skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>You think so?

Brood War is the most mechanically demanding game I have ever played, and certainly the most demanding that has ever been an esport.

[This clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXH8eCcvQMI) of Flash playing SK Terran style is illustrative of what I mean.

Let's go down the list of things Flash needs to do:

He needs to click on every one of his production structures every 15-19 seconds, and click M or C. Otherwise, no army.

He needs to click on every one of his command centers every 13 seconds, and click s. Otherwise, no workers.

He then needs to tell every newly built worker to go mine, otherwise they just stand around doing nothing.

He needs to build supply depots roughly every 20 seconds, or his entire production grinds to a halt.

His army consists of well over a hundred marines and medics, which Flash needs to stim, split, and maneuver to take on lurkers and defilers who will crush him in an unmicro'd fight.

His science vessels need to be irradiating defilers constantly to prevent the Zerg reaching critical mass, while dodging scourge using the Chinese triangle technique.

If Flash just clicks his science vessel hotkey and casts irradiate, every ship on that control group will waste its irradiate on the same target - he needs to manually select each vessel before casting spells.

His entire army, and his scans, must be controlled with just 10 group hotkeys of at most 12 units each. Except for buildings, of which you can have at most 1 hotkeyed.

To maximize speed of his army going up and down ramps, he needs to spam-click the move command. A single instruction causes the units at the back to spaz out and take a long time to do anything.

As the above implies, Brood War unit AI is terribad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCpUsmuQG3E

Which means everything Flash does above needs to be double and triple checked to ensure the AI doesn't decide to go off and pick its nose. Building supply depots was especially bad for this.

Brood War is a game that no human being will ever play perfectly. Even the top tier professionals, like Flash, Bisu, or Jaedong, can't do all of the above all the time - they have to prioritize some activities over others and treat their actions per minute like a resource the same as minerals and gas.

>Granted, this is maybe because I played SC1 more on LAN, and there wasn't all the metagame going on. But I think SC2 really does focus on "grinding" and rote learning to get better, probably this was chosen to make it more "eSports"-like.

Starcraft 2 is a game I could get to masters league in, despite only playing make a few hours a week for a month or two. In Brood War, that much practice wouldn't get you D ranking on ICCUP. Everything about SC2 is designed from the ground up to lower the grinding, remove the muscle memory requirement (you don't get to "play" Protoss in BW until you can hit your P key blindfolded), and encourage new or unskilled players to get on and play. At that it succeeded, albeit kind of at the cost of its professional scene.
شراء الاثاث المستعمل بالرياض
For ANA its pretty sweet. 85k round trip on business to Asia. But, in general I agree I think they are on the down fall and they need to come up with some new things to remain competitive. The hotel status are the only reason I have them because I have been traveling a lot lately and its worth it. I may end up cancelling it in the future.
The Swift 4 compiler has a Swift 3.2 mode that is 99.9% source compatible with Swift 3.x. Further you can link 3.2 and 4.0 binaries together. This allows a phased upgrade approach that was not possible in earlier releases.

Swift 5 is about having a stable binary interface so you can link against pre-compiled code going forward. In other words a Swift 6/7/8 binary can link against one compiled with Swift 5.

The bar for source breaking changes is also much higher than the already high bar in Swift 4. We may not see any source breaking changes in Swift 5.
It's not possible. As soon as WebAssembly gets as big as the web, someone will implement a browser-embedded browser in WebAssembly that runs in the browser and we will be back to square 1 in this kafkaesque nightmare we call Web.
Thanks Unimpressive.. great tips!
The concept of "constant time" doesn't mean "always the same number of instructions, a value we can exactly predict": it means essentially "there exists some X such that for all accesses of items in a structure of size N at any index it will always take time less than X, independent of N". For "linear time" we would say "there exists some X such that for all accesses of items in a structure of size N at any index it will always take time less than X multiplied by the value N".

