skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tried it the other day and couldn't find a way to make precise cuts. You can move frame by frame, but I didn't succeed in cutting at the current position. I switched to AviDemux. The video editing I've done in the past has been mostly with ffmpeg, i.e. command line and scripts.
The question, though, is whether using the definition justifies its cognitive overhead, by making some class of ideas substantially easier to communicate or represent.
Sounds like Silicon Valley (the actual place) and software dev.

Well, at least we can look forward to a new messaging app for teams. :D :(
Seems to me this is approaching this totally the wrong way. First off, the current implementation is just looping through all the methods of the implementing class and the first one that matches a Node or [Node] return type is supposedly its children? That seems extremely brittle.

The fact that you have 100 classes implementing this is a good sign you should turn the design on its head. Why not just have a single tree structure built using generics?

edit: also I would point out that you're not really making reflection any faster, just your code
No, the violence was not "all on the crack side":

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4533860/
The US extends the border-search exception to anywhere within 100 miles of an airport with international fights, meaning something like 60% of the US lives within a "border zone" as most international airports are close to dense population centers.
It's not less influenced by people it's just inflexible now. People are still writing the software. You get preconceived notions baked into something that no longer even has the option to compensate. For example cameras with facial recognition that thinks east Asians are blinking all the time[1]. This wasn't malicious, it wasn't even intentional, but no one can go "Oh the system is making a mistake" and fix it. Yes software can be updated, but how often do small minorities get software updated for them unless they are paying more than everyone else?

[1]http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1954643...
Hitler did not create anti-semitism or the concept of genocide. You claim that 'he wasn't simply glomming onto some broader social trend in Germany' is wrong to the point of cluelessness.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism#Persecutions_duri...

The link above focuses on European antisemitism in particular and subsequent sections outline its geography and persistence into the early 20th century. Hitler certainly believed in this idea, as opposed to cynically exploited it for political gain, but to suggest that he created it is...absurd.

Also, the question of the degree to which Hitler aimed at genocide is a contested one. His only explicit statement on the subject in Mein Kampf, for example, is an expression of regret that Jews weren't subject to poison gassing in World War 1 (which took such a severe toll on combatants of both sides that gas was subsequently outlawed as a weapon of war).

Personally I think Hitler wanted to kill off the Jews, albeit in a vague, non-specific way from which others took their cue. According to the article below this would be considered a synthesis of the functional and intentional positions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intention...
That post is from 2010, before even 2.7 was released. It is extremely out of date.

Re-running the same tests I get:

In [1]: from typing import NamedTuple

In [2]: class A(NamedTuple):
...: a = 1
...: b = 2
...: c = 3
...:

In [3]: a = A()

In [4]: class B:
...: __slots__ = ('a', 'b', 'c')
...: def __init__(self, a=1, b=2, c=3):
...: self.a = a
...: self.b = b
...: self.c = c
...:

In [5]: b = B()

In [6]: c = dict(a=1, b=2, c=3)

In [7]: d = (1,2,3)

In [8]: e = [1,2,3]

In [9]: key = 2

In [10]: %timeit z = a.c
38.2 ns ± 0.07 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [11]: %timeit z = b.c
48.1 ns ± 0.0461 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [12]: %timeit z = c['c']
38 ns ± 0.062 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [13]: %timeit z = d[2]
38.8 ns ± 0.0425 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [14]: %timeit z = e[2]
39.8 ns ± 0.0641 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [15]: %timeit z = d[key]
48.6 ns ± 0.0713 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

In [16]: %timeit z = e[key]
49.4 ns ± 0.0369 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)

Namedtuple looks faster than slots here.
And for comparison's sake:

In [17]: class F:
...: def __init__(self, a=1, b=2, c=3):
...: self.a = a
...: self.b = b
...: self.c = c
...:

In [18]: f = F()

In [19]: %timeit z = f.c
53.7 ns ± 0.265 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each)
If they have figured out a way to listen, it is likely a single data point in a quant formula so you would need to be talking about something already close to your interests.

That is why I dont think baiting alone could prove it. But it doesnt mean it is really listening or not listening either.
Someone, somewhere created the first fidget spinner, named it, and marketed it. The fact that you do t know their name maybe just means they did a better job of staying out of the limelight while still profiting from the craze.
I'm not sure a simple fad like the fidget spinner that explodes out of nowhere is the same as a meticulously marketed toy line.
The fact that it's illegal, that is, the government has outlawed that form of speech, renders it very clearly a free speech restriction.
She's basically proving her own point. It's like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Don't let anyone get your private data or it'll be leaked or mishandled -- trust me I know all about mishandling privileged data."
Can Neural Nets Detect Sexual Orientation? A Data Scientist’s Perspective
What makes you think we won't just establish similar tyranny on another planet?
«Russian» quotation marks are actually the « French » ones with different spacing. There's another, less used set of quotes in Russian, so called „German“ ones (used as inner quotes and in handwriting). English quotes are widely accepted though.
Well I guess we just move on to different junk. Rather than one company (Ty, from the example) presiding over and managing the popularity of the product for years, the fads come and go.

