skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
My first response here was to explain in this circumstance a person with "strong social skills" would have a number large groups they interacted with. For example religious groups, exercise groups, charity groups, etc.. All of which could provide a handful of potential mates through casual encounters. So easily a few dozen opportunities given a reasonable sized city.

But... that really implies there is something wrong with people who don't have the time, or inclination to involve themselves in such activities, or simply aren't the kind of people who can successfully get a date from a casual encounter (heck I've known people who get get dates from 30 second interactions in the grocery store) like this.

So, while I'm far from an expert on this, I suspect this is just more of our modern sickness. The idea that not only does a person have to fit a long list of criteria to be eligible, but they also have to have honed their social skills to the point of being able to woo someone into a date with just a casual encounter. And frankly, the people I know who could accomplish this were also some of the "worst" people I knew (lets start with the idea that they were completely unreliable lairs).

So, I return to the idea that traditional human society weren't these huge cities, but rather smaller villages where it was possible to have such a limited pool as to generally grow up with your spouse, and be aware that a large part of bringing up children/etc was spending time on those lower rungs of the ladder working out issues. To keep going with the idea that someday in the future it would be possible to climb back up those stairs to happiness. But this also means that such modern conveniences as birth control are actually harmful to society because its possible for a couple to fall into/out of love without the traditional responsibility of raising the children that were the result of a few weeks of biological romance (and lets face it the lusty rutting of 20 somethings is little more than biology having its way).
You're amazing. I hope you're given more power than you already have.
Not _is_, but. _may_be_. At least that's what I read.

My question is why would they spend effort (and it is an effort; they would have to add logic to not set carry/overflow/zero flags when writing results to that register, for example) making that a no-op if no sane programmer would use them?
Haven't used my T540P with a GUI in quite a long time, I think I may have noticed that the bottom of the trackpad is trying to be like an apple trackpad button also, however I recall it working very poorly; the whole trackpad physically clicks very nicely and definitively for the upper buttons, and on the bottom it just works like crap. Perhaps they've improved that.
> he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive.

Let me present an argument:

"Black people are killers, thieves, and lazy layabouts. Statistics [Citation, Citation, Citation] support me. The only reason <company> employs black people is affirmative action. Draw your own conclusions, folks. ;)"

How is this not aggression? What would be aggression, at this point? Dressing up in a white hood, and circling the office with a wooden cross? Do we need to have rational, calm, logical debate about whether or not the statistics I'm citing are correct?

Physical violence isn't the only form of aggression. Telling your colleagues that they aren't wanted in your workplace is absolutely a form of aggression.

> And yes, I have been in a situation where my merit as an engineer was called into question (I'm sure most engineers have).

Was your merit called into question because of the colour of your skin? Or your gender?

There is a world of difference between being treated like crap for <some reason>, and being treated like crap because the asshole you're dealing with is prejudiced towards you. It really has to be experienced to be believed.
The first interpretation of the frame problem is about mathematical entailment. If it isn't stated that a particular predicate on situations is preserved by taking actions, then it does not follow that the state is preserved. If you want to reason about situations in first order logic you need to pin the given theory down so that non-effects become deducible from the axioms.

Either you can introduce frame axioms, which are tedious and slow, or you can try to solve the problem in a more sophisticated way. It's definitely not a trivial problem.

A problem about logic in the narrow technical sense often has analogies in less technical philosophical considerations. That's what the rest of the article is about. You're taking too much for granted about how to formalize reasoning to much how humans intuitively go about it.
There's a bit of the tragedy of the commons at work here. Raising kids is expensive, difficult, often thankless work. And yet if no one did it, you wouldn't have any of the nice things that are more-available to people who don't have kids. Furthermore, given that political attitudes appear to be strongly heritable, it seems like the political attitudes that correlate with the class of people who deliberately don't have kids will also wane.
> Many people would disagree, and some would have you fired for saying that.

This mentality is exactly why the Google enginner made the post. The company and many others like it are forming echo chambers where anyone with any opinions that go against the status quo is fired. That's ridiculous! Especially with something as nuanced as sex and gender.

It is a known fact that there are physical[1], emotional, and psychological[2] differences in people around the world. If there are psychological and emotional differences between the genders, then why is it so surprising to think that they would overall have different career preferences? The fact that someone would fire an employee instead of let them question the boundary between biology and cultural influences is absurd.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans

[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology
Why Women Leave Engineering (2011) [pdf]
Was expecting this to be another article about yet another environment in which tardigrades have been discovered to survive http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/science/space/16obvacu.htm...
No need to store all the data.

