skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Your preferences are one thing, your patches or having a say into the development is a very different thing.

The standards conformance is not a goal on it's own. The primary goal of the developers is to serve the users, particularly those that support the community in some way (e.g. by paying the developers). That's what makes the project possible.

Development of features takes time, and the features are often introduced years before SQL standard eventually codifies them. And Postgres community has pretty much no influence on the SQL Standard, which is driven mainly by large companies.

The last thing the users want is having to do significant changes to their applications just before the syntax suddenly changed to match SQL standard. Standards are valuable, but backwards compatibility has a value too.

> Did we all forget how and why SQL standards were created in the first place? How customers were demanding a certain level or interoperability? Do we think we don't need that anymore and the past reasons aren't there?

The SQL standard was created so that each database did not invent it's own query language. Postgres had one (called QUEL), and abandoned it in favor of SQL in 95 or so. Because people wanted the same general API to databases, not because they wanted the databases to behave the same.

I strongly disagree with the idea that databases should be drop-in replaceable, as it entirely ignores the large parts of the fuctionality (architecture, indexing, ...) which is out of scope of a SQL standard.
If size is not a requirement, I understand that they didn't optimize for it.

I don't know if they could have, but for something that just sits somewhere in your living room... that's a totally different design mindset than something that needs to fit in your pocket and whose main real estate you want to spend on a screen.
> how does the server confirm that the proof is correct?

The point of proof-of-work algorithms is to be hard to compute but easy to verify.

As a simplified example, a proof-of-work might be to take some input and find a corresponding salt that leads to a sha256 with 10 leading zeros. The user works hard to find that salt (the proof-of-work) using some brute force search, but the server easily verifies that the proof is correct because checking a sha256 is easy.

So the proof is verifiable by the definition of the algorithm.
Ok, but you are still sending the same weight of the truck up and down, so maybe this truck would save some money in that sort of case, too.
Can taking down websites really stop terrorists and hate groups?
Yes, it let's them know that this issue is a priority, and that they can gain popular support by either reemphasizing their position, or by sponsoring a new bill.

In this situation, the representatives didn't vote. They shelved the bill, A.B. 375 [0]. Many bills don't get put up to a vote because they aren't seen as priorities or viable. This includes SOPA/PIPA which was one of the most bipartisan co-sponsored bills [1] and yet never made it to a vote because of the popular outcry such as the Internet blackout day.

[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billHistoryClient.x...

[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/3261...
Nessa BMW S1000RR GIRL – Heart Breaker
A market maker takes both sides of the market, and makes money on the spread.

IE, a market maker would have a standing order to buy 1000 shares of microsoft stock for 29.99$ and then have a second standing order to sell it for 30.00$ at the same time. If the market is on average buying and selling randomly, the market maker makes .01$ for every pair of buy and sell trade.

A speculator is someone who takes only 1 side of the market. IE, they buy 1000 microsoft shares, hoping that the price will increase, or sells 1000 shares hoping that the price will decrease.
GAN improvements that lead towards finding global minima for any given distribution mapping. GANs are versatile but still suffer from mode collapse and instability, drastically reducing their utility.
I don't trust Apple. It's a matter of trust, so I have nothing else to say, just I can't trust Apple.
When the Kinect first came out I immediately thought to myself "one day all the tech in this thing will be cheap and tiny, and that day will be a weird day". I know it's obvious, tech gets smaller and cheaper. No great insight there. I just think it's one of those small innovations that ends up having an outsized impact.

Think of it this way, what might be possible or normal once sensors like this are so cheap they come embedded in all OTS camera modules for even the cheapest of devices?

Pretty crazy right?
Yes! Imagine some sort of AI camera surgery assistant that can help keep track of things like surgical spouges. Imagine a set of eyes watching your back at hour 6 of a long operation that never gets tired or frustrated.

It does create a different sort of "machines replacing humans" scenario. Instead of AI destroying us or replacing human workers because they are more effecient, machines replace us because they are just nicer people. They never get tired, hangry, frustrated. Superhuman levels of patience and empathy. I myself am a teacher, but I think I might prefer my children taught by TeachingUnit7000 who is just as excited about the lesson for the last class of the day as for teh first.
Also true for basically every Gulf country, but slightly more repressive.
I understand that governements need to make these things illegal.

But my point was that even though it's illegal, they can't stop it. One of the game of thrones episodes was on torrent before it even aired.

A governement can make bitcoin illegal. But stop it? No way.
I recall explaining to a guy that the lock free hashmap was very easy to use as long as you never free()'d anything you put in it, in which case I had some literature and code on Hazard Pointers for him to take a look at...
Many of the APIs for devices are through special ioctls, not through read/write of the file contents. Possibly what was referred to.
> You mention that plenty of individual funds did beat the S&P. This is straight an apocryphal anecdotal fallacy.