Which is of course what's always happened. Remember Pokemon? There's a craze that's not a craze at all - it's been going on since the 90s. It doesn't seem to be getting killed by fidget spinners. In the meantime hundreds of smaller fads have come and gone. We've have the words "fad" and "craze" to describe this sort of thing since way before the rise of rapid-response Chinese manufacturing.
No, that's not at all true. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 was passed by an overwhelmingly white Congress and an overwhelmingly white Senate, and signed by overwhelmingly white Ronald Reagan.
The level of confrontation and its trend is what's new.
I'm not making the connection between the link and the point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate?
Because you stated it was ironic for someone who breached the trust of the military to be talking about trust, which implies that you valued the militaries trust over the trust of people in the military.
Equifax to Wave Credit Freeze Fees for 30 Days
Where's the sidechain input?
I bought my Sublime Text 2 license in 2012. 5 years later and its the best $80 I've ever spent. I'm so pleased Jon finished 3.0. Subscription upgraded.
> It's not true that there's nothing new under the sun.

Philosophically this statement is false.

Mental health wise, it's a lot nicer to keep in mind than the truth of reality that you reside within.
That begs the question, which is "why is the level of confrontation increasing now, as opposed to 4 years ago?"
I'd like to see a control for the amount of money spent on legal defense. The anecdote in that report itself suggests that it's the skill level of the defense attorney which is most likely a dominant factor.

From someone I know with personal experience, after they were charged with possession with intent to distribute due to growing pot, they had 3 choices. Go to jail, spend $X on an attorney who would get them probation, or spend 10 * $X on an attorney who would get them off. Both attorneys had perfect records, n>100, at their respective objective.
If ASCII had balanced quotes then they would be used by programming languages to delimit strings and we would be back to square one with regards to escaping them!
Downloaded and tried it... main app and the helpers currently using 671MB of RAM. :(
Judging and quantifying demand is not the same thing as materialism.
I think you're missing the point entirely. It's like a modular synthesiser. It's not "serious business" but this is the browser after all.

Plug a few oscillators into each other and you have an FM synth. Feed delays into each other, etc, etc. You can do that in a few lines of code with no dependencies.

To me, that's a huge potential audience.

If you want a array of samples and depend on dozens of JS libs for functionality, well, I'm sure the AudioWorkers will catch up eventually.
One important difference is that drastically fewer of the children die before adulthood.
I think you're going to find that there is no such code or statute that prevents the USG from doing what they did.
It's a global stage for kabuki. So yes, it definitely shapes world affairs that way. I don't really consider the principles of the UN to be important when it's a paper tiger. Government without force is not government.
Eigenfaces, for Facial Recognition (2011)
All good questions, but do you really have strong reasons for thinking consciousness is not physical?

There seems little need to posit consciousness as some irreducible property of matter, except for those who are mysteriously uncomfortable with the idea of being purely physical beings. Most arguments against physicalism are smoke and mirrors.

As for specifically what physical process produces consciousness, it's an open question that's being studied. We're currently like Ada Lovelace studying a web browser and marvelling at what it does, having little idea how it actually works, yet we're mostly convinced it's not magic. I think you'd be more forgiving if Miss Lovelace took some time trying to reverse engineer the operation of a computer and it's program.

Personally, I think [1] is a great starting point on this journey. The problem of apparent subjectivity was a huge stumbling block, and I think that paper is a great stab at it.

[1] http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00...
monoids taught me that you can use overly complex statements to solve trivial ideas
Down on Apple's Farm with the Rest of the Press
Oh, yes, I see they've referenced a study that admits the violence was greater for crack but not if you "controlled" out the relevant variables.
Cool. It has ALPN support, needed for HTTP/2 in Chrome.

Also no ifconfig by default, which is good as it hasn't worked properly on any distro for a decade and people keep using it.
I don't even get how they're supposed to help with ADHD. They require too much attention to use (or I just suck at using them). I've always managed ADHD by doing things that require practically no attention - twirling a pen, doodling without looking, pacing the meeting room, etc.
Slack used to use WebKit but they migrated to Electron for various reasons explained in their blog post https://slack.engineering/building-hybrid-applications-with-...
Really? Whoa. Because it feels as gross and GTK-y as...well...GNOME. TIL though.
I'm kinda OK with software eating the world. That doesn't automatically mean concentrating power.
Stupid statisticians with their stupid "controls".

