didn't do very well once he actually was elected, but that is besides the point. Imagine people like most of us who grew up with it.

As you mentioned, people now don't know any other way, because we grew up with it. That's the long term problem. Perhaps without TV, people would make much better decisions at the polling stations.

It's a constant, one-way deluge that people get exposed to. I think the internet, with all it's faults, helps to alleviate that, because at least with the internet, an individual can discuss alternating opinions.
Come don't ruin it like that
Can you tell me some of the things that VS does much better? I've only ever used GDB, and I am kind of lost when trying to debug a binary on windows
I don't understand why this is getting so much attention. From the description:

"[It] works by dynamically generating each frame of the GIF and slowly feeding them over the HTTP connection."

So there is nothing (AFAICT) new or interesting going on here. It's just an animation generated by the server in real time that happens to be formatted as a gif. It's no different from what many low-end web-enabled security cameras do.
Never tried, but pygdbmi would probably get you halfway there. It uses python to parse structured data (key/value pairs) from gdb output. Gdbgui uses it on its backend. (Disclaimer: I am the developer)

https://github.com/cs01/pygdbmi

Also for golang: https://github.com/cyrus-and/gdb
> It's unfortunate that ML and Lisp didn't gain greater traction but that's likely due to Unix.

Lisp and ML are competing by nature(MLs are famous from their typesystems) and their "failure" is not because of unix, but because of their inability to deliver 'fast' & readable apps. Also, the learning curve...
There's quite a good (as usual) BBC Radio 4 "In Our Time" episode about Robert Hooke:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b070h6ww
"Fairly" according to whom? One of the nations? Some individual? Or do you want the AI to come up with the definition of "fair"? What if some people disagree? What if the majority of people disagree? In any case, this could be achieved with extreme violence. Do you really want "AI" imposing its (or someone's) will on the world?
It seems like this is the same as with video, where the client is trying to determine how many frames it needs to precache before it starts displaying. I'm not sure how much measurement capacity the server has, here?
Too bad we don't have scorecards, though.
"Competitor". Externally funded R&D for Facebook.
It's not a 'black box'. We know what goes in: matrix multiplication and simple math, in millions of similar units. We can also probe the net to know what a neuron does, or what a specific configuration means - but it might be disappointing - each individual neuron or weight might not have much meaning on its own and even if it were removed, the neural net world work just as well (we can remove almost 95% of the neurons and still make it work).

We can also perturb the inputs to study how the outputs depend on them. There are many things we can do to probe a neural net. We might not be able to say for sure what situation will make it fail, but we can try it with millions of tests to see how good it is. That's how neural nets are rated, actually - by testing on loads of new data, they haven't seen during training.

On the other hand, human brains are really black boxes. We know much less about how they work or how they reach a conclusion. The fact that we can self-report is not the same as knowing how a human would behave in any reasonable situation. We don't actually know how people will behave. And yet, a few people do have access to incredible power to do harm to humanity. We have had to live with that fear since the invention of atomics and genetic viruses.

So I don't think the argument that "neural nets are black boxes" is so powerful. As opposed to what, I would say? Even our dear president is such a black box. We have no idea how it works, or what he will do next.
Yeah it's an interesting pattern and even when implemented in an OOP language ignores most OOP ideas in favour of what is really more akin to data-driven design.

There's some great insight into how the pattern evolves in non-game projects here:

https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/a/306983/27143...
News discussion, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14969378
That's a good and deep point. Let's consider the case of writing an algorithm to drive a car. There are some ideas people have had:

1) What really matters is what happens in the worst case, so we need explanations in the worst case, but not necessarily the rest of the time: when the car is choosing a slightly more efficient trajectory, we don't need an explanation of why it 'chose' to do that. In the case of a crash, though, we'd like to know precisely what went wrong. This suggests, perhaps, that we could have a simpler and more transparent fallback system that usually is uninvolved in driving, but that takes 'responsibility' and has the ability to control the vehicle at a minimum level of safety (rather than efficiency).

