skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
By that same token (lol), isn't it hilarious what the U.S. is doing here? Money in our bank accounts only exists because we believe they exist and have value. The $100 bill in my back pocket would only be useful to wipe my ass if everyone else didn't value it.

Cryptocurrencies are brand new, so they're incredibly volatile, sure. But it can be "real money" just as much as money, because really what is money?

An idea.
How does Inferno (https://infernojs.org/) compare to Preact? Seems to be faster than both React and Preact.
I guess schumpeters point with creative destruction was the rupture required to replace one paradigm with another (Incidentally, he got this straight from marx). Technology, and markets, move in fits and starts as conservative tendencies meet with more efficient, or qualitatively different, competion. For both schumpeter and marx this view was seen as opposed to equilibrium models of economics on which much of mainstream economics and game theory still relies
Wanting privacy is not the same as being shocked. Do you defecate in public or are you a prude?
If you actually have the private keys to your bitcoin (ie. you have your bitcoin in bitcoin wallet software on your computer such as in the official client or the electrum client), and you had them at the time of the fork (Aug 1), then yes. If you had your bitcoins held by a 3rd party like an exchange, then it's up to them to decide whether they want to support a fork like bitcoin cash at all and credit it to your account.
Interesting. Makes me wonder about what lead Uber to be so aggressive.
Scaling Deep Learning Conference
Hah! You and I have the exact same disease - I mean gear. I also have a 500, 1000, 2000 and 1200 (all of mine are NTSC). My 2000 is beefed up with an 030 GeForce card and 18MB of RAM. My 1200 is bananas with an ACA1221 set to 21Mhz and maxed out RAM of (I think) 63MB. It's about 10X more than it really needs to be, to be honest. I really spend most of my time these days on the 2000 or 1000, and prefer OS 1.3. It just feels right to me. But to each his/her own.

The BBS scene - when you find the right boards - can be a ton of fun. I really enjoy it. The sad truth is, there are a ton out there that are just being ignored and are like digital ghost towns. If more people popped back in there it's be even more fun. Hope to see you around! (I go by 'intric8' or 'amigalove'

Cheers
It says on the revival project page [1] that the plan was to make T R5RS compatible. That is probably why they abandoned T to make Scheme 48 [2]

I am also interested in the revival of this language, but I don't see what the point of that would be. Does anyone here feel the same way?

[1] http://web.archive.org/web/20070103020434/http://mumble.net/...

[2] http://s48.org/
You're right and it's proven pretty robust at that. This is a good proof of work, because it means that anyone with commodity hardware can set up a miner, and the playing field is pretty level.
>horse steroid

They're all "horse steroids," generally, as veterinarians are a common source of grey/black market AAS. Winstrol was likely very common then, as was Deca-Durabolin and Trenbolone. Obviously good old-fashioned injectable Testosterone [insert ester here] was used as well.

As for HGH, I'm not sure it was all that common in the 80s, or really even now. The benefits for adult males are... dubious, to say the least; it's not like testosterone which we know how valuable it can be for athletic performance.
I feel like I’m missing something here. An infoleak is required to successfully ROP against ASLR (otherwise the attacker doesn’t know what to overwrite the return address with). Once an infoleak is available, the address of the stack can be leaked. I’m not really sure this does much beyond requiring attackers to modify their existing exploits.
That's technically correct (the best kind of correct!) but there was no need to block them now when those nodes are still compatible and in line with the consensus rules of the core code.
I'm a succesful game developer?
Misleading comment.

7.08 (a) 2 specifically applies to the scenario like in this comment:

> Rule 7.08(a) Comment: Any runner after reaching first base who leaves the base path heading for his dugout or his position believing that there is no further play, may be declared out if the umpire judges the act of the runner to be considered abandoning his efforts to run the bases. Even though an out is called, the ball remains in play in regard to any other runner.

Essentially the runner has to obviously abandon his attempt to reach the next base. In the scenario outlined in the article the runner is still advancing to the next base, trying to draw a throw. According to your interpretation, any runner taking a lead without specifically advancing should be out, which is incorrect.