So "O(Q)" means "there exists some X such that for all accesses of items in a structure of size N at any index it will always take time less than X multiplied by the expression Q, which is expressed in terms of N". O(1) is "constant time", and does not mean things take one instruction: it means the expression does not depend on N. There is no O(1000): that is the same as O(1); and if an operation takes randomly either 10 or 1000 cycles, it still is O(1) as X is 1000: both 10 and 1000 are bounded by 1000 multiplied by 1.

Time complexity is thereby a measure of how scalable something is, not how long it will take. An operation that is linear might beat one that is logarithmic at small values of N, but eventually you will have an input large enough that the logarithmic one is not just faster but will always be faster as the constant multipliers can no longer compensate the bounds for the one underlying expression being swamped by the other one.

The constant time constraint is true for simple memory access on a computer running a single process (which I only add as a constraint as the entire theoretically framework breaks otherwise), even if some accesses take a thousand times longer than other ones: there is a slowest possible time past which it will not be slower. No matter how large the array gets, it isn't going to get slower, even though it is super fast for extremely small arrays that fit entirely in some small amount of cache.

Of course, it might not be true if memory is backed by a file and that file is on network storage, and the remote file is stored in a linked list ;P, but that isn't the situation with cache: the controller doesn't even keep a resizable data structure for cache lookups. If you plotted a graph of the pefromance of lookups vs. the size of the array, once you got noticeably past the size of the cache the line would stop growing, and the entire thing would fit under a flat line at some constant X.

There is a fiction here, and that is that we can think about these issues at all in the world of a computer, which has a limited amount of storage (which means there exists some I past which it is no longer possible to even access elements as we cannot allocate an array that large); but it isn't due to cache misses and has nothing to do with the kind of predictable real-time constraints you describe: those are constant multipliers on the complexity. That is when you enter the world of physics, which is arguably more interesting.
>Their analysis is biased. Young people predominantly use digital services to consume music, whereas older generations still use CDs and the radio.

If you mean people in their 70s yes.

Because even 50 and 60 year olds use YouTube A LOT, and I'm speaking in all around the world, including much less developed areas.
As I understand Webassembly, it's meant to replace JS completely as a native implementation in a browser. That is, it's meant to replace the JS interpreter.

Not sure if I understood it correctly though.
This was a bit of humor delivered for entertainment at the closing of an Android conference (360AnDev, which I highly recommend). The speakers are two of the most well known in the Android community (Chet Haase and Romain Guy, both from Google).

On the "easy" front, your suggestions are cool. Why do you think this hasn't happened?
As an esport / spectator sport, SC2 has been waning for a long time, and similarly the War Chest was capped at 200.000 for prize pool money and an unknown amount after that (which, compared to Dota 2 or League of Legends prize pools, is not a lot).

I think, given the matchmaking update for remastered, that SC1 will see a resurgence both inside and outside of KR, but I am not sure either SC1 or SC2 will stay competitive in the long run.
Swift is open-source. You are welcome to contribute support for other platforms!
It would truly be strange if genetic divergence over approximately 100,000 years (between these populations) ended up affecting a behavioral trait that has only been important for about 100 years in one of these populations. Well, it might not be strange if humans had the same generation time as insects. But for a species with generation time of 20 years, this is a very unlikely hypothesis IMO.
oh nice! thats a welcome change - seems like last time I looked wasnt even 6 months ago and it was not there yet - branch deploys would be one of my exact use cases for sure
-Picture of herself

-Omg my family is so smart. I am smart.

-Omg I am so smart, I can discuss so many intellectual topics.

-My code is on the Tesla, lol

Hope you guys learnt something!! :)
You walk really fast! But seriously, revitalizing existing public transit and making it function properly should be a priority. No disagreements there. But we don't need to build new trains and bus lines that go further out.
I really appreciate his books, The Black Swan and Antifragile particularly, though it does seem to me he's set up something of a cottage industry churning the same general idea into a sequence of very similar books. Then again, as long as he has extra stuff to add, and a readership willing to purchase them, I suppose this is utterly acceptable.