One can probably leave out all the torrents, youtube and netflix videos that fly across the internet. Stick to text of emails, calls and chats only. Suddenly you only need a few thousand drives.
"A news story presents novel recent events, given context by a narrative. The title of a piece informs the reader of that narrative."

That's a very postmodern take on it.
Oh sorry. I was too broad. He wrote that it is unpopular for him to say that, for many biologically determined reasons, women do not have the traits required to excel in computer science, and that in reality the lack of their employment at Google could be reducible to their being women.

He then went on to explain at length that any effort to suppress this sort of opinion is the real diversity problem.

So I'd summarize that as: he believes that women are biologically not fit to work at Google, and therefore diversity programs are misguided, and therefore the real diversity problem is in not taking his unpopular opinions seriously.
I know someone who pays close to 0% interest on his personal mortgage because the bank desperately wanted his company's business. The more money(power) you have the better deals you can get on anything.
If you look at the top of this article, you'll see it's actually branded as BuzzFeed News. The BuzzFeed brand itself is still clickbait, BuzzFeed News is the journalism side of things.
Misunderstanding libertarianism to mean "whatever the market does is just" is a common straw man. Just because libertarianism says that large groups calling for someone to lose their job is legal doesn't mean that all libertarians must necessarily believe that such a thing is moral or even right in every single case.
"Alexa Traffic Rank" browser extension shows the ranking for every site you visit, checking is a course of habit. My point was simply that the site is pretty darned popular, and as OP said, it's a business. A comment like "The images are too high res for mobile. It loads too slow." sounds more like jealous nit picking than anything else
Timed idempotence with side-effects in Lisp style
>very likely that the NSA uses a private Google Cloud Video Intelligence[1] installation with TPU

Nope.
Good. Adding the `let` and `const` scoping rules to javascript was a damn good idea. Although non-lexical lifetimes has nothing to do with this, Rust has had block-based scoping since before 1.0. Non-lexical lifetimes are a refinement to allow certain cases where a value is borrowed outside a block but can safely be borrowed again inside that block. And other cases.
https://github.com/brandur/redis-cell

This is fast becoming my go-to tool for any sort of rate limiting at the application level.
It is tempting to reduce an argument to the most uncharitable caricature imaginable. To counteract this, image I transported you to a world where there was not a subconscious misogynistic pressure keeping women out of programming and women chose not to become programmers because of some combination of average differences in personality and variance in ability. What would this world look like? How would it differ from our own?
Did you think of that on your own? God I feel dumb. (I like being made to feel dumb) I googled it and didn't get that answer. I guess remembering ST can be a street or saint is a good rule.
> 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)?

Curious about this one, esp given the distance. My family lives in multiple states, and I estimate at best 5-6 days with a 50% chance of seeing some of them in a year. And if I was married and had kids, I'd drop that guess to about 25%.

There has been a related post realizing the relatively small amount of time we have with our parents.

It seems, that particularly with parents living in a different region of the world, that your need to like the family is limited.
> Chaos Computer Club accounts of NSA surveillance practices sounds like another likely way to be flagged.

It sure is, meaning that a privacy conscious person is not a friend of a government and needs to be held in check. It's also quite disturbing that NSA is surveilling political parties around the World to excerpt pressure on them and to get geopolitical and economic influence.
>> This is because a recursive sub-function never solves the exact same problem as the original function, but always a simpler version of an original problem.
> This isn't always true. There are plenty of recursive functions whose purpose is merely to climb until a condition is met that there are no more rungs in the ladder.

What do you mean here? What is the ladder in your analogy? The stack? Is the "a condition" that the stack has reached its limit or that you have reached a base case?

If computing f(50) requires computing f(50), it will never end. Likewise if you have a base case at 0, if f(50) requires computing f(51), it will never end. You must solve a problem closer to your base case than the original problem.

> Recursion is difficult because it isn't just taught, it is mythologized as the potentially infinite source of a one's love for programming. If teachers similarly mythologized the "switch" statement I'm sure they could confuse the topic of conditionals just as easily.

I don't think that recursion is mythologized. It allows you to express the core idea of the algorithm really succinctly.

For example defining the Fibonacci sequence just requires the beginning numbers and the rule for progression.

fib(n):
if n = 0 or 1: return 1
return fib(n-1)+fib(n-2)

It is much simpler than the iterative solution (though generally being inefficient).

