skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's what I meant, internal political cruft. All the units I was ever in had some of this to a small degree which is unavoidable in any organization, but I'd work with some other unit that was like some kind of dystopian hellhole of contant internal strife. I don't know if it was just POG behavior in general or units with women or what, but every time I got a peek into how other units work, it was astonishing. Nothing even close to that in any of the Guard infantry units I was a part of over the years. In fact I'm thinking about reenlisting just to deploy with my old unit one more time. I can't imagine doing that in any other universe with any other unit.
SBCL is one lisp that I intend to learn more about. It's apparently the lisp of choice for XMaxima, which is a program that I used a lot in high school.
I agree with you, and disagree with my quote! There are various of these types of lists on the web and I just picked the first I could find, arguably not the best.
This is clearly a good idea. The whole broker/exchange/regulator triumvirate is a massive overhead for everyone.

Uptime: Trading hours are a 19th century anachronism. Distributed infrastructure is more reliable.

Management incentive: By removing annual and quarterly investor relations milestones businesses are incentivized to move more quickly by creating a more fluid and transparent management and investor relations style.

National access: Being 'listed' on a 'market' is a huge hassle and comes with fiscal protection mechanisms such as requisite auditing which essentially (not completely) amounts to a mafia-esque pay to play fee. Why not just go international and skip the hassle?

Regulation: Of course, the financial services establishment will cry "Regulators! Consumers need protection! Only we, the few, the humble, the experienced, can save their financial souls!" but alas their track record is pretty shocking and regulators with any guts should encourage innovation with some oversight and involvement. The thing is, since blockchains are international regulators are nominally sidelined in a default approach. There should be a middle ground where they can perform basic services such as corporate registration, legal good standing, fair taxation and IP asset attestation, for example, without becoming intimately involved in day to day business.

Transparency: Instead of occasional, high level audits, if transparency is required why not require that in order to be blockchain listed, companies must either use a public blockchain or otherwise effectively real time (eg. daily batched reporting) to transparently manage their financial assets? This would provide superior transparency than the establishment, potentially with crypto levels of trust (thus auditors cannot be bought/make mistakes).

Fiscal restructuring: Being able to do stock splits and so forth could work very well on chains.

Conventional asset financial connectivity: Sooner or later you have to interact with the off-blockchain world. Gatekeeper financial institutions need to validate inbound capital by showing things like source of funds. This is nontrivial with anonymous blockchain inflows, and requires setting up a significant KYC process as per larger crypto exchanges.

Of course there are issues. If there is a gatekeeper to enforce due diligence then is it truly blockchain anymore or are you just doing rebranded ICO 2.0 and issuing your own tokens? I fear the latter. We must find a middle ground. The devil is in the details.
How to Meet Bisexual Singles and Couples Online
It seems very unlikely that PayPal's spoof email would validate an obviously spoofed domain. It could be that PayPal is completely phoning it in at this point but that's really egregious. Not that I think they're some amazing company, I'd even say they're downright evil based on past experiences.
From my understanding that was specifically for the gigantic patent portfolio and little interest in the hardware. Hence the immediate spinoff.
As tptacek pointed out upthread, his hateful ideology is deeply ingrained in the structure of the technology. In fact, no technology is free of its creator's ideology! The argument that one should "put [ideological biases] aside when assessing technology" is, in the most charitable case, naive attachment to the status quo.
I can't say, really. My contention was largely around the idea that it was asserted as fact that it was at the behest of a three letter agency and the remainder of the comment presented based on that. It has not been established that it was at the behest of a three letter agency and presenting arguments based on that is like building a house on the sand.

It hasn't anything to do with quality specifics, nor of alternatives. Without factual evidence to support the three letter agency theory, the rest of the argument is invalid.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a horrible idea. I've just seen no reasons to assert that it was done because of a three letter agency being the directors. As near as I can tell, and I've followed this fairly closely, no such evidence exists. At best, it's speculation. At worst, it's conspiracy theory. Either way, presenting it as fact and then basing an argument on that is illogical.

We can do better than that. There are lots of valid complaints that don't need speculation, disinformation, or hyperbole. IME is a horrible idea, at least it is so long as you can't disable it as the end user. This very thread is a fine example of one of the reasons that it is horrible. It's a security nightmare and should be user controlled.