I'll take this opportunity to point out that, right or wrong (obviously: I think you're wrong), you've contradicted your comment rooting this subthread. You began by saying there was never strong feeling that black crack users should be imprisoned, and find yourself here arguing that imprisoned black crack users somehow deserved it.
«These characters» are the usual way of quoting in several languages.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillemet
In philosophy, this is, broadly, Idealism. My money is on digital physics, considered through an Idealist lens.
I would also recommend listening to an NPR podcast "The Fix" by RadioLab: http://www.radiolab.org/story/addiction/

While the description talks about taking a pill to solve your addiction problems (some very interesting insights into the latest research at that time 2015 and also many absurd regulatory hurdles), it's the interviews with researchers and addicts that are truly eye opening - and address many of the issues you mention. After listening to it I personally will never reduce someone who has an addiction to failure of character.
"Spoiler"? Oh, please, that one gets solved barely halfway through the episode.
Then why are they still using Lightning instead of USB-C, when that's all they have on their new Macbooks?
There is also the (perhaps more likely) possibility that all three of Thise things were done by different people.

For example the creator makes it and shows it to a few friends, maybe posts pics/vids on the internet. Someone else sees the object and names it the fidget spinner. A third person markets it and begins selling them
Hiring a data scientist
> I'll be looking forward to trying a fidget spinner once the fad has gone away.

If you feel it would be beneficial to try it, why wait until the fad dies before trying one? This seems like it might be an optimal time to have the maximum breadth of choices to find the one(s) you find most helpful.
Yeah, seen a ton of tools that auto-format to left/right quote automatically but then output ASCII and mangle the conversion.
To be a bit more specific: the cardinality of the reals is equal to the cardinality of the power set of the naturals. This has also been known since the time of Cantor (read: late 19th century, at the dawn of set theory). CH states that no cardinal numbers exist between the cardinalities of the reals and the naturals[1].

Cantor believed CH to be true, but couldn’t prove it, and it was eventually (ca. 1960) proven to be independent of the usual (ZFC) axioms of set theory.

[1] Though CH could of course be stated in infinitely many equivalent ways, by replacing “reals” and “naturals” in this statement with any other pair of sets whose cardinalities are equal to those of the reals and naturals, respectively.

For (uncountably) infinitely many stupid examples, take any non-empty open subset of any connected, finite-dimensional (Hausdorff, second-countable) manifold with at least two points, and any infinite subset of the integers.
Only within a 1h (or so?) window.
I had a 6p and ditched it for the S8+. Never looked back, it's a night and day difference.

Google/Huawei should be ashamed for the 6p.
Manzotti has a website exhibiting his "spread mind" theory of consciousness: http://www.thespreadmind.com/

To be honest I thought it was crackpot-ish nonsense the last time I looked into it, but I'll give it another go.
I got the same question for a different title: Project Manager or Product Manager. I feel like the second is a bit easier, because features to work on can be isolated better and being very close to your team is not so critical, but for both I see no easy path.
Apologies if unclear, that is what I meant be stack-based. Article implies that you cannot create a dynamically sized object on the stack.
Funny enough most space sci-fi worlds include some form of tyranny or kingdoms at best - at demonic levels.
I don't work directly in this field but I have read a lot of the literature. First of all, here is my opinion, as I have written it in comments on similar articles here:

---
"I don't see any advance in this debate since things that Dennett and Hofstadter wrote 20+ years ago (both independently and in their co-authored book "The Mind's I").
Is it really surprising that we have a first person subjective experience? We know that we are incredibly complex things, constantly integrating and acting on very complicated external stimuli. Such a system should have references to its own body and its own neural states, its train of reasoning should frequently include itself, its focus will drift forward and backwards in time... this is just how a system like this would work. If the system communicates about its state then its language should have referents to these internal states, referents like "experience", and "feels like", and "I understand". Is that surprising? Wouldn't it be surprising if it wasn't like that?
I think that Tononi's approach is a good approximation, but it can't be a full solution because the word 'consciousness' is too anthropocentric. One criticism of IIT showed that a seemingly uninteresting complex artificial system could have a very high IIT complexity quotient. The problem is that the things we use to define the term 'consciousness' are things that can be approximated to varying degrees by chimps or dolphins or generative adversarial networks or antfarms or thermometers. But behind our use of the word 'consciousness' there is still almost always a very slightly disguised dualism that uses it as a substitute for the word 'soul'."
---

Therefore, I think I agree with what Manzotti is saying here. Certainly I think he is spot-on with this:

>Essentially, when Chalmers so dramatically announced “the hard problem,” insisting that we had no solution to the question of consciousness, he simultaneously assumed that the constraints governing any enquiry into it were already well defined and unassailable.

The most frustrating part of the debate is that most educated laypeople and some professional philosophers will still say with great confidence: "consciousness is a mystery/we don't know what consciousness is/ we don't understand how the brain works".