However, as a person, he seems to be an absolute rabid nutter. At one point he was planning to publish a book of his own aphorisms, as quoted by himself, while he is still alive. He rants and raves on Twitter[1]. Lately he's been engaged in an utterly hysterical tirade against a historian about the ethnic diversity (or lack thereof) in Roman Britain... whichever side you take in this at an intellectual level (personally, I'm more on his side than not), the tone and mode of the conversation as conducted by him is absolutely rabid and unacceptable.

[1] Full disclosure: he banned me on Twitter years ago because I fucked up an integral he had posed as a question for followers. Make of this what you will.
Well, this particular proposal is very socialistic, in that it's saying "I want these people to receive this benefit, and I want those people over there to pay for it." But that's any system of taxation, really. The difference is he's talking about confiscating revenue from a private company in particular (and outside the normal channels)

The author uses the Alaskan oil field payout as an example of a BI system - which it is. But a quick trip to a supermarket in Anchorage will show that even a $2000 payment doesn't go very far with their high cost of living.

Doing some envelope math will show that UBI can't be funded in the US at a meaningful level. Not to mention the potential resistance to stopping all current benefit payments in favor of UBI payments (no more Social Security, disability, WIC program, etc. -- the AARP will scream like banshees)
> As a general rule of thumb, 10-20 story tall buildings are an eye sore

That isn't a rule of thumb at all, just your opinion...

I don't think it makes sense to make things denser if it's going to be so ugly that no one wants to live there.

Very rarely, if ever, are buildings "so ugly that no one wants to live there", especially when places to live are as scarce as they are in SFBA.

also, transit oriented development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit-oriented_development
>"Album" is just a collection, and applies whether or not you own it. The word is used all over Spotify, iTunes, and other online music services as an organizational unit.

Yes, but it's not that relevant today. They still exist, but youngsters mostly care for the hits.
Because our financial system isn't portrayed as a technology that will bring the power to the people and free us from the shackles of elite organizations. Bitcoin is presented this way.
You are correct. If we're going to violate SEC rules then we might as well do it right. Instead of dancing around the topic, using IP bans and a wink-wink-I'm-not-a-US-citizen box, issuing tokens for services that totally aren't investments, we'll just come right out and offer shares with dividends and voting. This was our plan all along, but the SEC guidance just made it more obviously correct one.
Well yeah, the old "job for life" where one specific set of skills with perhaps some minor updating here and there is good for 40 years is long gone. Sadly many were raised with different expectations.
Apparently IBM has some sort of backend product written in Swift.

I've never actually seen it in production though, nor have I heard of any of my friends companies either
>If we unclog our infrastructure we can spread out to more of the state and increase the supply of developable land.

Really amazing to read that people that live in low density clusterfuck think that the solution is to expand the low density clusterfuck.

Also, being against high speed rail but being for a hyper loop is an indication that you have a technology boner that is lasting longer than 4 hours and you should see a doctor.
Netflix is such an interesting business.

They have far and away the broadest streaming distribution (75% of it!) in the USA (1) which is a market that already 53% saturated.

And the bull case guys point to international subscription growth - which is still in its infancy - as the reason to hold Netflix forever. (2)

They have much lower infrastructure costs then the previous cable providers without having to build the pipes.

But they also don't benefit from the built in government / monopoly protections that came with that investment in the distribution platform.

So in terms of long game how do they protect themselves?

Own the content.

Disney pulling their rug out earlier this week underscores how fucked Netflix is as just a distributor.

So if, in the end, distribution becomes the new "dumb pipes" at what point do the content providers pull the judo flip and control the distribution and the margin?

Disney again, case in point.

So do we underwrite Netflix's future - aka their current 227 PE! - in their ability to execute on the content side?

(1) https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/10/netflix-reaches-75-of-u-s-...