No three letter agency needed to point this out. Wild, unsubstantiated, accusations may make people take the complaints less seriously. That seems less than helpful.
Apple has to push something new (but iOS apps with AR were there as late as around 2011) and major "next big thing" to play catching up. Apple as a creature is done. It is just following the phenomenon momentum founded by Jobs to maximize profit. Once the day it goes past the max profit tipping point, what is real will show up. Money is the quantitive fact that few would go against, once this fact changes, opinions will soon emerge. My personal thoughts.
For consciousness you need embodiment and goals. Goals shape attention, which shapes perception, which generates consciousness. The environment and its dynamics are essential in creating representations and learning behavior. So I think that in order to have consciousness you need a loop made of environment + agent + reward, not just a recurrent neural net with memory.
The Metropolis release adds ADD and MUL operations on elliptic curve, which makes it possible to implement ring signatures.
That opens up use cases like anonymous funds transfer similar to Monero and zCash.
This is cute, but the use case in robotics is questionable. A variable ratio transmission for a robot seems to solve a problem nobody has. Electric motor control today is able to do that job over a wide torque and speed range. From drones to electric cars to Diesel-electric locomotives, nobody uses variable-speed gearboxes much any more. There are many robot gearboxes, but I've never heard of one with a shifter. Machine Design has ads for robot gearboxes, including ads from Harmonic Drive, but they're all fixed ratio.

This thing would need a second motor to adjust the speed change, with an encoder, plus encoders on the input and output ends of the transmission. Something has to control all that.

If you need sudden bursts of high torque, overload the motor while monitoring temperature. You can run electric motors far above their continuous rating for brief periods, and if temperature is monitored, this is safe. That's how Tesla's "launch mode" works.

Not seeing the use case for this thing in robotics.
> A noun is one of two things: a natural number or a pair of nouns

To most of us, a "noun" is a person, place, thing, idea, or feeling.

I started replying to the other stuff you were saying, but I started getting this feeling like you're in on the joke and I'm not.
> The fact they display the "total cost of all nights" in the results, instead of the per-night cost. That's not a misleading UX, it's just a bad UX decision.

I prefer the total cost in the results, since that's what I'll ultimately pay. Why do you prefer per night? Doesn't that make you do the multiplication in your head?
A few off the top of my head:

Proxied (therefore non-personalized) Google results: https://www.startpage.com/

Heavily privacy-focused, even proxying content: https://www.ixquick.eu/

Meta search engine with very feature-rich search, self-hostable: https://searx.me/

Search engine with very feature-rich search result pages: https://www.qwant.com/

Not yet released, peer-to-peer search: http://pearsearch.org/
U.S. Navy swapping $38,000 periscope joysticks for $30 Xbox ctrls on submarines
Urbit likes like an awesome idea. Are they shipping a product? Or it’s just theory for the moment? If it’s the second, any idea when we can expect to see the first products?
I'm surprised that they went with AMD and not an ARM vendor. ARM is pushing into the ML space big time with ARM GPU with even a Caffe fork CaffeALC on the ARM GPU. These GPUs are built with mobility and energy conservation, so these processors are somewhat of a natural fit for TSLA.

https://github.com/OAID/caffeOnACL
So, there are absolutely no "Killer Features" then? That was my primary question, which you refused to answer.

That's what I suspected.

Edit: Quote from your post-- "However, recently, I finally heard the first solution which felt like the completely right solution to me, and I believe they're pursuing it."

Yet no answer.
In Sweden all the major supermarket chains already have their own meal kit services. They didn't have to buy anyone up they just started them in-house. I wonder what keeps US chains from innovating themselves?
The one time I messed with it, I found the source code to be very clean and navigable, so if you're learning, it's still a great OS for that purpose.
Old fathers pass on more mutations to kids than old mothers
I guess that's just the cost of business when your start up is located in the British Indian Ocean Territory
Urbit's test network has been up for a year, this post is about bringing online a more hardened version using Ethereum.
Never Sherlocking A Culpable, Integrated And Feasible Balanced Induction as to what that force may be!
I'll admit, Hoon is weird. But complaining about Nock is like complaining about the JavaScript VM. You can JIT it and replace common functions to replace with calls to C functions instead. Nock defines the /results/, not how to get them. Jets are basically just because the Nock spec didn't want to have to outline a bunch of primitives that don't really matter, since they would be replaced with native calls anyways.

As for ideological views: there are 4 million planets. They are, essentially, houses, but each one of those planets can also issue 2^16 "moons", which can themselves be their own people. I don't know the reasoning behind why 2^32, but I'm also not going to ascribe the reasoning to human worth any more than I would the author of IPv4. There are also 2^64 comets, which are their own ships outside the trust heirarchy, which really just means that they have a default karma of 0 because they have no cost, and so can be Sybil attacked - not that they can never get a positive karma, or that you couldn't use one indefinitely instead of a planet (just that it's be unwieldy). Saying Urbit can't scale bigger than IPv4 is kinda like worry that Hoon can't be programmed in Chinese - there are probably bigger problems, and it could be solved by just doubling the amount of galaxies. Hell, Urbit is open source. There would be push back against doing it, but there is nothing stopping that from being patched in tomorrow.

