skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
According to Wikipedia, NSA is also tasked with the protection of U.S. communications networks and information systems. By not disclosing the exploits they find, they put the information systems at risk. If they can find it, someone else can too.
I'm sure it's written as an irrevocable, exclusive license.
thank you for sharing this! i'd like to try and recreate this in R.
One of the comments here[0] raises an excellent point:

>I don’t understand how this strategy would work.

>The PTAB decisions about state colleges/universities are based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. On those cases, the IPR statute is trumped and cannot impede on the states’ sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment.

>But Native American tribes do not enjoy 11th Amendment immunity; their immunity is a function of federal common law and Congress has near plenary statutory authority over the tribes. Congressional statutes can abrogate or supersede tribal immunity, without constitutional issues.

>Tribal immunity is more about immunity from the states over Native American tribes, based on federal supremacy over Native American affairs.

>But AIA is federal. So the argument is simple; by enacting the AIA and subjecting issued patents to AIA reviews, and not making any exception for patents owned by Native American tribes, it abrogated any sovereign immunity that may have applied.

>The patents obviously weren’t invented or originally prosecuted by the tribe; given the fact that the immunity is federal common law and policy-based (and not 11th Amendment-based), I can see that policy-based arguments about how manipulative this is, will be very receptive.

[0]https://patentlyo.com/patent/2017/09/allergan-creating-sover...
But do you feel any better about the idea of being compensated for not getting your preference?
I always wanted to ask this question, Does it is really uncool if someone learns that I had never tasted an alcohol even once in my life, and never intend to do either?

On personal level, I don't really like or have any reason or wish to drink it. Sometimes though, I read that alcohol is good for overall health in small quantities. While, I really doubt it, considering it's additive properties!

Literally, among my friend circle everyone drinks for no reason. Most of the times, Just to be cool! Has alcohol become new norm of today's lifestyle across the world?
It would a hoot to see the history of Young-Earth Creationism taught in Collier County. People would line up for front-row seats to watch the proceedings! The force of sanity against the force of hucksterism and obscurantism. It won't happen, but one can dream.
Identity Theft, Credit Reports, and You
Sounds like a lot of red tapes.
> I can absolutely not recommend a book about a critical topic, which contains that kind of defects.

I think your definition of formal proofs is a bit different from Alan Downey's (who incidentally has also written an entire book on Complexity and the Philosophy of science[1]). Providing a formal proof for even a 'simple' algorithm is incredibly wasteful in the context of the example in which the statement is made. Perhaps you should read the book before calling out it's 'defects'.

[1] http://greenteapress.com/complexity/index.html

More of Alan's books at:
http://greenteapress.com/
Huh, you think patriotism is more legitimate in Europe? Subjectively speaking, I have to say I think it's the opposite, because patriotism and nationalism almost destroyed Europe in the first half of the 20th century, and that still shows in how people think here, IMO.
an interesting description of a few screenshots, but omits all details unfortunately.
It's not just C++ though. If I have to add logic to my code to handle explicit type changes (casting, et al.) for something that, honestly, is not important to my algorithm, then this increases the likelihood that I will make a type/casting/conversion error.

OTOH, a language smart enough to (correctly) infer this (Perl, Julia, etc.) generally won't have a problem with this, and will handle these issues for you. Julia still allows you to be very explicit on type, and force a hard type specialized code. The benefit in this case, with type specialization, is that it can generate far more efficient code for the specific logic.

That latter argument is, to me, the only real benefit of typing systems that I've personally encountered. I know people throw studies around claiming "fewer errors with stronger type systems", but ... to be honest ... I have not experienced this. Rather, in stronger typed languages, I spend more time hunting down type impedance issues than logic issues.

This seems to not be a positive benefit to me. I may be alone in this regard, or not. I don't know.

I do know that, like programming languages, editors, operating systems, this view point (pro/anti strong typing) tends to take on a religious overtone in the sense of people taking a position and digging their heels in over this. Elevating this aspect as an important point in an overall platform decision process (what should we develop in), when, maybe, it shouldn't be.

In an odd way, I've seen this in the industry for a while. There were previous incarnations of this. Like Dijkstra's famous "goto" comments[1]. I don't necessarily agree with this, and I argue that people can write bad code in any language.

Typing systems ostensibly are there to help us write less bad code (all code is bad and buggy, anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you some swampland). But once they get in your way, and you start spending inordinate amounts of time dealing with typing issues, you have to ask whether or not they are helping or inhibiting.

Put another way, anything that helps should, actually help, without adding significantly to the burden. Apart from what Julia does, and other dynamic languages do ... that some people write great code in ... I've not seen/used many other systems that strive to get out of your way while working.