When it comes to judgement calls like this it all comes down to the umpire. Many umpires have noted[1] that this is a legal play. And it was ruled as such in the article's example. Calling it "misleading reporting" is a smear on a very well written story about an edge case that isn't clear cut.

(I will note that is very easy for the offense to execute incorrectly and for the umpires to get it wrong. For example: https://youtu.be/WnI4KlUNf38)

[1] http://www.austinumpires.org/skunkplay.html
Not just/primarily umpires but, e.g. https://forum.officiating.com

See also: http://austinumpires.org/skunkplay.html
"It's so much safer to try to stick to licenses that say they are irrevocable and include an explicit patent grant."

Sadly, although Facebook includes an explicit patent grant, it does not claim to be irrevocable. They even list one specific case where it can be revoked.
Like Promi Big Brother? I am German but have been living in the US a log time. It's hard to understand how that show can be on front pages.
What it looks like in other languages is only minorly relevant to its obviousness and readability.
Dash Jumps to New All Time High
Inflation is a measure of the growth in supply of money.

Using purchasing power (or more specifically an artificially constructed and highly manipulated bag of goods measure called the CPI in the USA) is a switch to obscure the rate of inflation, as if it couldn't be measured directly.

But Inflation always has been issuance, not purchasing power. Pretending otherwise isa tactic used by people who engage in inflation to try and obscure its effects (because purchasing power is affected by things like growth in productivity.)
I am also wary of proof of stake, but this is not something you can say with such a certainty, like you're doing.

If someone asked "how safe is proof of work?" ten years ago, everyone would have laughed and thought you're joking.

I'm only saying this because you're making a snarky comment while pretending to know exactly how it will play out. Nobody knows how it will work. Who knows? Maybe some unexpected human behavior like mining pools will happen in proof of stake approaches and it may end up going in a completely unexpected direction.
Not convinced their user embedding creation is useful. Did not read in detail but it seems to use a list of edits similar to how one may create paragraph vectors as an average of word vectors. But if I had to guess, they're not really capturing more information than they originally had with a one hot vector of whether or not a user had edited a specific article. It would have been better if they had bench marked against this. I would wager that a simple random forest and the one hot vector would do just as well if not better than their NN solution.
The first casper PoC was in 2015, and PoC2 was in early 2016.[1] However, there was a pivot from the early "consensus-by-bet" to the current version, which is based on "prepare and commit" messages. I think the current one is PoC4. [2,3]

1. https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/03/05/serenity-poc2/
2. https://github.com/ethereum/casper
3. https://github.com/ethereum/pyethereum/pull/791
Nymph: A Sort of C Programming Language
Lispers
False. Inflation is as an economic term, the issuance of currency.

Pretending like it's a measure of the price of goods is a political (not economics) tactic used by governments to obscure it-- because the price of goods are affected by other things--like increases in productivity, lower cost goods from overseas and the like.
No, that isn't what I am saying at all.

People here are talking to me as if I am an antivaxxer when I have said I am not. Pro vaxxers are just as blind, unthinking and extremist as anti vaxxers.

Both sides disregard valid points on the other side. This is the crux of the problem.

Einstein said that you cannot solve a problem from the same level of thinking that created it. The world is not going to solve this conflict as long as it frames it in extremist either/or terms. The efforts to ramp up the pressure on anti vaxxers to conform merely deepens the conflict. It does not help the matter.
You see the eclipse? The human eye is pretty well adapted to the sun by now. This is pure FUD masquerading as science.
I'm learning to inline roller skate, in my late thirties.
I fell over again today, also humbling.
Unless they are literally calling for imminent violence against other human beings, it is their right to protest. It's your right to counter-protest all the same. But it's not your right to get violent. Ever. Only in self-defense. What the hell happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?
Facebook’s BSD+Patents License and how it affects your company/sideproject
It's only sitting offshore because of the corporate taxes. "Offshore" just means, "in a country with low or no corporate tax".

