skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Do they mostly work now? I remember trying a San Andreas Multiplayer Mod quite a long time ago, but it was ridden with bugs and basically unusable. Thank you for reminding me these exist, in any case.
The download list has versions from 2010
Yes, goofed on that one.
Interestingly, the circulation percentage is even lower today.
Why not link to the study and avoid the reputational hit that you'll always get from the daily fucking mail?
The investment firm in this scenario is, as they often are, a foreign firm engaging in speculation. If there are problems for the people of Berlin, no skin off their backs...

People who move somewhere hopefully don't always stay foreigners, but they can still behave in an opportunistic way, enjoying low prices while not really putting down roots or committing to bear any of the long term costs of the community they join. American tech people in Berlin who live there for multiple years and don't learn German are an example of this phenomenon.
Who really gives your personal info to Intelius, Instant Checkmate, etc?
This move of certain municipalities buying housing is not in contradiction to increasing supply; it's just one of many tactics being used to address it. I recall recently reading elsewhere that Berlin govt is also planning for building additional housing and conversion of large unused industrial spaces into housing.
Are you saying that Facebook employees are not motivated to work? Or that now after he has been hired, he is not adding any value anymore?

Facebook is a multi-billion dollar startup and its created by the people working there. So it may not be my favorite company, but I give respect to that, and the people working there.

I can't say what's the skillset to be an effective engineer at a large company, but I do believe that it must be a SUBSET of the skillset required to create a successful startup.
IndieHackers was making money from advertising before it was bought by Stripe.
Maybe so, but there seems to be a consensus that moving back to the neighborhood your grandparents fled is immoral (gentrification).
Wehack
Do you need hackers for hire? Do you need to keep an eye on your spouse by gaining access to their emails? As a parent do you want to know what your kids do on a daily basis on social networks ( This includes facebook, twitter , instagram, whatsapp, WeChat and others to make sure they're not getting into trouble? Whatever it is, Ranging from Bank Jobs, Flipping cash, Criminal records, DMV, Taxes, Name it,and he can get the job done. Contact cyberservices147 at gmail dot com for more information!
Tesla Remotely Expands S & X Battery Pack Range in Florida from 60kWh to 75kWh
Why you call him a "sell-out"? He seems to be professional consultant. His main argument seems to be that CFPB does not have legal right to enforce the regulations he is talking about. That may be true or false - I have no idea, for that one needs to be a lawyer specializing in regulation law and parse the documents establishing CFPB and all accompanying regulations and caselaw. Which is way beyond my abilities, and I suspect, most of people here. But how it is "Orwellian"?
He also raises a very correct argument that considering only benefits of successful class action and not the costs of the litigation and the fallout for both consumers and credit industry is just wrong. I mean, if you win $10 from successful lawsuit but would be forced to pay $20 more next time you need a credit check (numbers are just an invented example, of course), then this setup won't be worth it for you.

Again, his point may be wrong - maybe benefits of class actions are much larger than the costs - but this point is certainly in no way is "Orwellian". And if he is right, avoiding such regulation would definitely be in the public interest, in a very direct sense of the term. We have tons of regulations which serve as nothing more than a feeding ground for unsavory opportunistic plaintiff lawyers, with no benefit for purported victims (which get peanuts while lawyers are getting millions, and often the lawyers just buy plaintiffs for minuscule sums in order to mass-file lawsuits) and huge costs for everybody else. Last thing we need is more of these.
> The future is mechanical proofs.

For some value of "future" - sure, maybe. But the vast majority of theorem solutions do not lend themselves to mechanical proofing, and it takes great effort to do it at all.

I don't really agree with your thesis here. I don't see how we're going to get to a future where we're tackling much harder proofs, because the hardness is already what prevents them from being so easily mechanized and checked in an automated manner. We have no problem coming up with new theorems, either - half the job of a pure math researcher is coming up with interesting questions that are too hard to solve immediately but not quite so hard that they're inaccessible.

The only way to make the proofs "harder" is to make theorems that are even further removed from our current mathematical capabilities. Otherwise you're stepping into the undecidable territory. Simply put - solving open problems is a major activity in mathematics because it develops new mathematics, not because the actual end result is useful in of itself. If I prove to you that Pi is normal, the fundamental contribution is (hopefully) a method that is partially or fully generalizable to other domains. No one really cares if Pi itself is normal, and most already expect it to be. To mechanize that process (if it's even possible at all) requires that the mathematics for solving it already exists, which means that the problem is most likely either 1) uninteresting, 2) overlooked.
Very useful list
Most American speed limits are well above a safe speed for neighborhoods with pedestrians and cyclists.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214...
we're evolving mostly through sexual selection now as opposed to natural selection but still some of that too
One more anecdotal Internet Protocol version
"...but in the early 2000s, it was very common for people to view homeownership as some sort of magic escalator to riches - one would buy a home, then basically be guaranteed to resell it for significantly more later, and the gains would be used to buy a more expensive home..."