No, no it isn't. Individual funds have beaten the market for 20 - 30 years at a time. You won't even hear about most of them unless you really go digging, for a combination of reasons:

1. Funds that actually, consistently beat the market quickly find themselves in possession of more money than they know what to do with. They don't need to advertise themselves to the market, because they can find plenty of capital at the terms they want within their own network. Why inflate your fund to the size and publicity of Bridgewater if you can avoid it? The salesmanship of a given fund is typically inversely proportional to the return it achieves.

2. Per #1, when I say they have more money than they know what to do with, I mean that literally - they hit capacity constraints on their trading strategies and eventually cannot use more capital profitably even if they wanted to. They can spin off satellite funds to test out various strategies, but by and large the secret sauce engine will have to grow at a much slower rate from then on. This further compounds reason #1 - not only do they not need to seek out investor capital, they'll eventually stop being "on the market" for new investors at all, further reducing their publicity.

3. Finally, having investors is a logistical burden. The only reason to actually have outside capital is to pool risk so you - once you have enough capital and you've hit a capacity such that you can no longer scale up, you might as well return the investors' money and close the fund to outside investment. Why share the risk when you're already wealthy and have been doing this for 20 years?

Everyone has heard of Renaissance Technologies because they're legendary, but in my opinion we are lucky to even know about them to the extent that we do. Had James Simons not needed to pool risk and take outside investment in the initial days, we would likely not know about him beating the market with an average 70% return for three decades. There are many funds, like TGS Management, which are essentially comparable to RenTec but which far fewer people know about because they have no reason to be known.

I concede that this is not helpful information for an investor trying to figure out where to park money for legitimately superior returns, but that's a different matter than the fact that these funds do exist and that this bet is basically irrelevant for them.
If they're senior they shouldn't require any on boardinag other than dev environment set up and account set up for ci, ticketing, etc.
ES5 vs. ES6
It's true, I don't really know enough to tell how recent the phone is (I'm an Android user and don't even know that market very well). I do think people spend "more than they can afford" on their phones. Compared to past generations that spent more than they could afford on cars, say, it's a relatively cheap thing to splurge on. And if they're going to splurge on one thing, lots of people will pick their phone these days.
Pretty sure PDX captures faces when exiting. They force you through a series of doors/lanes, and if you look up two cameras (at least) per lane facing you. Since they're spaced apart I wonder if they're using it to make a 3d image.
If the goto is ticking you off, that's because moving the loop into another function and hoping it gets inlined or placing extra flags everywhere isn't practical.
making less money isnt the same thing as being whiped out.
This doesn't apply at all in most of California. We need the left lane for capacity, not flow regulation. Also left lanes are frequently diamond lanes, so you're basically telling people not to carpool.
Why seismologists didn’t see Mexico’s deadly earthquake coming
I am probably too young and uninformed but would love if somebody could enlighten me more about "Ted Nelson" because after watching his videos and reading about him on wikipedia and from other sources, I find a little difficult to understand the fan following he has in the form of comments on his videos or in this thread.

In the video he claims to be the first one to imagine a lot of things in his era, very novel to information science which unfortunately he hasn't been able to materialize yet and from the tone he claims all of the above makes me a little uncomfortably skeptical. IMO, nobody is ever first to imagine anything, historically great ideas have simultaneously popped up into quite a few heads and claiming that you were the first doesn't show a healthy state of outlook.
Which carrier is this? Verizon has promised to kick anyone going over 200GB/month off completely. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/01/11...

I am being pressured by my significant other to give up my two grandfathered lines since it works out to $60/line + $80 for the plan every month, and they now offer other "unlimited" options.
Stronger incorporation of hard constraints / rule or program learning in models for control and sequential decision making.
Does Tesla still use Lidar ?
The hassles and inconvenience this problem causes victims is sort of an unpriced externality of the credit industry. If those extending credit had to compensate the victims for their negligence, maybe they'd stop being so negligent.

And it would help if individual making the faulty decision to extend credit lost all their commissions for the week. It should be a blight on their record, with more than 5 instances causing them to lose their jobs. And CEO of the worst offending company gets a hefty fine.