Often, the offshore money is used as collateral for loans which are then used to reinvest in the company, because the interest is often cheaper than the tax.

Eliminate corporate tax and the cash hoarding problem goes away. If it doesn't, then maybe there can be an evidence-based solution to that problem.
I worked with Ember for a few months and I like it a lot - it definitely deserves more recognition. One thing that frustrated me a lot in Ember was the run loop. The docs suggest that you don't have to worry about the run loop at all and its merely an implementation detail, yet we had to constantly us Ember.run, Ember.run.schedule, etc. all over the app. But of course in order to know which Ember.run methods to use, you end up diving deeply into the implementation details of the framework itself.
False. Please read the satoshi white paper. PoW solved a hard problem. PoS seem to want to pretend it isn't a problem.

Also: http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/pow-cheapest/
>he wasn't/isn't a freak

>without the need for genetic modification or peds

He is genetically modified, just in the slow, natural way.

As for "without the need for... PEDs," ah.... I doubt it. A friend of mine coached major D1 T&F and also coached 20+ Olympic Games sprint and field events athletes. His words could not be more clear: "No one runs sub 10.0 without cheating. No one."
Scheme allows practically infinite possibility of language extension due to its syntax (this is same with lisp and scheme, but I prefer scheme due to its lexical scoping, a minimal standard like R7RS etc). (Note that I'm a big advocate of Python-C hybrid programming too, and so for me it's either python-and-C or scheme-and-C)

Moving towards Scheme-to-C is moving towards solving all performance/concurrency/what-not problems of a high-level-language like Scheme, without having to drop down to a low-level-language like C (or assembly). (I guess I should say that there might be a need for generating code for GPU, e.g., OpenCL. Just a heads up that I'm not trying to ignore that).

What I say has to be qualified with two very important assumptions:

- I believe 'large-scale programming' is 'research'. E.g., if the system you're building is under 20k-50k lines of code, give or take, it largely doesn't matter what paradigm you're using, or what language you're using. But for larger systems, the best way forward is to treat such a complex system as a research topic, and try to work at a higher level of abstraction, watch out for opportunities of creating new DSLs, and so on. (I believe this is part of the reason large projects do better in open source, firefox, linux, chromium, etc, etc. No manager is watching over your shoulders with a stick and a deadline on their notepad.).

- You have to think in terms of meta-programming. It comes in many flavors but take code-generation. Think of the whole purpose of your scheme code is to let you generate human-readable C code. For me, meta-programming means never having to write your program (here the program is the C code), but using tools and machines that write the program for you (here the tool and the machine is Scheme).

E.g., take a very large system like the linux kernel. It's 90% C with some assembly. A big motivation for my ideas comes from asking the question 'Can we develop and work at a high layer of abstraction in Scheme and create a code of ~100K to ~200K lines, that, using the ideas of meta-programming, compiles down to ~20M lines of C code which is functionally equivalent, as well as equally readable, to the current ~20M lines of the linux kernel?' (Note the scheme code size being 1% of the C code size!)

When you think along those lines, and realize that 21st-century large-scale programming is just getting started and something like a linux kernel is just the tip of the iceberg, you probably would reach many of the conclusions and beliefs that I gravitate towards.

Note that my ideas are in stark contrast to people who think the problem is that we need a new programming language. In that regard, I'm anti C++, D, Go, Rust, Swift, Kotlin, etc, etc. We don't need a new programming language. We need to treat the activity of programming as a research activity. (again, I'm talking about large-scale).
There's a twist to this profitability statistic, which I haven't seen mentioned anywhere yet: your reward for mining a block can be spent only after many other blocks are mined on top of your block.