I'm not so sure that perception has changed. Sure, the magic escalator might be moving slower, but most people buy believing values are guaranteed to go up. Likely. But once you factor in the true total cost of the mortgage, taxes, repairs, etc. The profits are slim.

Kids might be a justification for home ownership. But most other favor the Homeownership Industrial Complex, as well as gov. Let's not forget Big Inc who love it when you're locked into a mortage.
Spring MVC Framework Using Hateoas
Posting this because this article seems to be the most information-dense and non-biased source on this Tesla remote update topic available. Other stories about this are either more fear-mongering or overly Tesla-praising and don't give as much technical detail.
few cents from me about this /o\ http://blog.donatas.net/blog/2017/09/10/ipv10/
Cool idea, but poorly implemented website.
My biggest project which led to some networking: https://github.com/RichardKnop/machinery

More projects here: https://github.com/RichardKnop
Alzheimer's in particular does not reduce lifespan all that much; rather, it increases the resources that children and grandchildren need to use to care for the parent. So selection against Alzheimer's would presumably (we have very little evidence for any of this) be even stronger than selection against traits that, say, killed at 70.
True, but this article is trying to narrow the range of causes.
> former employees of regulatory agencies leave to go reveal all their thinking and decision making tactics to the highest bidder.

This implying thinking and decision making tactics of regulators should be some kind of closely guarded secret? These people are essentially writing the laws that rule our economy, I'd think if anything should be public that's their thinking and decision making tactics.
It makes me wonder why identity has to be a centralized government thing. For most purposes, my google account is my primary identity. If I forget a password, resets go there, so it's my foundational identity online. Per-purpose identity seems like an okay thing. I could have a financial identity, and gaming identity, a communication identity, etc. Just like the government doesn't need to know what I own on steam, it doesn't need to know my credit score. And just like steam doesn't need to know my drivers license/social, maybe my bank shouldn't either?

Writing this, I'm realizing how closely identity and privacy are related. For any transaction with memory (like games I buy on steam) there needs to be some identity. Connecting that identity to my other identities is a privacy question. We're probably at a tipping point where we could go either way next. It scares the crap out of me to think about it that way.
Firefox let's you permanently block a site from asking for the notification permission
I've always wondered what the original flavor of Coke tasted like with Cocaine as an ingredient.
A Quadtree implemented in Go
Less players in already highly monopolized business is better? How exactly?
With what source material for the normal writing style? If it trains based on news coverage all it would do is pick phrases from the abstract and maybe use a thesaurus, with no accuracy guarantees...
I was also confused by the UI, and wasn't sure where I was supposed to click/scroll.
F1X C7 Z06 Takes on Boosted Mustangs, 1000hp GT-R and Another F1X C7Z
Professor Ferreira seems to be ignorant of the banking mechanisms involved. There is a direct link between sub-prime loan underwriting and prime loan underwriting:

1. Mortgage loans are packaged by retail banks into blocks of loans. These banks need to be able to sell them on to Wall Street investors if the retail banks are to continue to writing more mortgages without breaking their limits.

2. In a block of loans, it is not known who will default, so using a special financial contract (a CDO) an investor can 'buy the first 10 defaulting loans', say, in the block. In return they get a fat coupon, and of course, they pray no-one does default. These risky loan-block 'slices' (or 'tranches') are called subprime.

3. What remains in the block are less risky slices, called prime.

4. It's easy to get investors to buy the prime debt, because it's almost risk free money, especially to institutional players. So limit to lending had always been 'who wants to buy the shit at the bottom', the subprime debt.

5. Ratings agencies colluded with banks to mislead investors about the riskiness of the subprime tranches. They marked the debt as AAA when it should have been far lower. Investors across the world trusted the ratings agencies, so these AAA securities with fat coupons flew off the shelves into funds that were managed by semi-corrupt custodians who were getting paid short-term bonuses. Banks in Iceland, Germany, Greece, etc.

6. Because the hardest to shift debt was no longer hard to shift, the mortgage lenders sought more people to write mortgages for, and they lowered their lending standards across the board. Whether they lent to high credit scoring individuals or not, they impaired their own lending standards by leveraging people beyond their means. This leverage is why the housing bubble's bursting caused such a country-wide crisis.