The most common thing I've see n called fascist in Urbit is it's identity system, and this Urbit+Ethereum spec seems to be a direct solution to some of it. Now, even buying a star you don't have to trust the owner of the galaxy you bought it from, because it's a redeemable token.
I live midtown, and yes, it is incredibly easy to find prepared food for dinner that is cheaper than what these meal kit services charge, or even cheaper than the equivalent in groceries. I'm not talking about street carts either.
English may not be his native language and I'm just speculating. To me, it read more about the pressures exerted and the desire to not have to conform to an ideal presented by people who aren't members of the same culture.

I'm not sure that qualifies as xenophobic, or even a bad thing. Should a Mexican restaurant be pressured into serving food that is more acceptable to the Canadian palate? (Pressured, not forced.)

From what I've read, and a documentary, it's pretty high stress to meet the expectations and to do things in a certain manner. I can understand the desire to get out from under that. By foreigners, it may mean, 'not my usual customers.'

So, I'm not sure if that's really xenophobic. I'm not seeing any fear involved, just displeasure about external pressures.
For example, all gates/functions are cores, but there's no sense in which you'd call those "objects".

To me, all you're doing here is describing an object-based language in which functions are first-class. Obviously, Urbit didn't invent this concept. Its predecessors used normal names for these terms. Why does Urbit invent new ones?

We could productively stay focused on just this one example, and see if there's a better reason for Urbit to call its objects "cores" and its methods or attached functions or computed attributes "arms".
Equifax Breach: Setting the Record Straight
Invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk has never been proven. Crimea, sure I will concede that. For the record, I don’t approve of it, even though Crimea has been under Russia’s control for hundreds of years, and was only given to Ukraine by Khrushchev in the 50s.
Thats great to hear. Good job making them look like the fools they ard by the way.
Voting is ideal application for blockchains .. and distributing VOTE tokens broadly and regularly with Proof of Identity solves the 'liquidity problem'.
But Google doesn't fingerprint your browser and add those searches to your account history.

What users care about is what's saved in their history. Many users probably don't even understand the difference between browser history and Google account search history.

But private browsing works for both (provided you don't login to your account in the private window).

Users don't care if, theoretically, Google could fingerprint their private browsing session. Unless they care about ad tracking, which is why I only addressed search history in my original comment.
This is a great question.

The best way i've found to describe Urbit as a product is a decentralized, open source version of WeChat. No, nobody really cares about privacy, but I think the argument is that for the consumer there is the potential for a way better experience. If all of your data is in one place, as a consumer, you only ever need to enter it once. More interestingly, all of your apps can work together in a seamless way that's currently impossible with the current paradigm. Your maps app has ubers and lyfts driving around on it, with yelp/opentable postings on all restaurants, etc.

On the developer side, you save so much time not reimplementing identity, payments, reputation, etc., everytime. There are more reasons why Urbit is better for developers, but I won't go into them here. Checkout the whitepaper...it's a little dense, but there is logic there:

Now, to your question. WeChat won at chat and once they owned communication / identity, it was fairly easy to move into payments and everything else. Urbit has a classic chicken & egg problem: its tech is designed to be better at doing everything for everybody. The current stack is already much more robust and better suited than urbit for most if not all one-off 'killer apps.'

So, you're right, they need to find the first killer app, equivalent to WeChat's 'chat'. I've been following the project for years, and the answer to this question has eluded me. However, recently, I finally heard the first solution which felt like the completely right solution to me, and I believe they're pursuing it.

Yes, some of the language is pompous and unnecessarily 'verbose'(being generous). Yes, they could do a better job explaining the problem in laymen's terms. However, I can tell you that the people behind this project are very intelligent and very serious. And, of course a little crazy..but you have to be a little bit to attempt something on this magnitude...right?
>>That's grade-A genocidal rhetoric he's deploying.

One of the great things of our times, is that bulk of the recorded history is available out there, and accessible for pretty cheap. Almost anything that is being said now, has been told by someone else in the past. To a point- Today you can easily judge the intentions and consequences of what is likely to happen as outcome of the speech.

This is a bad time to aspire to be a dictator or a genocide perpetrator.

There are so many signals you can pick from a person's talk that you can easily flag and classify the speech into what's likely to happen next.
For those confused about Urbit's value proposition, I recommend Isaac Simpson's briefish explanation here. Funny enough, the original version was posted behind Medium's membership paywall, and the public link was just recently distributed:

https://storage.googleapis.com/urbit-extra/etc/the%20not%20s...

My own perspective regarding these new decentralized platforms is that we're at the very tail end of low-hanging fruit in regards how easy the next generation of software innovation will be to explain to "your average layperson". The problems that decentralization are trying to solve are uniquely understood by developers, particularly people well-versed in the metagame of content, advertising, identity, and privacy on the web, which is a vast field filled with thousands of great reasons to consider decentralization, but are unfortunately hard to distill down into a 30-second elevator soundbyte.