That changes the game significantly. What matters for a miner is not "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and price", but instead "it's more profitable with the current difficulty and the price X blocks in the future". Moreover, once they've mined a block on one chain, it's in their interest to keep that chain alive and working well for at least X blocks, so they can convert enough of their reward into fiat to pay their costs. The obvious way to do it would be to keep mining on the same chain, which generates yet more block rewards to be claimed later. All that might make the chain choice somewhat sticky for the miner: once on one chain, it's better to keep on the same chain instead of switching every time the price swings.
Exactly. But holy smokes:

The fact that both BTC and BCH exist now means that there is ${BTC + BCH} market cap now, right?

If you put $3k into BCH and $3k into BTC, your investments will grow or fall independently of each other, depending on how BTC or BCH does. But if BCH reaches parity with BTC, that means the world now has ${2xBTC} of value in it, right? I mean yes, set aside the question of what "value" means, but that's what the numbers are showing?

In other words, BCH was one of the biggest things anyone could have done to grow the Cryptocoin ecosystem as a whole, then? Coinmarketcap shows $68B for BTC and $13B for BCH. Ethereum is $27B, and that took like four years to get to this point.

So, true or false: BCH just created half the total value of ETH within the last month or so?

What justifies this? Is everything going to explode? I need a mathematical or investment framework to think rationally about the implications of this.

Are we in danger of any kind of "pop"? The 2008 housing crash affected the world. Anyone know how big these babies need to grow before a pop would cause problems for the world economy?

I'm not even convinced it will pop. But I've also read Madness of Crowds, and the temperament here reads identical to the worldwide investment craze portrayed in it. It didn't last forever. (I guess once all the naysayers stop naysaying about BTC, then it's time to worry. Till then, though...)
If you're interested in proof of stake, it's definitely worth reading about delegated proof of stake [1]. The gist of it is that token holders vote for the nodes (miners). So far as I've seen, it's the best way to address the issue of governance on a blackchain.

1. https://bitshares.org/technology/delegated-proof-of-stake-co...
> Anycast isn't perfect either though.

Sure, but it's better than DNS based solution.

> It may be more likely to get you a route with fewer hops, but that's not necessarily the lowest latency link. And if there's a congested link in the path, it's much harder to steer a portion of users, but not all to alternate servers.

This is also true for DNS based solution because of DNS caching. Smart networks will change routes before your DNS changes get propagated.

> Anyway, unless you have thousands of datacenters well distributed throughout the globe, a lot of people are going to have high latency to whatever server is chosen, and high latency and very small windows == poor throughput, regardless of how you get to a server.

Depends what's your definition of high latency. If you live on desert in Africa or some forgotten village in India, then you will always have high latency because no one will build a POP there.
On that i agree.
> The assumption that PoW is wasteful is one with an ideological basis that comes from a lack of understanding of the purpose PoW serves

I agree with this, but I think the real problem with PoW is the mining pools centralizing. People seem to think the recent swift soft fork is something to be celebrated, but I think it's kind of scary how swift it was. It just means that the mining pools are so centralized that the transition was so easy.

Then again, this is something even PoS will probably suffer from.
There are definitely some unhealthy aspects of surfing culture. Surfers will sometimes grow to feel they have a degree of possession or responsibility for an area. For some this makes them hostile to traveling surfers. But the vast majority will enjoy a chat and sharing waves. Regardless, these are local people who will probably be picking up litter on the beach and help a swimmer who is in trouble. They spend hours every day/week for much or all of their lives in an area surfing its waves. Usually the waves will be average and sometimes good. When it's good you feel like you've earned it... those few days a year. Most line ups have a hierarchy. The structure helps and the pecking order, while strange, means the older crew get more waves and the younger or newer crew get less. If you're new then it's a matter of introducing yourself to the existing structure. That takes time. Travelers usually have a few days or weeks. Sometimes they don't have patience and try to replicate their home environment wherever they visit.

I've been surfing for over 20 years and have never seen a surfer beat someone up. I have experienced bad vibes in the water and that's when I get out or move elsewhere.