7. The Professor seems to think subprime lending refers to lending between the bank and the low credit grade home buyers. However, when we say the housing crisis was caused by sub-prime lenders, we are talking about the institutional players who defrauded investors about the riskiness of these subprime CDO tranches, since this was the root cause of excessive lending to all levels of home buyer.
I'm not sure if this comment thread is a parody of itself.
Uh, certainly lots of people actually know the answers of questions such as "the height of the Eiffel Tower"? It's not then surprising that the crowd accuracy increases when people can talk?

My impression is that the tasks where an "independent crowd" outperforms a "dependent" one is on tasks where it's highly unlikely that any one participant can know the answer for sure. (estimation number of objects, etc.)

I didn't easily find any references to such papers, but this link is one confirmation http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140708-when-crowd-wisdom-g... (search for "Flawed thinking")

EDIT: Wikipedia seems to be a decent entry point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_the_crowd#Problems
The last point isn't surprising at all. I think there is a subset of the population that matures quickly, reproduces quickly, and dies quickly.

From my own observations in middle school and high school, those that mature earlier are far more likely to get into drugs, forgo education, etc... all things that are measures of success in our current society
The norms of what administrations do changes over time in part because what administrations need to do change over time. It's obviously not helpful to contrast George Washington's executive behavior with George Bush's.

In particular, it's useful to draw a line pre- and post-USSR, as that was a sea change in executive policy. That means Bush 1 / Clinton onward. Other common markers are pre/post Great Society, pre/post WW2, pre/post New Deal, etc.
At some point the idea that we don't own our own data and have to give it up in exchange for use of these products and services will have to be revisited.

We already have models that preserve privacy out there, TouchID in Apple products doesn't transmit your fingerprints to the cloud but is kept securely on device. They remain on the device (I take Apple at their word when they state this). The next logical step is for Apple to use their knowledge of differential privacy to obscure our data, they already do this to an extent with things like autocomplete, like they explained at a previous WWDC.

I'm optimistic that Apple and Microsoft would be motivated to do this in a way that's compatible with their business models as non-tech savvy users learn the value of privacy. Google and Facebook can be persuaded to make this work as well if the alternative is heavy-handed regulation.
If some people get it their way and the web becomes like a binary blob, it might become harder to block ads across the board.
Something better like what? Did you have something better lines up already?
Depending on the domain, a lack of ability on either side of the soft/hard skills line can lead to missed opportunities to deliver a great product. If you don't have at least one or two skilled implementors on your team (or if those people are marginalized by a culture that isn't able to recognize good technical decisions), you'll be severely limited in what you're able to build, and what you can build will probably suffer in quality.

There's a difference between practical technical excellence and over-the-top bikeshedding/obsession with needless optimizations.
It contains multitudes, to be certain.

The other aspect of the novel that people familiar with it only by its reputation often underestimate: it's humor.

It's a sly often oblique humor, by turns Shakespearian, Victorian, and almost anachronistically postmodern. But it permeates the novel and is there right in the opening paragraph:

Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.

By the time I got through that sentence, the fourth in the novel, I was in.

Finally, one additional quote from the novel that stuck with me:

for a whale-ship was my Yale College and my Harvard.
Discussions of the relative merit of academia's current state, and specifically the publication process, pop up from time to time around here, so I won't rehash those points here.

Additionally, I think the article's author (and other neighboring posts here) bring up valid points regarding the escalating complexity of science and potential correlations between that complexity and the written complexity required to communicate it. I think the article about the ABC conjecture [0] posted earlier today [1] is a perfect example of this.

However, I would like to pose another suggestion that may play a role in this effect.

It is easy to see how a paper's acceptance in a journal or conference serves as an evolutionary pressure on the author's style; in other words, one of the reward functions for a paper's style is defined by its ability to be published (since higher publication count correlates with higher funding availability, for better or for worse).

With such a function in place, it makes sense that papers will start to exhibit evolutionary traits (styles) that promote survival irrespective of their practical or functional benefits. Let us also consider the committee review process as part of our environment: several humans must decide whether your paper will be published or not, based on its domain novelty. There are 4 possible outcomes:

1) Paper is novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, publication (weight=1).

2) Paper is novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).

3) Paper is not novel, reviewers understand it; outcome, no publication (weight=0).

4) Paper is not novel, reviewers don't understand it; outcome, possible publication (weight=0.5).

