skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your intuition is correct and the question of the speed of gravitational waves is pretty complicated. The usual treatment of gravitational waves is done by linearization of some non-linear equations. This is a very good approximation for the propagation of gravitational waves since they disturb the space-time only very slightly (for example, the mirrors in the interferometry experiment at LIGO get displaced by a tenth of a nucleus of a hydrogen atom, during the passage of a gravitational wave).

In this linear approximation the gravitational waves are governed by the same wave equation as for electromagnetism (only the spin part is different since the spins of the gravitons and photons are different). Since in the linear approximation we recover the Lorentz symmetry, then the linearized wave equation has to be Lorentz invariant. Then, one can apply results from the representation theory of the Lorentz or Poincare groups; there are two major types of representations: massless and massive. They differ in striking ways when it comes to spin and when it comes to propagation, for example massless particles travel at the speed of light. If you want to have a massive graviton then you need to get the mass somehow from your theory. Einstein's theory predicts a massless graviton, which by the argument above has to travel at the speed of light. We still don't know experimentally if the graviton is massless (but last time I looked at the Particle Data Book there was an upper bound on the mass which was very small).

Now, coming back to why your question is complicated. Remember that in Einstein's theory space-time itself is dynamical. Now suppose you follow the propagation of a gravitational wave. Since this takes some time, we need to take into account the fact that the shape of the space-time itself has changed in the meantime. In such dynamical situations it becomes complicated to even define what the speed of propagation between two points is. One way this becomes important is in cosmological situations. For example, the expansion of the universe stretches the distances and this allows us for example to see further that the distance you obtain multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe. This being said, you can define the speed locally by studying propagation for very short distances and times and this will be a constant. However, you need to remember that the global situation is more complicated.
I like it, but I wish there was an option to just park it without saying it is for sale.
the issue is that, for product development, it is really about the whole package, the ecosystem that is, which includes third-party modules/add-ons, documents, longevity concerns, road maps, tools around it and so on. one shining improvement is normally not enough.
Also, thanks to the stupid design decisions of most package managers, you will have trouble getting anything done anyway if github.com is down, even if you just get dependencies from there. If that problem affects you, then self-hosting your Git repo may just add a second point of failure.
There is very interesting wiki article about the theorem, highly recommend to read it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Neural Nets for Generating Music
Well, yea, hopefully in the future we have languages that allow both. I do feel like research in language design has ignored the interactive and fast feedback loop aspect though, at least from the reasearch I know of.

My biggest gripe with static checks, is that in reality, most of the software most programmers are asked to write don't need to have 100% correctness. As long as 95% of the most likely to occur and the most user impacting bugs are fixed, the rest doesn't matter.

So I'm really interested to see the optional type system research mature more. When I start programming, I rarely know what the functionality should be, I have a vague idea, but I need to experiment. I don't need each experiment to be correct, at that phase it could have tons of bugs, as long as it can give me a sense for the functionality, and allow me to demo it to the business so they get a similar sense. Static checks slow this process down a lot, even though I do have fun making each experiment correct, its really just a waste of time for the product.

But as the desired functionality gets clearer and clearer, then I'd want to start working towards that 95% correctness, and types are quicker to write then tests. I'd rather have types to assert type errors, borrow checks to assert no memory errors, and tests to assert functional errors. Then have to write tests to assert all three, because tests are the slowest to write. But writing 100% type annotations or memory annotations is too much, just like I wouldn't write 100% test coverage in practice. That's because most software needs 95% correctness. Not 100%. So this is the struggle I feel.
It's a good thing that writing an OS is a bit more complex or we'd have seen a huge fragmentation of that space too.

What's bugging me is that most JS work would have probably been better off as an improvement on something existing.
A pastor I know put it best:

Yes, there are churches that believe in snake-handling. Statistically, those churches are not growing.
The Google Docs example is not a good one because Google had millions of users already at the time.
Why Do Some People Decide to Ride Out Hurricanes?
Yup. Moon is completely different internally than Vue. Submitting a PR to Vue would require a rewrite of Vue itself, and would change a lot of it.

Moon's goal isn't to have complete API compatibility with Vue, but instead to have a light alternative with a similar API.
As far as I know, they did have to make the cars compliant. At least my colleague, who had an affected Skoda, got it "fixed" for free, including a temporary replacement car.
Has anyone done a similar study in the US? I'd love to learn if electric cars here are really helping the planet.
i dont like domain squatters, though one way of looking at it is they are investing in the TLD.
15TB is a lot for an individual, tiny for a business. What is your current estimate of time to breakeven?
By observing our behaviors and eliminating harmful ones, i.e. through mindfulness of one's actions and motivations.
Secret Service conducts live test of ShotSpotter system at White House
Student Privacy Tips for Students
I was in downtown Columbia, SC for this rainstorm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2015_North_American_st...