Often the simplicity gained by using recursion (if you are comfortable with it) makes it possible to understand algorithms you could not understand the iterative form of.

Also, recursion is simply more powerful than just while or for loops (you need stacks as well). And when you add stacks into the mix, iterative programming can get very confusing.
I knew somebody'd find the species names
For everyone wondering how much the White House could rent for on Airbnb (132 bedrooms/35 bathrooms). $157,920/week

https://www.eliotandme.com/estimator?address=white+house%20&...
> If you know with good certainty that negative discrimination against a group is pervasive and manifests itself in a certain way

But you're missing the point.

All discrimination is aimed at individuals. Claiming that because individuals of group A have been negatively discriminated against, you don't balance it out by performing positive discrimination for them (even if it is exactly the same individuals), because you achieve that positive discrimination by performing negative discrimination against another set of individuals.

If you notice that Zuckerberg rejected a person because she was a black woman, because she was black, and you counter that by somehow benefitting that woman, and having Zuckerberg pay some sort of penalty, then that is just and you have 'counteracted' Zuckerberg's negative discrimination.

But if, after noticing that Zuckerberg rejected a person because she was a black woman, you penalize him and make him hire some another black woman over where a white woman would have been more qualified, then you have not 'counteracted' anything. You have performed negative discrimination against another set of individuals, under the color of 'positive discrimination'.
This sounds true, but is actually incorrect. Whenever women speak out on social media, they get at the very least abuse, but also often rape threats and death threats against them. That is retaliation, plain and simple.

That's just the loud stuff. There's also the quiet "oh she's too much of a firebrand" or "oh she won't fit into the small team because she might call people out for their casual sexism" that happens all the time.
/etc/hosts also seems to work on android
https://android.stackexchange.com/a/110483
Seeing the news about SoundCloud closing soon (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14884418), and that the Archive Team wasn't allowed to backup the music (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14903775) I decided to make a tool to backup artist's SoundCloud accounts.

Hopefully SoundCloud won't go after me, because all songs being backed up is done by the user that owns the music.

Open to questions and feedback.
Even with two atomic bombs and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, Japan still faced an attempted military coup when they considered surrendering.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
So they can update even if your phone is full... because it's not actually full, because they already pre-reserved a whole other partition large enough for the entire OS, and all Android 8 does now is patch that other partition directly with the downloaded data instead of staging the patch on the user partition first.

tl;dr: your phone isn't actually full, Google just reserved a bunch of space ahead of time.
Any application where you need an untrusted third party to do operations on encrypted data, without them getting access to the data itself.
There is a big difference between a regular mortgage and an interest only mortgage.
When I looked into this a lot, looking into all sorts of data, reading tons of stuff, my conclusions were:

1. Women are generally more conscientious and studious. I've seen data they do more homework, get better grades, even in math, and are more likely to make the honor roll.
2. The more difficult the math test, and the higher the score bracket, the more men outscored women. Average SAT score for men was only a little higher. But among those scoring 800, men outnumbered women two-to-one (this has changed a bit, but they have also made the math test a lot easier, far more testers get an 800 math than get an 800 verbal). Then when looking at who gets a 100+ on the American Mathematics Competition tests, men dominated by about a 10 to 1 ratio.
3. I have observed throughout life that men seem a lot more likely to "geek out" on stuff -- whether that be coding all night for fun, editing Wikipedia articles, taking apart a mechanical device, trying to beat all the quests in an RPG, etc. This is inline with studies showing men to be much more system oriented. I have a hard time believing this is due to culture messaging because for a lot of these things men receive enormous cultural messaging that they are losers for being such geeks, yet they do it anyway because it is such fun.
4. Men tend to have higher variance in almost all things. More men at the top, more men at the bottom.
5. This Stanford article notes "Men, on average, can more easily juggle items in working memory. " http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-b... I think that skill becomes more important the harder a math test becomes, or the harder a programming project is.

I think the 1970's style computer punch card programming, which was very corporate, and did not involve as much keeping large complicated systems in working memory, was less prone to creating a gender imbalance. It more favored conscientiousness.

Whe computers became available in every household, men were much more prone to geek out and become expert programmers on their own time. This means the pipeline of programmers ends up being much more male dominated.