2) Humans seem to produce make decisions first and explanations later http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/2013/11/14/post-hoc-ratio...: 'To the question many people ask about politics — Why doesn’t the other side listen to reason? — Haidt replies: We were never designed to listen to reason. When you ask people moral questions, time their responses and scan their brains, their answers and brain activation patterns indicate that they reach conclusions quickly and produce reasons later only to justify what they’ve decided.'
so perhaps we could also train an ML agent to produce explanations that we find persuasive?
Like the article says, 'peixinhos da horta' can be literally translated as 'little fish from the vegetable garden'.

And it's not just about Lent. Green beans are generally cut open on one rim of the pod, which makes them look like small gutted fish.

In my grandmas house, we used to eat a different version, made with eggplant slices.

I didn't know about vindaloo!
So this article wants us to believe that we're going to find revolutionary new ways of communication but meanwhile we'll all still be cooking in the same inefficient way.

To me that sounds like 1950s predictions of the future showing us how mailmen will deliver letters with jetpacks. Anyone can do that kind of stupid extrapolation. But what's the equivalent of email in that scenario?
Very nice collection for learning Vue.js
The Pedestrian was the inspiration or muse if you will, behind the very book itself.
This is a very strange case.

policy | outcome
-----------------------+--------------------
deny all cookies BAD white screen
allow first-party-only BAD white screen
allow all cookies GOOD working site

I think it has something to do with the embedded youtube video.
I've recently been following him on Twitter, that guy is a walking encyclopedia!
Underhanded Crypto Contest 2017 Winners
Where advice would you offer to someone with long-running R-Scripts? Spark?
Strictly speaking it isn't eponymy, since the column isn't named for Smith himself. But, while a stretch, it's an acceptable one, and one I've seen used not too infrequently elsewhere. As you say, language is dynamic, and we see here an example of that dynamism in action.
Don't forget I think the roof has a lifetime warranty too. So you'd want to factor in the cost of not replacing your roof one or two times.
Immutable Data Structures That Are Compatible with Normal JS Arrays and Objects
Really interesting to hear you use ZFS for those benefits. Are you using ZFS on Linux or a Solaris variant?
If you are looking at xray penetration in the atmosphere, it is very opaque. Almost no xrays get through hence why space telescopes are needed to do xray astronomy.
finally!! Some love for the ole Plus/4! No one knows about that machine, but it's the one that got me started with programming so many years ago. Mostly because there was nothing out there for it and user groups had very little for them.

This CPU project is cool, but no SID or VIC means you still can't game on them...sigh...
Of course it's doable if your aim is to acquire skills and enter a high-paying profession that already employs millions of people. Your opportunity cost all along the the way is lower than if you were on some quixotic bid to join the PGA.
then waiting X minutes before enabling the comment box too, to avoid just clicking and posting?
The reference type in ML/OCaml is an opt-in feature, a container with it's own special type. In Haskell, you can also capture IORefs or similar, but any reads/writes to them are effectful and captured in the types.
The point is that Python does this all the time as the default. Any captured variable could potentially change under your feet. It is rarely useful and most beginners do not expect it, hence it is commonly considered a "gotcha".
What the Apple Pencil Does Well
Newton despised him, because when Newton proved how springs should work from basic principles (resistance proportional to compression) Hooke said "I published that first" and got it named after him - the so-called 'Hooke's law'. But Hooke had published half a dozen possibilities in a speculative article, and proved nothing. Kind of the original spammer.
A professor is not a good expert for this.
https://youtu.be/ndBjraV-3UY
In DC, the Pentagon is both a huge employer and centrally located at a number of crossroads. They specifically do have staggered schedules to combat rush hour, and some of their parking lots even have their own exists off of the highway.
Why 'Do What You Love' Is Pernicious Advice [2015]
As I read through this, I'm most disappointed by the people claiming that Bradbury is wrong about the meaning of his book. The reasoning people are using seems to be that it's wrong for the author to think that he has sole say on how his book should be interpreted. I agree with that in general, but that's not the case here. Those claiming the book is about censorship very clearly ignore major points in the story. In Montag's conversation with Captain Beatty, it's explained that the government only started burning because the people asked for it. Books made people uncomfortable, so they wanted them gone. They much preferred the intellectual comfort that came with the "family". Personally, I think those that claim he was wrong are exactly the people that Bradbury wrote about. They argue against his themes, going as far as to ignore very clear exposition, because they ring true and bring discomfort.