Typing systems do not automatically make code better. Absence of typing systems do not automatically make code worse. This is a function of the algorithm, the implementation logic, etc. How disciplined are you as the developer in making sure your code is clear, concise, and actually reflective of the problem you are attempting to solve ... things that help with that are welcome.

[1] http://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.pd...
"include team members without it becoming design by committee"

This point is mentioned but there's no clarification. As soon as you open up a design discussion to other members you're heading to design by committee territory, unless you take specific action to control it. Is there something in the formalized RFC process that addresses this?
Java is a language, not some of the enterprise `AbstractFactoryProxyBuilder` horrors written in it.
Theres plenty of good things written in Java, and theres plenty of trash written in <trendy new language>.

Java the language is great - exceedingly well specified & documented, tested & optimized JVM platform, very simple & familiar with a lot of communal knowledge around it, great tooling around IDEs, runtime inspection that most languages can't match yet etc. Great might be a matter of taste, certainly not horrible and generally up to par with most other langs.

Extreme generalizations like "X is bad & evil!!!!!" aren't really useful lenses to view software through.
> My experience with private liquor stores vs. the state run ones has been that the private ones were better stocked, had significantly better variety, and lower prices. However, that can vary depending on the state.

But that is often a direct side effect of the purpose of government alcohol monopolies, which is rarely to sell the most alcohol possible, but to provide a sufficient outlet to minimise black market sales yet seek to at least to some extent shape and reduce consumption.

So this is what one should expect with them. Whether or not that's what one wants is a separate issue.
Photographer turns kids into superheroes
Make private passenger vehicles illegal and replace them with buses. Most issues will resolve themselves.
The point is that implementing a semaphore with a mutex and condition is very easy but more versatile. A semaphore only has a single integer internal state, a condition can guard any number of shares variables.

I see no reason to use semaphores in multithreaded programming because of this. They have no advantages over mutex and condition but are much more limited.
It is good for your health in small doses like salt. But people like the affect and over do it to the point there are no health benefits.
I'm not even sure if this a colour but here is Vantablack

https://www.surreynanosystems.com/vantablack

Anish Kapoor has the exclusive right to use it for art so Stuart Semple created the world's pinkist pink available to everyone in the world except Anish. Anish got some anyway.

https://www.dezeen.com/2016/12/30/anish-kapoor-uses-stuart-s...
Using a system like ZCash the government could have citizens register a public address, then 1 token is distributed to each public address, votes work by sending the token to the candidate you vote for, whomever has the highest balance at the end of the election is the electee (this even allows for off ballot candidates, but up to rules). ZCash is designed so that you can't tell the contents of a transaction despite it being immutably on the blockchain
That study's introduction is a little disingenuous and frankly a little alarmist. To break it down:

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to disprove the study. I simply think their introduction is needlessly hyperbolic.

"Alcohol consumption is a well-established risk factor for a range of cancers, accounting for approximately 4% of new cancer cases annually [1, 2]."

The first citation is pay-walled, so I can't confirm, but the abstract states "The net effect of alcohol consumption on health is detrimental, with an estimated 3.8% of all global deaths and 4.6% of global disability-adjusted life-years attributable to alcohol." It says nothing about cancer specifically, but this could just be a vague abstract. Perhaps the data holds up, but a very large fraction of that 3.8% and 4.6% would have to be due to cancer. I'm skeptical.

The second citation however is blatantly misrepresented. It appears to be where the 4% number comes from, but it is UK specific (and almost certainly influenced by UK-specific drinking habits). The authors by contrast present it in a general context. Likewise it's worth noting that the source puts quitting smoking, keeping a healthy weight, and eating more fruits/vegetables as more important in preventing cancer than reducing alcohol consumption. And even at UK levels it's apparently only marginally more important than reducing sun exposure (also a UK-specific result).

They go on to effectively support the statement "alcohol increases cancer risk" in detail and I guess I can't blame them for wanting to grab the reader's attention, but scientific spin doctoring and lack of hard numbers irks me regardless of context.

As for alcohol companies telling their customers as little as legally required about the negative effects of alcohol, I'm glad they put some numbers on the issue but I think we can file that in the "no shit" folder. The policy makers/lesson planners/etc they appear to aim the study at are almost certainly well aware of the concept of conflict-of-interest, and if they aren't then I doubt they're literate enough to be swayed by this study.
> Any solution that we create will require a balance between national security interests and constitutional rights

As I, as a European citizen, perfectly understand that FBI mission deals with internal US, and so the OP option is an internal point of view, wouldn't it be also wise to deal with it on an international way ?