The next morning, my girlfriend and I ventured out on foot to attend a yoga class. The yoga studio was closed, so we went to the Waffle House next door and got something to eat. They told us that their water supply had been compromised, but had made special arrangements so they could make coffee safely. We enjoyed a hearty breakfast.

We learned only later that some areas of town had gotten two feet of rain, that houses and businesses were underwater, that multiple dams had been breached, that we should boil all our tap water for a week, and that most people in town were without water entirely. My employer (the University of South Carolina) shut down for a week.

Indeed. Waffle House doesn't kid around.
Enough that I get called out at least once per year to do a rescue attempt. Good for me: they usually work. Bad for the users: they don't always work and they're not always perfect. Of course all of these companies retrospectively agree that maybe they should have had their back-up setup tested a bit better. But that's hind sight, and I'm quite convinced that prior to failure there isn't an argument in the world that would have swayed them to actually do it.

And so the cycle continues. I probably shouldn't work too hard to educate people about this since it negatively affects my bottom line but those very same people definitely carry insurance on their real estate and their vehicles.

A backup that you haven't tested (and with a test I mean to rebuild your business from the ground up using nothing but the backups) is most likely incomplete.

Bonus points if you remember to store the decryption key outside of your backups ;)
Another way to think about it, is how time effects the object itself.

Photons are completely immutable, while they travel they don't change at all, if a photon was a "smergsboard" it would remain "smergsboard" during the whole trip.

One of the most interesting ways I saw explaining this, is imagine 'spacetime' as a cartesian space.

You have 4 axis, X, Y, Z and time.

EVERYTHING has speed of 'c', so you use trigonometry and rotations to figure the values, light, that have a speed of 'c' in the 3 space axis, then obviously have speed of '0' in time axis.

----

Now, one interesting application of that knowledge is how they figured the speed of neutrinos... As I just wrote, if something is travelling at speed of light, it is 'frozen', never changing...

But 10 years or so ago people figured that neutrinos change mid-flight, there are 3 (or more... people are unsure yet) 'flavors' of neutrinos, and during tests people noticed that even if you make a machine that generates only one specific flavor, what reaches on the other side is not necessarily that flavor, meaning they changed mid-flight...

But if they change, then they have some speed in 'time', this means then that the speed in space must be smaller than light.

Right now there are couple experiments where people are trying to use the changes in neutrinos to calculate their speed in 'time', and then by elimination figure their speed in space. I find it quite interesting, how people can use math to figure physics when our instruments aren't precise enough.
Wow, we're still doing this? Is it 2000 yet? Please don't start with elaborate secondary effect models unless your model can accurately account for all CO2 emissions of a country per year. Until then, all I'm seeing is someone fudging numbers and components to include/exclude in search of a preconceived conclusion.

The first obvious failure is not accounting for the electricity that already goes into refining oil to gasoline and diesel. A comparison that stops at the exhaust pipe for ICEs is straining credibility.
Desert Creosote Bush Could Treat Giardia and “Brain-Eating” Amoeba Infections
In fact recent research indicates that you can randomly relabel the training examples and the network still achieves zero training error (https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.03530). So it is not "understanding" anything intrinsic or fundamental about the letter "A". Rather, it's just storing training examples somewhere inside of its millions of parameters, which sounds a lot less impressive.
There are lots of "fundamentally intrinsic" harmful elements of human behavior and culture but civilization is slowly getting them under control.
Yea that would be very surprising.
Can't believe it hasn't been mentioned yet, but Nextcloud (or Owncloud):

https://nextcloud.com/

It's basically self-hosted Dropbox, with clients for all mayor Desktop and Mobile OSes. I set it up for a little team project. Just one account, and a shared folder where people with a password could upload. I think we will move to individual accounts at some point.

But it supports much more. It has a calendar similar to Google Calendar and I've switched to it. It also has plugins for image galleries, contacts, LibreOffice in the browser, collaborative editing like EtherPad, and so on. I was very sceptical, but it is really well done.
> Build for the sake of building, because that's reward enough.

My daughter can't eat the sake of building.
This is what research looks like. You keep trying new things, making small improvements if you can. But sometimes you just try something different and it's not better.