(2) https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/08/buy-netflix-because-its-inte...
i summarized it right there, what part do you think is flawed?

if you're saying men/women think identically, then there is even no reason for gender diversity because it only becomes physical differences at that point, do you realize that?
How does the money get from taxes to VCs?
I'm a current and pretty-long-time (almost ten years?) FogBugz user. Right now I've got both a business and personal account.

Some things I'd like:

- Markdown – I hate 'rich text'; the Copy as Markdown... Chrome extension makes links so easy in GitHub and GitLab

- A case description text field shown at the top of each case and with an edit history; with Markdown, task lists are so easily and nicely kept right up at the top

- 'Cleaner' HTML for Vimium – some of the fancy (JavaScript) page elements don't work with Vimium; I hate using my mouse unless I'm playing a game

I'm planning on (slowly) migrating to GitLab, for both of my accounts. I'm using gitlab.com for myself and we'll host GitLab internally at work. But I'll miss FogBugz's new-case-via-email. In GitLab there's a separate email address for each project and moving an issue between projects is actually closing the original issue and creating a new one (so messier). GitLab also persists in emailing you every comment, which would be fine if I wasn't the person sending the email. FogBugz treats email replies as a separate thing from regular comments.
> Once mining become unprofitable, or even impossible (asymptotically) people will stop mining

It's self-correcting; fewer miners means higher profitability for remaining miners...
Thanks for the extra info. Super interesting.

I don't think I'd agree that the laser turn table was a bad idea necessarily though - I mean if the laser turntable worked as you'd want it to, it could be really nice, because you wouldn't need to have any moving parts potentially, or fewer moving parts (series of mirrors to position the laser or something). And fewer moving parts -> machine will last longer.
Exactly. Most actions in idle game mode (i.e. when there's no active battle, micro or macro to be done) are null, the gamers simply repeat random meaningless keystrokes; this helps with being always alert and ready for anything that requires a rapid response.

An AI doesn't need to do this.

Source: Ex pro Starcraft (Brood War) gamer.
It was a way of talking. I said it that way because the migration to swift and from swift 1 to swift 2 we had the double of developers for iOs than Android and still have to wait for them because of so many issues they were having.

Seems like things are not that bad now. But stills scares me that with every new version you lose a developer for some days (or weeks).
How about exceptional human response time, as for pro gamers or Jeopardy players who have predicted the stimulus?
Yep, I second something like this. I bought a little PC with an Intel Atom 330, and I use it for CrashPlan and as a little file server. With a small SSD and a large harddrive, it works great. Excluding storage cost me around 60 euros.
I would say understanding HTML is a bit harder than being able to use a smart phone for bitcoin transactions. Not very many know how to program network protocols for the internet and not very many know how to program blockchain networks either. The blind trust in Central Banks is the real mystery.
> because you lose it if you leave

Typically no, unless you're unvested, I think. You may get a much smaller benefit, though.
> Also, I do have a vague impression that making access to the NHS more difficult PLUS raising age of retirement EQUAL MOAR PROFITS for someone, somewhere.

In the case of NHS, wouldn't that be the tax payer?
Starting with 12MM[1] in 2004, what you are effectively suggesting is that 1 in 15 Bangladeshis has left India in the last decade[2]. Come on: outside of Superpower 2030 memes, the grass isn't that green in India, and I'd like to think that the first million or Bangaldeshis crossing over would have sent home word that migration wasn't actually worth it. Why go to India and be poor in Calcutta when you can go to the Middle East and make (even factoring in broker fees) 2-3 orders more money for your family?

I'm willing to acknowledge that there have been some cross border shenanigans in the last fifty years, but the statistics trotted out by the Centre are transparently politically motivated, i.e. lies. What is more, these are stupid lies, relying on completely irrational behavior of potential migrants, who in my experience are some of the savviest agents in existence.

[1] 10 million of whom came over in 1971, making for an annual migration of ~50K between 1971 and 2004.