Of course, with Putin and Trump, two strong virile personalities, dialog might seem hard, even impossible.

But any way, instead of trying to deal with it internally, "forcing" (and I honestly have no idea how it should be possible) American social media companies to be more transparent could be a breath of fresh air in this situation ?

Candid question.
Why do we rely on radios during storms and emergencies?
No you can't. How many rent collectors do you know have put no monetary investment into what they're renting?
I agree, it was interesting but lacking. This seemed to be more about how many hops it could go through and the tools they use to test it. The hard part of mesh is finding a good path but this removed that whole piece.
Why is it that stupid memos are leaked while the raw data to this prefabricated conclusion isn't? If properly anonymized I don't see harm done to anybody.
One of the things this misses is that even if these numbers were even, systemic gender bias means that things would likely be unfair.

Even if Google were perfectly fair internally, women coming in from academia are likely to have faced gender bias [1], meaning less impressive resumes and therefore lower starting positions. Similar logic applies to women coming in from industry: one component to hiring pay and title is previous pay and title; external bias can easily be imported.

But it would be a miracle if Google were perfectly fair internally given our society's long history of sexism, documented gender bias in academia (from which Google draws some of its culture and a lot of its people), and the ongoing issues in the tech industry. I'd expect Google's promotion ladder to reflect that to one extent or another, meaning that the levels themselves have some level of bias to them.

[1] e.g., http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract and http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl-0000022.pdf
I'm interested to know if pay varies between men in the same positions too. Are bonus amounts fixed or are there other variables?
That's already happening. Germany, for example, has enacted new legislation to force social media companies to take down hate speech posts or face fines [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/business/germany-facebook...
It feels like these things become self-fulfilling prophecies, because of the way this issue is reported on. If "seven of nine technology companies, including Apple, Amazon.com and Microsoft, [disclosed] that data", would it be too much for an article to compare the unofficial Google numbers to that data?

I'm not a big fan of large companies, I don't think they can win. Even if you have good numbers, that doesn't fit the narrative of "Silicon Valley has established itself as the boys’ club". Say for example, we applauded companies who are doing better, maybe even close to statistical significance, then you could say, "Hey, it's still not quite there yet, but it's close and we're doing better than others. Come work for us and help us make it right." And then that would be actionable advice, and companies would have a great reason to strive for this. But we'd also have to be honest about statistical error rates, and maybe some other stuff.

I'll close on this, I've heard people say stupid and offensive shit when they're drunk, but never "Hey, let's pay women less", although I'm not an executive. So I feel like it isn't a common thought... unless you keep reading articles like this one.
Google Accused of Paying Its Female Employees Lesser Than the Males
The article says this is a useful tool, but doesn't say why. What's an example of something this is used for?
Highly contended queues aren't very common, at least in the kind of programming I do.

If contention is extremely high and throughput is paramount, then a lockless solution might work. E.g. audio processing or network stacks might have this kind of usage pattern.

But in my experience, most queues are empty most of the time. That's when you want a lock so the consumer thread can sleep instead of busy wait.
Can't you just commute the 20 minutes to a job in the city?
>Also I disagree, dangling comma is a visual cue that the sequence has a continuation

We already have a mechanism for telling whether a sequence ends or not -- the opening and closing bracket for the sequence. No need to have a second redundant one.

This way the last element is an ordinary part of the sequence as any other and doesn't need a special exception to its formatting like the omission of the comma.

Besides the point is moot as the "dangling" comma is already part of the JS standard.
Yes that's what my last sentence was intended to imply. Open isn't really the right word here.
I'd ask what constitutes "same level", and what's the overtime gap between genders, if there is one, but why do that when we can have a good ol' laugh at how Google made their own bed, and now we can watch them use the same "it's more complicated than that" arguments used by people who Google think are "propagating sexist stereotypes".
I used to love reading Byte magazine and I always enjoyed his column in the magazine. I am sorry to hear he has passed away.
> Nearly half of prime age NLF men take pain medication on a daily basis, and in nearly two-thirds of cases they take prescription pain medication
Indeed. When you have a mutex+condition, you can add instrumentation like logging or timers for debugging, testing and verification purposes.
I don't know about Ontario, but in Norway the reason for having limited opening hours (shorter than the ones you gave), and restricting the number of outlets, and pricing things high is that the government monopoly on these products is not there to maximise sales, but to minimise them. They're only open in the first place because prohibition didn't work and drove sales under ground.