The truth, with software, is you don't really know what the implications of a design change are until you use it. We know a lot about what's good and bad about React now because we used it for a ton of stuff. That's the equivalent of taking your test vehicle out on the roads and testing it. In order to do that testing, these things get posted on Hacker News. Making your library mostly error free, putting docs up on GitHub... That's just getting it ready to actually test the ideas in that library.

The JavaScript community is one of the most research friendly communities out there. That's because we basically don't have a standard library, we have to send our entire application over the wire in less than a second, we can't really change the runtime, and people often want us to build new applications in a matter of days.

I get it, there are other realms of software development where you just have standardized tools, where stability is supreme, where you want to write huge checks and get back predictable quantities of mostly error free software. I get that.

But this comment shitting on JavaScript for changing too much, it's like making fun of a kid for saying weird stuff. If you want something comprehensible and predictable, go use something else! Let things be what they are. Appreciate that we have choices and different languages have different goals. Don't beat the same drum over and over of "JavaScript is too JavaScripty!"
Unless you're an active investor who is nuanced on the details of the protocols, just don't worry about it. You'll wake up one day, back up your files to the new cloud, you'll pay using some crypto app - and you'll have no idea that decentralization was ever involved.
LIGO is 2 pairs of detectors.
Why should they object to it, though? If an unsubstantiated claim can't be said to be anything other than an opinion, then it's just his opinion. Plus, it doesn't really matter whether he was being "doctrinaire" or not, because nothing was actually being imposed of me. I'm not being forced to subscribe to this view, I'm not being threatened (e.g. with getting a low grade, being fired, being burned at the stake). And I doubt he would have insisted in his view, too, if it weren't for the response it caused.

Furthermore, I don't believe anyone should exclusively care about Descartes' thought on the matter, whether in the light of contemporary science or not. I just tallied my thoughts as they came, really. But I do believe that there's a way to reply to comments which maximizes the likelihood of there being at least some degree of mutual understanding and which minimizes the likelihood of conflict, and that is to have a charitable, unassuming reading of the comment in question, and to not take offense. And that people should either have that, or not to discuss at all. Else, they might as well talk to the wind.

The whole exchange of comments we have in mind, for instance, was to little or no benefit to everyone involved, being little else than comments of "uh huh" and "nuh huh" back and forth.
I completely agree, DNS-parking is harmful. However, I can't imagine a system for banning or enforcing 'fair use' of a domain. How would it be financed and run?

I also can't imagine how you would legislate around the sales process of domains.

I've thought through a few options, but all paths lead back to a marketplace for domains as assets. In said marketplace, there will always be the equivalent of investment and speculation - so domain-parking is inevitable.
You left out the quantifiers.

∃ x : X . x can y ⇐ ∃ z : Z . z can y ∧ ∀ z : Z . z : X

In English: There are X that can y because there are Z that can y and all Z are X. Nothing contradictory there.

While it is not always clear what the intended quantifiers are, it is usually best to choose the interpretation that doesn't make a statement trivially false.
Fair enough. I take it that you weighed the cost of fragmentation versus the advantage that a rewrite would give you. Even so, it feels to me - as an outsider, without having looked in depth at either code base - that it might have been better to see how far you could have pushed vue.js with respect to your improvements before deciding to roll your own. After all, now you are comparing apples with oranges, many of your improvements likely would have applied to vue.js as well and then the difference between your offering and theirs would have been a lot smaller, possibly small enough not to justify a for and yet another incompatible API.

These are hard decisions.
I'm not really biased one way or the other on the upthread conversation, however I think you'll find the Descartes' thinking continues to underlie a great deal of what we call modern science (or more precisely: our defining interpretation of universal phenomenon) and many of the applications that come with that.

You can find great nuggets in modern work just as you can find great nuggets in older work, too. It's not that disposable!
I tend to be more convinced by good writing and reporting than by the protests themselves, but why do those reporters get assigned and why are all those essays getting written and published and read? Making the national news matters.
I agree! Moon has an official router[1], store[2], CLI[3], and an SSR module[4]. It might not have the biggest community, but that is why I am here :)

[1] https://github.com/kbrsh/moon-router

[2] https://github.com/kbrsh/monx

[3] https://github.com/kbrsh/moon-cli

[4] https://github.com/kbrsh/moon-ssr
Show HN: Vim Turing Machine using only normal mode commands
nginx (HTTP), Prosody (XMPP) and uMurmur (Mumble voice-chat) stand out as being very easy to set up (single configuration file, good documentation) and having no failure modes that I'm aware of.

nginx deserves particular mention for handling a HN frontpage crowd on a single-core VM without even blinking.
Is there any documentation on why to use a typed array
It's a pretty good treatment. I think the solving the root cause would be something like a constant time compiler, which I don't think is going to happen. You don't need to mock at all if you do DI and modularity well in Guice or Spring or something else (it can be the rare exception for a few libraries that use say private constructors). You can also write 3-5 line tests that will absolutely test everything in your program, and be able to debug it line by line in a debugger. So, I'm not sure I would agree with Rich Hickey on this. REPLs are no substitute for a good IDE and debugger running a series of declarative tests.
IT's kind of like saying, "This river is not the same river that it was upstream, and yet it is. The river is not the same water of last year, and yet it is the same river."