Maybe that would focus the industry on solving this problem.
Given the same algorithm implemented in any languages, the AI should be able to compile(translate) every program to the same highly optimized machine code or at least the same performance, learning only from sources of other programs and their resulting compiled code.
Yes, Renaissance is an exception. I would argue that their nature of their strategies almost puts them into a pseudo market maker category (I've personally never worked with/for them, but I hear much of their strategy is statistical arbitrage, made possible by favourable transaction fee set ups and fast, colocated execution infrastructure).
You could put it off screen.
Nah, i don't think that's it.
Fear is a feeling, which is per default not any more or less connected to "i need to buy this thing" than any other feeling.
So why should fear encourage spending money more than any other feeling. How about the idea that a joyful person is much more inclined to spend money - but on different things.
Just imagine a world without any fear, just with different kind of markets and the same amount of money.
I agree. Although, to be fair Google Assistant's knowledge graph powered is already pretty awesome.
This was mid-1980s, not 1990s. Hence the 80286 CPU. A bit of a cold caused a brain cramp for me.
Netflix HTML5 player refuses to run on older CPUs in Safari. I have a 2009 Mac Pro with a copy of Firefox installed just so I can watch Netflix.
HyperTalk
Yesterday's visionary is today's crank.
I wonder if you could approximate the readability of proportional fonts with kerning rules -- let some letters steal or donate width, so it's not perfectly monospaced within any word, but word boundaries still line up.
A Useful Framework for Thinking About Product Management
Have they started? I thought they insisted that cameras are good enough?
"Unless the person is a world-renowned security expert with decades of management experience, and a public track record that goes on for miles — the idea of putting a BA in ‘Music Composition’ in charge at that level and in that kind of company is irresponsible and borderline criminal."

Their LinkedIn profile includes 15 years of experience, starting at IBM, between the acquisition of a degree in an unrelated field and taking a post at Equifax.

As previously discussed in another flagged thread with explicit warnings from HN staff, we cannot determine from their LinkedIn profile alone whether or not they were qualified to be CSO.

This article includes zero investigative reporting or original analysis that could shine light on whether they are qualified. It rehashes the same "Art degrees are for chumps" point, but does so in a thousand word self-promoted post on HN, instead of with a comment on HN.

The author of this post declares their inability to support the Equifax CISO based solely on non-applicable information. Lacking any knowledge about whether or not they're a competent professional at the job they were hired to do, they instead simply declare 'I can't give the benefit of the doubt to someone with an Arts degree'.

The post's author proudly declares that they're a self-taught dropout founder. They then go on to say that, exact quote here, "Most people in Ms. Mauldin’s position would choose to go back to school and get a degree that would compliment the role". By that logic, company founders who want to impact a billion people must attend school first, to get the degree necessary to authorize their widespread impact on the world.

This is not an appropriate response. It is a personal attack upon someone associated with a company, whose skills and contributions and motivations and responsibilities are all presently invisible to all of us. Rather than waiting until relevant information comes to light — or, better yet, following the principles of investigative reporting to seek relevant information — this post simply chooses to declare them a failure based solely on a mismatch between a degree program started 35 years ago and a job started 5 years ago.

This is an unacceptable breach of professional discussion about the news, and is not appropriate content for HN.
I was wondering if the Xanadu project was seen by Autodesk perhaps as a bit of a 'moon-shot', in the sense of low probability of success coupled with great potential.

Yes, it was.

Autodesk has done a few of those. They were into virtual reality very early, before 1990. It turned out that doing CAD with gloves and goggles was like trying to paint wearing oven mitts. Precise positioning is tough. So they gave up on that.

Getting into 3D animation worked out better. Autodesk itself did 3D Studio, and gradually acquired other 3D animation companies as they got into trouble. This worked out well, and there was crossover with the CAD business. The really good radioiosity renderer from one of the animation programs was connected to an architectural design program. Now you could place real light fixtures from a library and see the result before building the building and embedding light fixtures in concrete.

Carl Bass, as CEO until last February, was into 3D printing. He thought home 3D printing was going to be a much bigger deal than it turned out to be. So Autodesk came out with several low-end CAD programs that were never very profitable and did a lot of work to make 3D printing easier. Not profitable. Bass is gone.

Autodesk keeps plugging away at boring but useful stuff. Market cap around $25 billion.

(I'm long out of Autodesk, although still a stockholder.)
You're footing the bill? How generous.
This is sometimes true, and in my opinion, happens more at the smaller, unregulated hedge funds where the volumes can go undetected.
Women in societies that require face veils will be the only ones who can move around freely, which will be ironic.
Quiet Hacker News
As I understand it they don't. I don't think they ever have.

https://cleantechnica.com/2016/07/29/tesla-google-disagree-l...
That's not an useful or informed reply.
Blasted edge cases!
In that sort of scenario there are now two actors who can buckle; njalla (the reseller) _and_ the actual domain provider. The advantage of this is that I can register a domain without anyone knowing it was me.
Is your understanding that they operate via illegal insider information, or access to information that is very difficult to achieve?