So they provide a compromise - limited outlets, restrictions on opening hours etc. - that stave off attempts open up for wider sales and that is "good enough" to prevent most (but not all) black market sale of alcohol.

I believe that is the motivation for most alcohol related government monopolies.
Previous submission, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14628636
Most UK phone networks let you use the free Virgin WiFi in the underground now.
Not a surprise google tends to hire the best and the pool of men are bigger thus the best of that group will require more salary to land the talent.
It happens often enough that there is a term for it -- slumlord.
I think they missed something. I read the paper, and partway through they have a set of merged images of all the gay and straight people of each sex. One thing that jumps out at you is that the gay dataset is on the whole composed of people who are at least 20 years younger than the straight dataset. They're not seeing a horizontal difference, they're looking at a generational difference- my guess is that younger people feel more open about homosexual feelings, while older people see those feelings as shameful, and that's mostly what they've identified. It's the tank problem all over again, they're not measuring what they think they're measuring.
A second tier Midwestern(ish) city could be a good option. Cleveland and Pittsburgh would be good choices, assuming the relocation induces more flight availability from CLE and PIT. Case and CMU produce a lot of tech grads, and Cleveland has been successful attracting medical professionals to relocate with its excellent hospital system. The housing stock, CoL, and cultural amenities are excellent. Pittsburgh already has a few bigtech connections and satellite offices. Columbus and Minneapolis would also fit the bill.
This is certainly an intriguing and creative proposal.

But as the paper notes, it is mainly around referendum voting. And referendum voting can be viewed as opposed to representative democracy. Voters will happily vote yes on one referendum for higher benefits, and yes on another referendum on lower taxes, and the end result is laws that don't make sense. This can be seen as an example of the Condorcet Paradox [1]. But the point is, referendums are generally a terrible way to make decisions.

So on page 45 of the paper [2], the authors discuss that democracies are generally run according to representation, not referendums. So first they suggest using QV to elect candidates. Yet when given a choice between 2 (or even a handful) of candidates, do we really expect QV to make a difference? Republicans and Democrats are both extremely passionate, so I'd call it a wash. There's such a mix of social and economic issues large and small, QV doesn't seem to help untangle that.

The second thing the authors suggest is for representatives to "put their constituents' money at stake" when voting on laws. The authors wisely don't go too deeply into this, because it's clearly nonsensical when representatives are from a district which contains significant members of both sides. They actually admit as much ("QV in representative
assemblies would probably make more sense in a parliamentary system than in a presidential system") but actually get their terminology wrong -- it would make more sense in a proportional representation system than in a first-past-the-post system. (Presidential/parliamentary refers to the relationship between the legislature and the executive, which this proposal has nothing to do with -- which reveals their amatueur-ish level of analysis in this case.) At least they're honest in saying "many details clearly need to be worked out".

But I have an even more basic question, even for deciding referendums: who determines the base price of a vote? If a single vote cost $0.10 or $100, I imagine that could drastically affect outcomes, and I don't see them address this question anywhere.

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

[2] https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=2871141120741160...
From your perspective they're drinking for no reason, but there probably is a reason, and that is to lower inhibitions or forget their troubles for a while.
I agree – it's interesting how one is initially drawn to, yet eventually tires of these sorts of plot styles. While Seaborn strikes a good balance, clear and simple monochrome plots never go out of fashion. This is just as much the case when building fancy interactive plots using Shiny/Plotly etc.
Blair made them compete on ratings which is retarded when you have a guaranteed income. Another thing he ruined.
I think this shows that inanity of centralized credit rating agencies. How do we disrupt this? What if every person you owed money to (Credit cards, mortgage companies, car loan companies) basically reported your payment status on a monthly basis on the blockchain? I think this could work... Anyone could check your credit history - but at least it would be decentralized. There's obviously a lot of questions: How do you protect privacy of individuals? How to identify individuals with a number other than your SSN? Or maybe you do anyway... keeping your SSN secret in this day and age is clearly not viable longterm.
> Even if Google were perfectly fair internally, women coming in from academia are likely to have faced gender bias [1], meaning less impressive resumes and therefore lower starting positions.

To play devil's advocate, if the performance review process was good/perfect and skill = compensation, factors like "less impressive resumes" should even out pretty quickly, right?
The Lib Dems do [1] have a reasonably enlightened drug policy. Labour is lagging, but I think there's hope of that changing - Corbyn has in the past sponsored a bill for decriminalisation of weed (in 2000) and stated he wanted to decriminalise medicinal use (in 2016).But Labour spans very social liberal and quite socially conservative groups so can't afford to go as far as the Lib Dems on that subject.

[1] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/all-drugs-shou...