The phenomenon is entirely well understood by all involved, and yet coming up with a reasonable definition is hard. http://existentialcomics.com/comic/164 So it's easier to be mystical.
In high school we got really good at minimizing the windows of games and social media sites as the teachers actively circled the room looking for bad behavior. In college if you sat near the top of a large lecture hall you could usually see the majority of students with laptops were on facebook, netflix, or youtube, and not actually taking notes on the device.

Companies like Apple try to convince high schools that every student needs an iPad or parents that if they don't send their to college with a mac book pro - they aren't good parents.

It would take one hell of a peer-reviewed article to make me believe constant computer presence in classrooms did anything but harm students. Are their situations that rely on constantly looking up information on the internet? Probably. But we have to weigh that value of constant internet access (which students already have today with their smart phones) against two decades of manipulative practices by software and hardware vendors finagling their way into already ineffective and poorly spent education budgets.
I don't think this is up to the standard of civil discourse here. Can we please try not to be so rude to one another?
Context Search: WebExtension Replacement for Context Search X
Thanks for this well informed comment. It links together some of the observing strategies and motivations really well.
If a human can translate perfectly without understanding the conversation, then that to me implies that the mind itself gives no innate intelligence similar to the computer. It must be taught the meaning of things, exactly as a computer would need to be. I'm just not following his logic, it feels like a straw man. Of course the computer doesn't understand the meaning of the symbols it is translating, because it was never given data to teach it that (similar to a human in the scenario).
Of course they produce gravitational waves! The main point of curiosity is likely that unlike black holes, that are "hairless" entities of pure curvature, neutron stars are complex objects with multiple, variable layers... and consequentially (I presume) the gravitational waves occasioned by their merger would both carry more information about the objects' composition and likely be more complicated (as well as less powerful at any given distance).

I'm just guessing though.
I have always believed that understanding is an emergent property of physical processes that could be modeled computationally, but I do not think deep learning has yet demonstrated that it has yet achieved it. Some of the evidence comes from the ways it fails, such as 'recognizing' images that humans would understand are not what the systems think they are, and being confident in decisions that make no sense. These situations occur precisely because of a lack of understanding. I am open to the possibility that deep learning alone might achieve understanding, but I think it is more likely to succumb to the law of diminishing returns before it gets there.
The performance improvements are impressive if they translate to real-world apps, however speed is only one of the reasons I use Vue.js. The other big reasons are stability and incredibly good documentation.
True, sorry. User wpietry already posted the link, I just wanted to point out that the whole story is available there, which includes answer to his question.
I'm a big fan of Vue and I think Moon looks very promising.
I have some questions w.r.t Vue API compatibility:

- In Vue, you can call a method or access a variable directly using this.var or this.fn, did you deliberately choose to do it in a different way or are you planning to implement this using defineProperty?

- Are you planning to implement filters and refs?

- Are you planning to make it compatible with Vue to make it a drop-in replacement?

If it's gonna be a drop-in replacement and existing code can be reused, I can imagine testing it for some projects (framework7 based).

Edit: Another idea would be to integrate all the performance improvements in Vue, Evan You is a great developer who single-handedly built this great framework and I think it's a good idea to make your ideas available for the whole Vue ecosystem. Are you having plans to do that?
Foreign Nations file petition to abolish U.S Government due to exposed files
I run my own git server with Gogs, which is written in go. I set that up 2 or 3 years ago on a 5 dollar DOdroplet and have never had downtime and I haven't SSH'd into it since the initial setup. I use it all day every day for many projects and have had up to about 5 devs regularly committing to it as well. Zero problems, ever.

There's also Gitea which is a fork of Gogs after some contributors became concerned with the bus factor, very slow feature development, and occasional disappearance of the maintainer of Gogs. I haven't use it but that's probably what I'd try first now.
Can one be hired as a CEO or CTO?

Does that count as an employee?

If one is a software developer at present in current petition can such person transfer his H1B to a role of CTO?

Are there any challenges in this?