Therefore, if you're publishing something, and either (A) you know it's not very novel, or (B) you're not sure how novel other people will think it will be, it's in your interest to obfuscate your paper as much as possible.

Additionally, for Cases 2 & 4, the weights probably trend even higher. Human vanity may produce an outcome closer to "I don't understand it, therefore it may be over my head; I will therefore convince myself it is a good paper. Weak recommend!" at a higher rate than "I don't understand it; I will ask for clarification from the author or the rest of the committee, at the risk of appearing foolish in front of my colleagues."

If these interpretations are true, then the parent's article's results are not particularly surprising, just depressing (from the perspective of "academia as human progress engine").

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abc_conjecture
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15206540
Would you like some unsolicited advice?

You could go find your nearest open-mic night and sing/play for the audience. You can read poetry or sing karaoke.

It's probably going to suck the first time you do this. However, keep doing it. Eventually, you will get more comfortable and confident. It takes lots of practice.

I did a lot of stage performances as a musician. I used to vomit before going on stage. Eventually, I got used to it. Eventually, I was able to interact with the crowd. Eventually, I got comfortable. This confidence helped with many other areas of my life. It did take work and pushing through the discomfort and fear. It was not easy.

This may work for you.
I disagree. You can underwrite and sell a mortgage-based security today. In fact, it's a rather active sector of the market https://www.wsj.com/articles/mortgage-backed-securities-mark...

But they're not necessarily going to receive a AAA credit rating. Which means they will be eschewed by pension funds, sovereign wealth funds and anything systemic. The worst of the worst will get the junk rating and will vie for their little corner of the market, competing for speculative money with oil fracking companies, emerging market bonds and other similarly-priced risky debt.

The investment-grade rating is what opened the big money floodgates.
> Just do some small spot checks to make sure they aren't taking credit for the work of others.

Agreed, asking tough technical questions on this front gives a really solid indicator of a 'bullshitter'. For example, I often ask people to diagram a prior project architecture they worked on, and then ask them very fine details of how things work and try to challenge them with alternative approaches to see how they react. I get to experience working with them during the interview through which I learn if they're smart and capable.
So what if you want to interact with an institution you never worked before - what happens? I.e., you move in to a new city and want to get a credit card?
Not if the stored grain was fed to livestock. We already do this in practice as we keep the high quality grain for direct human consumption, while the lower quality grain is fed to livestock.

Once the stockpile was established and the process of cycling it set up, then the cost should be relatively minor.

More importantly what is the alternative? Let everyone starve?
With regards to your third point, there is a third optimization target you're not considering: E[(other two factors for relatives) • (probability said relative shares the given gene)] - hence humans not doing immediately after ceasing to be fertile, tending to care more about their kinship groups, and possibly also explaining genetic factors in homosexuality (since they may have handy side effects when it comes to capability to help out relatives).
Previous discussion about Mastodon: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15211074
Because it was leaked
Osteopat aarhus, osteopati århus, osteopatisk behandling
> I find this hilarious.

This comes off as quite dismissive and a lack of willingness to try to understand others. I'm not aware of any religious texts that proscribe injecting a mixture of sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride[0] for punishment but some people firmly believe that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments.[1]

It's fine if you disagree. But please try to do so in a manner that shows respect for someone else. To say "just fairly sure religious texts" isn't granting anyone the benefit of the doubt that they may be able to reasonably interpret religious texts to mean something other than a strict literal interpretation.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_injection

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
As is the reproducibility. Mere correlation or is there a causal link?

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
This looks like a lot of elitists trying to grab some notoriety for their niche projects. Inappropriate criticism by people who (quite obviously) want some credit for their time spent, rather bash a casual observer in lieu of that. His crime is putting together a contextual narrative based on some existing deductions. It's a health book - "sleuths that had already reached that conclusion".

There was nothing spectacular about that article, other than he said it was settled and that doesn't sit well with people looking for greater meaning and glory. Then the "can't prove an index just because pages are missing" is basically ignoring a coherent narrative for no purpose. Even the objection to the interpretations - "Personally I object to his interpretation of abbreviations." is strangely contrarian. As you might imagine, the Voynich solution looks reasonable to me, but that's probably because I'm an ignorant layman with no stake in it.
It's precisely the anti-transient policies (squeeze them as hard as possible on rent, make them bear all the costs of subsidized housing) which make people transient.

Of course I'm not going to put down roots in a place that's trying its hardest to get rid of me. If you want people to put down roots, stop going out of your way to prevent it.
My macOS apps and tools