Furthermore, the skills required to be a computer programmer at a top company like Google, require someone from the top percentiles in being able to juggle items in their head, and there are a lot more men in those percentiles than women. I think programming at Google is much more akin to doing well on the AMC than it is to answering an average SAT-level math problem. When we not the disparity in math ability is small, it obscures that the disparity at the very high ends is much larger.
I liked this. It reminds me of proof by induction. I recall my teacher telling us it was one of the harder concepts, and thinking, "this sounds just like recursion, and seems pretty natural." I think if she had taken away the scary introductory language, students would have been less afraid of it.
Ideally, a server binding to "localhost" should create a listening socket for each of its IP addresses (e.g. 127.0.0.1 and ::1), and a client connecting to "localhost" should try each IP address in order, until one succeeds.

But a lot of standard libraries (including parts of Java and Go) get this wrong, and pick exactly one IP address arbitrarily. When you combine a buggy client with a buggy server, and their preferences for IPv4/IPv6 disagree, then all hell breaks loose.

These are the open bugs I'm aware of:

https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8170568

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/9334
The Quiet Change Happening to Chinese Mobile Payment Services –  (网银)
I've noticed the same thing, and even worse is a friendly or gentle introduction.
Food for thought.
You totally missed the point. So here it is again: even if all the research he cites is real and well-supported, he makes a logical leap that is not substantiated by any evidence he cites. There's nothing in his evidence about women's personality traits that can lead you to the conclusion that they're necessarily underrepresented in STEM and in computer science.

There's also no support for his conclusion that Google therefore doesn't have an obligation to improve diversity measures (which, as a normative claim, can't be negated by citing scientific research).

And above all, there's zero support for his positive claim that Google has a real obligation to adopt a definition of diversity that benefits him and not women, nor that Google has an obligation to defend and make accommodations for his (abhorrent) opinions.
Python for AI research podcast with Vicarious
Can someone diff the spec from the previous version? What's the changelog? :)
NP can only verify positive solutions in P time.

Useful cryptographic problems are usually in the intersection of NP and co-NP.

Current best guess is that NP and co-NP are different.

Thus NP complete problems can't be in co-NP, and thus are probably not cryptographically useful. There's a way to make this argument a bit less vague, but it basically explains why cryptographers have stopped looking at NP complete problems.

There was a cryptosystem based on solving knapsack problems. But they had to patch problems until people stopped paying attention.
The summary you've provided here leaves me with no confidence that you understand even the very basics of the topic at hand. Your apparent level of confidence and outrage, in light of that fact, is truly remarkable.
you dont need to get the key, you just need to decrypt the data.

they do not need to be one in the same, if, statistically you can infer input given output.

And i never said sure in any way shape or form. what i said is i am skeptical of the motivations driving a project like this, when we know for an absolute fact bad men are trying to steal our secrets. It seems like a lot of work and very heavy math for something that will never tip the balance that is holding the cloud back with people not trusting it to keep their secrets.

for example, if you can do something as simple as compute a hash of the unencrypted data, you can instantly decrypt all data with known hashes with a high degree of certainty, without ever knowing the keys - side channel attack.
What do you think might break?
Before going straight for the mortgage repayment question, I wonder how many take up proper insurances to cover worst case scenarios (i.e. property getting fully trashed in a drug/alcohol binge party scenario) - and how much they cost.
This 1000 times. I can't tell you how often I've seen this happen. Many times it's at least a factor in failed projects.

Clues this might be happening: senior managers pulling you aside to discuss their ideas for the project. Getting different questions on project updates than the goals you're building towards in scrum. Constantly changing short term goals.
Hmm. I'm sympathetic to your overall perspective (that love may not be the universal blessing as it is often perceived) but this is rather unconvincing.

You should not confuse how most people are, or how you perceive most people to be, and how you perceive yourself to currently be, with how you or other people could be.

I tend to think that if you're still interested in media personalities, people who you don't, at the end of the day, know much about, then you can't really hold high ground on romantic ideas. There are, of course, potentially appropriate and awesome people among media personalities, but there are also plenty of awesome people who are not media personalities, but the reality is, you don't know any of those people, and it's always easy to imagine that a person you know very little about is much better than what you currently have. This is not something you want to trust.

Which is too bad, because I think the discussion on what relationships mean should be opened up more, and I think people can develop much more complex preferences than "attractive, popular, wealthy", they just often think that their instincts cannot be overpowered despite that being the human experience in a nutshell.
You're not necessarily wrong. It's a matter of whether one has a well-developed dream or talent that isn't child-related. The reason this matters is because we need long-term sources of meaning and responsibility in our lives. Starting a family is ipso facto the traditional thing to do and our traditions know more about us than we do. Changing course is possible but one ought to have good reasons in mind first.