I don't think these statements stack up against Dennett and Hoftstadter's work, and we have learned an incredible amount about how the brain works in the last 20 years, both through human neuroscience and computational neuroscience, and philosophers of the Chalmers type are wilfully ignorant of it.
If I were a rude person unburdened by the site guidelines, I'd suggest you read the comment you're replying to before grumping about who's read the article.

As I'm not, though - my point was the current Russian regime is not constrained by niceties like the rule of law and accusing enemies, real or perceived, of being nefarious agents of a foreign power is their favourite thing. So 'this guy was an American spy' is already a fairly shaky foundation, 'the arrest of this particular guy caused this change in US policy' is a reach bordering on baseless speculation. We just don't have any good way of knowing how much or any of this is true.
The conspiracy theorist in me figures this kind of research will be used by companies that are falling behind in the self driving car race (no pun intended) to get governments to regulate against self driving cars.
This is tangential, and I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you've come close to implying that a CBP agent can stop, search, and detain anyone within 100 miles of an International airport. That's not the case, it would have to be someone who actually crossed the border in to the USA.

That said, and I can' believe I have to make this disclaimer as it feels about as obvious as saying I'm against torturing kittens, but I am against the overreaching searches the EFF and ACLU are suing over here.
They say to change every number, and that's enough. Although they don't explicitly say so you can change each number in (nearly) any way you like.
> high load web servers

Really? The distributions might work for the average site but high-load always requires tuning from the defaults on even the latest distros.
That's one way to ignore 60 years of history.
Doesn’t gold membership include extra features?
Is that really so different from them just sending you into an infinite bureaucracy loop where they refer you to each other in a wide circle until you give up.
talking empathetically more with our users about how they interact with our technology

I've been hearing this a lot lately but I don't really know what it means.

I think most (all?) developers/designers try to imagine the experience of an average or "canonical" user while developing features. This is a natural way to try creating a product with decent usability. You can take this a step further with UX studies, focus groups, etc.

However, since "UX design" has existed in one form or another since before PC's were a thing, I take it that's not what's meant by "having more empathy for our users".

I suspect this means somehow tailoring/adapting our products to the wide variety of cultural, geographic, socio-economic backgrounds of users, or even their states-of-mind/existential experience. In that case, I think a UX designer would face a combinatorial explosion of constraints and/or features requests, which is not practical.

However, we do have a free'ish market, which seems well positioned to address this wide variety of needs. Moreover, the long tail of users is getting fatter as our population scales, so it is increasingly rewarding to target niche groups.
Point! I did have something like that in the original version, but was experimenting with other approaches and lost the digits somewhere along the way.
Because of all the docks and alarm clocks that still only expose a lightning port.

It will be super easy to support the USB-C Macbooks out of box -- they just swap out the USB-A-to-lightning cable and charger in the box with a USB-C-to-lightning cable and charger.
Introducing the new Strava Developers website
The reason I hate the fidget spinner is simply the fact that is a useless item consuming massive amounts of resources which will just end up in the trash - after it has consumed attention and money from people.

The amount of plastics and metal that are just going to be thrown away due to them - not to mention their packaging which gets thrown away....

I wish that we could come up with a reasonable way to require standardized non-polluting packaging for literally all the things...
We Asked 6 Privacy and Legal Experts About Apple’s New Face ID
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Call your Representative.
Sqlite in production? Seriously? And Python 2.7... Move to 3.x and PostgreSQL at least ;-)

PS. Nice idea
It's ironic regardless. Whether I value the military's trust or not doesn't enter into it.

Her original intention, which has gotten somewhat lost in all this controversy, was to protect atheist groups in Middle Eastern countries who were being labeled as "anti-government radicals" and persecuted, in concert with US intelligence forces. I certainly agree with her frustrations there. But not her tactics.

She broke her employment contract and the rules of her security clearance, then bragged about it to the wrong person and paid an appropriate price.
No, but it is still dystopian.
Verified cryptography for Firefox 57
As a user who wants an OS that 'just works' so that I can work on other things, why wouldn't I choose CentOS over Fedora for my laptop?
ST. Python is the popular language. Elisp is... not popular. But you can do CL in emacs.

As an aside I found the Leo editor not too long ago. http://leoeditor.com/ -- one of the few editors that made me think "that is a little new". Leo is implemented in Python.

I wish there was a modern equivalent of emacs, only all Python. :)
Associative operators with an identity are extremely common in programming, inverses are much less common. Most ways to turn a lot of data into a little data have a monoid hidden in them with the identity serving as a default value in the case of missing data.

There is nothing you can comcatenate to a list to get the empty list, nothing you can OR with True to get False, and nothing you can union with a set to get the empty set.
Well if I search "height eiffel tower" on Google I see the 'one box' but I don't see any ads. At least in this case Google seems to be placing user experience over (short term) bottom line.