Another problem is that having high-density conversations about software innovation is fundamentally absurd. Every software innovation is ultimately just "another way to write code", so you can boil down everything Urbit and IPFS and Ethereum are doing to "well, our current code for everything is this way, and it seems to suck, so we're going to try writing the code a completely new way". That's it. Every time someone asks "what can you even do with this thing?", the answer is "well, you can develop software on it".

Edit: Apparently the original article has been un-paywalled. Perhaps you can access it here:

https://medium.com/@IsaacSimpson/urbit-and-the-not-so-dark-f...
Surprised CoinList isn't mentioned here, as they did a successful ICO for FileCoin and serve as a platform for pretty much this exact use-case.
Sarcasm aside, I hated this feature until I used it a few weeks, but now I'm a fan. I would argue that this UI is empowering users, in the sense that it allows them to do something that they couldn't before (in contrast to Clippy, who usually suggested things you already knew how to do).

For example, on a daily basis, I usually spend my time in one of 4 places:
- A location with good WiFi and good LTE reception (expectation: all services on)
- A location with bad WiFi and good LTE reception (expectation: WiFi off)
- A location with excellent WiFi and atrocious LTE reception (expectation: cellular off)
- A location with bad WiFi and zero LTE reception (expectation: all off)

Previously, I had to manually toggle WiFi, cellular, or airplane mode on or off in these various locations, nearly always forgetting to change it again later. This is mainly a problem with turning things off - if I'm in airplane mode, I might not notice that I'm incommunicado for an hour or more if I'm engrossed in a task, whereas leaving everything on when I'm in the metaphorical dungeon will only cost me a few % of battery, at most.

However, by defaulting services to on after I move locations, my phone reverts to a communication device at the expense of a marginal amount of battery life. Think of it as a 4-square: 1) services on, actively using; 2) services off, actively using; 3) services on, not using; 4) services off, not using.

In cases 1 & 2, I'm actively using it and I don't care what it does as long as it functions (i.e. I can manually disconnect from shitty WiFi myself, so data will load again). In case 3, I lose some battery life for my inattention, but no big deal - I can still easily make it all day on a charge. In case 4, I'm SOL until I remember to turn them on again.

This behavioral change in iOS 11 moves some of my time from case 4 to case 3, which is a tradeoff I am willing to make.

I hope this helps to illustrate the alternative perspective to yours a bit more clearly.
That's not true, it doesn't cost $5 to make a single transaction (unless your chores are really, really expensive). Mining fees are optional, although if you don't pay it, miners don't need to accept your transaction. Basically, you're paying for miners to do the work necessary as an incentive (much like you'd pay Visa or Mastercard).
Google bought Motorola patents that came with hardware businesses attached for defense purposes, not because they wanted in on the hardware business. This was after they found themselves unarmed during a thermonuclear patent war.

Google dropped the hardware businesses and kept the patents. The patent market was notably frothy at the time, and conventional wisdom then valued Motorola's patent chest at $4.0-4.5 billion (Apple + MS consortium bought the comparable Nortel trove for a price in that ballpark). If that value is correct, then Google made a profit on buying and selling Motorola (patents + Moto Home + Moto Mobile).
Whoah, hold on. I hate to zoom in and nitpick, but I'm not guessing when I provide that reason for the 2^32 bit address space. It's the official stated answer from the project itself.

And I'm not saying the problem with that design decision is that it's amoral (let's stipulate that it isn't). I'm saying that it's extremely unconventional, a landmine of orthogonal ideology buried in the architecture of the system. Before committing to building a new product in someone else's framework, I'd want to know about all such weird decisions, and about why they are that way. Maybe Urbit's principles are compatible with the way you think about every possible aspect of how your system will interact with any of its users ever (since that's what you're buying into when you literally adopt an entirely new network to build against and deploy on). But maybe not!

Most framework designs coercively project opinions about whether the efficiency of register-sized addresses are worth the flexibility tradeoff, or whether it should be easier to define new URL patterns versus making it easier to dispatch the full complement of HTTP verbs, or whether closures are first-class or sum types are worth the complexity. Not a lot of programming environments ask us to determine what double-digit percentage of the world's population is too irresponsible to deserve an address. Again: their words (almost; I changed the order).

I'm trying to be careful not to use loaded terms like the f-word you just used, by the way. What I think about Urbit's founder is not necessarily the same as what conclusions I'd draw about this particular system, which is, I think, fatally flawed on its own demerits.
I believe that's why it exists, actually. The author was a professor, though I think he is now retired. It was an OS written for his class to learn from and the source was in a book about operating systems.

At least that's what my memory tells me. I'm not a computer scientist, I was just tangentially involved and picked this up by osmosis. I haven't read the book and my programming skills are such that I can do it, but you don't want to see the results.
W3C Hearing the Concerns the EME Recommendation Raises