Popular surf spots have signs up outlining some of the "rules" I listed earlier. It can help a lot. But things still get chaotic and many of these points also directly relate to safety in the line up.
BCH is a hastily written hack job by a third rate team (I talked to some of them on twitter, they really don't understand a lot of what they are doing)... with a drastic difficulty retargeting algorithm. A bit of a pump combined with hash power manipulations lead to this.

This is all show to try and prop up the coin. Both the pump and the "profitability" of mining it.

%98 of the blocks of this coin are mined by an unknown entity-- in other words, it's not decentralized. It's trivial for that entity to manipulate the difficulty retargeting mechanism in his favor.

Stay away. This is not "bitcoin" in any sense.
With reagard to Facebook app I guess the problem is that they have too many resources, i.e. gazillion of people working on different parts without even checking what others are doing so you get a bunch of duplicated, triplicated, whatever, code, a bunch of dead code and stuff like that. They also use some kind of generators and run into problems like having too many classes for Xcode to handle.
From everything I've heard of it you don't want to do things the way FB does them with their app.
I think Laravel's popularity, which is greater than Symfony, mandates Symfony's continued experience.

Laravel uses a tonne of Symfony packages under the hood.

The other thing is that I think they serve different purposes.

Laravel makes a lot of decisions for you. There's a structure and conventions out of the box. It's like the Rails of PHP at the moment. This makes it great for small to medium sized projects and especially rapid prototyping.

Symfony doesn't do this. It's a component, configuration based framework. This is great where the flexibility is needed. Larger projects are a prime example.
>And if the UCL is indeed the limiting factor, it's not hard to imagine a future where the ligament will be surgically enhanced via some kind of synthetic graft.

The UCL is not the limiting factor; it just gets torn from use. The tissue itself does not stop people from throwing harder than 105+ MPH. There are videos of people throwing baseballs 109 MPH from running starts and their arms don't explode; they also throw 3 oz balls 115+ MPH and their UCL doesn't tear. The UCL is not a governor.

As for the synthetic graft, it already exists. We call it internal brace method, designed by Dr. Jeffrey Dugas. One surgeon even weaves fibers into the UCL to strengthen it and he calls it the Superband surgery. There is almost no information on that surgery, probably because the person who does it has been sanctioned twice by the AMA.
But you are essentially staking "off chain" by buying the gear in fiat money. So there is a built-in exchange rate arbitrage. And the on-chain velocity of value is not slowed down. This isn't true in ETH POS.
Markets can be quite irrational in the short term, especially when people don't realize how centralized BCH is.
Classical AI is applied, layered logic.

Modern ML is applied, layered statistics.

season to taste.
I feel that the focus on graphics has faded a bit in the most recent versions.

When I last gave it a try I had to manually generated the HTML document but without a (at least of of the box) syntax like jsx.
If I recall correctly graphics is still there, but it's mainly used for games
Is there much of a gap between "creepy" and "shocking"? Defecating in public is unsanitary, gross, indecent, none of which apply to simply being naked.

Trying to equate taking a dump in public with using a common shower is very much considered prude. Of course the stigma attached to the term plus the subjectivity involved makes it fuzzy.
I am curious why people don't talk much about the "rich get richer" aspect of proof of stake. Most say "proof of work also is rich get richer scheme" to justify this, but in my opinion they are completely different because proof of work involves efforts that exist in the atom world (need to buy all the mining pools) whereas proof of stake involves purely digital efforts therefore the scale can be completely different.

Am I missing something? Or is this people just being optimistic?
They don't have to decide anything like that. They could prohibit cat videos for no reason tomorrow, and suffer whatever the consequences of that are.

They have chosen to try to stop ISIS recruitment by videos hosted on their site. That is their prerogative.
An excellent resource on the incident itself and the aftermath: http://www.ussindianapolis.org/

The Indianapolis had delivered its atomic cargo four days prior to its sinking. Presumably there wasn't anything sensitive or environmentally hazardous left on board. Had there been, I suspect the wreck would have been located much sooner.
No I think that people with extreme egoism genuinely think that loving only themselves is the right thing to do.