[2] By this measure, every family in Bangladesh would have someone who has left for India in the last decade. This is...not true?
Now any reference to /usr/bin/gpg2 is broken. Every wiki that told people they had to specify gpg2 to use XYZ feature is lying. Every script and environment variable that depends on /usr/bin/gpg2 existing is now broken, depending on if your packager decides to --enable-gpg-is-gpg2.

Do a search for '"gpg2" inurl:wiki' to see a bunch of now-broken documentation.
Are all of your comments about Rust?
That's because the program is looking up every item. It's _right there in the text_:

> Note that this time is measuring the time taken to look up every element in the collection, rather than just looking up a single element.

http://www.lihaoyi.com/post/BenchmarkingScalaCollections.htm...
> you're railing against a non-issue with an absurdly complicated argument.

It's not really the correct kind of argument. Landau notation is for analyzing asymptotic behaviour of functions; this makes them fit as sets of functions for many purposes in theoretical compsi, but it's simply the wrong approach for practical, "in the field" comparison of implemented algorithms. It only has some merit there to state... well, asymptotic behaviour, like the complexity of a hash-table lookup or deleting an arbitrary element of a vector.
>It wasn't an academic paper, it was an internal memo posted to a discussion forum. Even then, it was well structured, moderating in its commentary, and peppered with links to support its arguments.

I'm all for challenging the orthodoxy, any orthodoxy, and I sense the gender diversity one has been constructed on not perfectly rigorous foundations and deserves to be challenged. But when you challenge an orthodoxy, fairly or not you're held to a higher standard of rigor, simply as a matter of effectiveness - come up short and you're easily discredited and dismissed. It's like you have to have PhD or equivalent level knowledge of something before your critiques can't be dismissed out of hand. That's at least part of what happened here, the memo just wasn't at that level, and thus was easily dismissed. Maybe the author will now use his in/fame/my to write a more comprehensive and rigorous paper (or book deal) on the topic.

>This sort of criticism seems like motivated reasoning to me, and only comes out when current progressive dogmas are being challenged. When HN applies a scalpel the way you describe

Repeat after me: "HN is not one person or one voice". At least some of us here apply this standard to everything.
>Ehh if you look back a lot of the music from any decade is crap.

Not necessarily true. Some decades stand out while others do not. Like the 60s for example vs the 90s. People in the 70s and 80s still cherished 60s icons, but few in the 00s and 10s care for 90s music (there's more interest in 80s music).
Seems like a pedantic article, but I liked his remark that the 'effectively constant' argument can of course be extended to any algorithm where the input size is bounded and therefore, shouldn't really be used to describe your algorithmic complexities, even in real life implementations (except when you maybe use the inverse Ackermann function or something).
_You_ don't have to, but someone does.
Totally agree 100% and wrote about this in 2015 but on a different tack. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/americas-disastrous-mass-tran...

Reality is California is terrible at the mega projects - look at LA metro as an example. We are out of practice and the graft level is through the roof. Any public funds are likely far better spent on smaller projects that are chosen for the outsize benefit.

SF to LA is already solved by airlines and the freeway. The benefit of a rail will be marginal and temporary when cars become good at driving the freeway autonomously.
I honestly cannot tell if this comment is sarcastic. There are legitimate arguments for this approach as kids identify early with "bad at math" for example, and that sticks with them.
Brain Computer Interfaces: A Review of the State-Of-the-Art
Video Preview of Knuth's Fantasia Apocalyptica
I already use Rust for some stuff, but Rust and Swift don't compete in the same domain -- despite some overlap. Rust is more for Systems Programming whereas Swift is geared towards Application Programming. Of course, you could use them in each other's domains, but there will be challenges.
Pottery, right?
It shouldn't even be an indicator. The less certain you are about your hypothesis set, the less statistical power you should seek on your research. That way you can optimally filter the set and reject most falsehoods faster and cheaper.

But it is currently a useful indicator. This is a symptom of a problem by itself.