To be clear: I have mined and sold data to hedge funds before, including well known ones, and from that work I derived two conclusions:

1. It is fundamentally possible to beat the market consistently and legally by exploiting information asymmetry, and

2. Most hedge funds, especially the most successful ones, do not operate via illegal insider information (and will, in fact, fly into a compliance department initiated lock down on a security if, say, an overzealous data vendor compromises confidentiality).

Basically, I'm asking for clarification because as stated, I disagree with your assertion here. There are legal grey areas and some people are outright criminal, but overall I wouldn't characterize the top performing funds as being wholly or even close to partially dependent upon insider information, let alone at a systemic organizational level.
I think the new Kinect makes use of time-of-flight if I recall correctly (which they do indicate in the article). If I understand correctly, with time-of-flight you don't need to project a pattern as in structured light setups.
People are fixated on power, but this browser miningware doesn't even pay for the wear on your machine.
You might think of him as analogous to Alfred Russel Wallace and evolution.
Data Security for Data Scientists
That's a very cool project! Congratulations on keeping it going for so long!
I also am tired of "Terrorism" as a life concern (we should be worried about more realistic concerns).

I will say however that the Apple Watch is now being (or soon will be?) used to detect heart problems and notify the wearer. So this kind of thing is happening.

Similarly crime watch apps do exist and could use the Apple Watch for notifications and safe navigation.

But if we had a crime detecting surveillance system there's no way to only use it to help good people stay safe. It would also be abused in ways that cause innocent people to suffer.

I'd just like to see a society that doesn't throw people in to jail (ruining their life) for trivial things. I mean, such societies exist - I'd like the USA to be one of them.
Okay, so what is your argument? What makes free software a 'fire extinguisher' and open source a 'bottle of seltzer water'? The only arguments you've made to separate them so far are...

"RMS designed the GPL as a weapon against these people."

""Open Source" at best weakens this tool"

Weakens in what way?
AI toolbox for manipulating real life objects. Can't wait to make a robot that slices tomatoes for me!
Apple won't send FaceId data to the cloud
There's two parts to this answer.

First, the numbers thrown around are that once you own 15 diversified stocks you have reduced your portfolio risk by 70 percent. That's not bad. At this point your volatility may not be that different than a market index. Of course it's different for every set of stocks, but I think this is a safe-ish guideline. So in that sense you are not missing out a whole lot.

Second, and more importantly, it is very simple to put together 15 stocks with a low volatility, but also with very low returns. This is because the vast majority of the returns of an index come from a very small number of outperforming stocks. It's like the 90-10 rule. 90 percent of an index's performance comes from 10% of the stocks. Those aren't the exact numbers, but when you only pick 15 stocks, it is very likely that you will totally miss out on all outperforming stocks.

Here's an article that talks about this in more depth and uses real numbers: http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/900/15st.htm
Like everything that's nice in theory, in practice rebasing is the only way to keep your sanity. It may be used in a quilt-like manner to apply your own changes to a foreign code base. For example, this is useful to develop features before they are ready for upstreaming. With rebase, you are applying your own changes on top of changed code, not the other way around, a much simpler and better scoped (in terms of time) activity, especially when the underlying codebase undergoes radical changes of its own. And whrn you're done and ready for upstreaming - you have a current set of simple changes against upstream, that are easy to review one by one, not a weird mixture of bits due to merges.
Potential role of intratumor bacteria in mediating tumor resistance
One thing I've learned is that systems rarely fail in a linear manner. Rarely does failure happen in a smooth calm manner. What we usually see is a very violent shakeout followed by a completely different balanced system at the other end. People are under he impression that the planet's changes are going to be smooth and we'll be able to manage them but that's certainly not the way systems function.

So this warning is super important to heed. One thing to note, the difference between frozen water and not frozen is great but the difference in temperature between the two is only a few degrees. Global warning is only warming up the planet a few degrees but that's enough for major and violent planetary changes.
I found Guix a lot more organised. Most package code is very simple, and the toolchain is also quite elegant. Hopefully the latter will be addressed by the new nix interface.
Not until they start putting QR codes on them.

Not that women in those societies can move freely, they must be accompanied by a man in most countries that do that to women.
Big advance? AI than can learn conditional logic.

DL tops out as mapping vector spaces to less complicated vectors. Incredibly powerful, but incredibly limited in what problems it can emulate.
I do like Apple's approach to privacy. A lot. And I love their phones. While their PC hardware is still pretty, it's getting more-and-more outdated and overpriced. But that's no longer their focus, so hey.

And indeed, Apple seems to handle privacy well, in practice. I've managed to create pseudonymous accounts at Apple's online store, and fund them with anonymized Bitcoin. And I've managed to make digital purchases.

However, I haven't tested buying physical devices, for pickup in meatspace. I wonder if they'd require official ID, or just proof of purchase. Anyone know?