skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you are right: the chances aren't extreme, but are non-trivial. This looks to be a chart that has the mortality data necessary to answer your question (although presumably it also includes "non-natural" causes like suicide and homicide): https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html. The first two columns show age, and the probability that a holder of an American Social Security card who is of that age will die within the next year. For all but the oldest ages, I think it should be accurate to simply divide this by 365 to calculate the chance that an individual of that age will die within 24 hours.

From the chart --- and oversimplifying HN demographics by assuming they match those of chart and consist only of 30-year-old American males --- the probability of death within the year is 0.0015; making each individual's daily chance of death 0.000004, which is about 1 out 250,000. Unless I'm misremembering, to calculate the chance that at least one person out of a group of size N dies, it's easiest to exponentiate the probability of survival (1 - .000004 == 0.999996) ^ N, and then subtract this from 1 to find the chance of at least one death.

If we guess that we readers are one-thousand 30-year-old males, I think that means there is about a half a percent chance that one of us will die before tomorrow ((1 - (0.999996 ^ 1000)) == 0.004). If we instead assume ten-thousand 30-year-old males, then we get about a 4% chance that someone won't be around after tomorrow. If we generously assume a hundred-thousand such readers, then there is about a 30% chance that one of us won't make it another full day. I don't know what the actual readership numbers are for this post (or maybe the grandparent was self-referencing their own comment rather than the main post?) but it seems likely that it's somewhere within that range.

If we use a more realistic age distribution for HN, the probability would go up (older readers increase the probability more than younger readers decrease it). On the other hand, if we assume that HN readers on average have better health care and less risk of violence than randomly chosen Social Security card holders, then the probability would go down. But suicide risk would probably go the other way, so I don't know what the total correction factor would be. Still, I'd guess this estimate would remain in the ballpark. Corrections to my methodology or calculations appreciated.
Show HN: Value Investing Newsletter
Why Tech Leadership Has a Bigger Race Than Gender Problem
More so than swimming in ad revenue, said revenue was funneled first and foremost to cover journalistic expenses, not dividends for shareholders.

I have seen one too many newspapers be subject to a leveraged buyout, that then lead to the advertisement division spun off as its own company, and the rest left to rot.
Passenger Drone lives up to its name with manned flight
A) If you're a developer who is even halfway worth his salt, $80 is chump change.

B) Sublime Text is one of the few things I encounter on a daily basis that gives me any hope whatsoever for the fate of humanity. They earned every penny of that $80 and then some.

C) Adobe is $20 a month, and I throw up in my mouth a little every time I see it on my statement. Not because it's $20, but because it's Adobe.
I usually recommend A Brief History of Graphics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzN2pgL0zeg&list=PLOQZmjD6P2...
(Despite the name, it focuses on video games.)

Also, The Video Game Years is an excellent series on console gaming which highlights the broader atmosphere (mostly in the US) around each device, spanning the late 70s to late 80s: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC2468FB35ED2DAC2 (edit: Forgot to mention, skip to 1980 for less babbling and more info. It's one of those series that gets better in later episodes.)

There's actually a ton of other good retro-gaming channels on YouTube that I've found to be on par with or better than the more well known gaming documentaries.
It is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that something so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God.
not sure photography matches audio recording bit for photography here's a good reference

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Comm...
You're welcome! Forgot to mention, the other reason executable files (if produced) get big, is that compilation of a Lisp program not only produces the machine language form of your program, but it also includes a Lisp runtime.

The runtime makes possible having the condition-restart system, and the full power of macros (your program can compile lisp code at runtime if needed, thanks to the runtime.)
This was a much meatier writeup than I expected from the premise, which usually gets a pretty surface, opinionated treatment.

Maybe I misunderstand the capabilities of offered solutions, but I can't imagine that ML would be a tremendously effective tool to gauge content veracity, at least on its own. Maybe it would be a good supplement to a headstrong human effort, but that headstrong human effort seems for major gatekeepers of content (Google, Facebook, etc) like it would be an underpowered cost-center to placate a concerned public at best, and a non-starter at worst.

The final suggestion resonated with me a lot:

> Finally, we think the research community should continue to build up our understanding of how this content is created; a deep enough understanding could allow us to adapt the strategies of bad actors as a tool against them. It’s time to fight fire with fire.

This, to me, while maybe not the most tidy solution to the issue, acknowledges the messy reality of the situation and gives one way to effectively approach it: flood the zone. I think we did see tactical mimicry with things like Correct the Record during the 2016 election cycle. However, I believe that lacked the sort of ethical/factual ambivalence that got the 4chan/reddit pipeline running as well as it did (and continues to do). Essentially, the disseminators of propaganda operate asymmetrically, as they are governed by more dire motivations and by fewer rules. Those who would respond to nullify the effect of that propaganda can't half-ass it, they would need to match the shrewdness and power of what continues to crop up. It's very Brave New World.
Nope, but I already knew going in that I never charge and listen to headphones at the same time, and I only use the included headphones on my phone.
The "actually encrypted" part is NaCL (ED25519 + sha256) as supported by Go [2]. Interestingly, the common way to use
NaCL applies Curve25519 to encrypt a symmetric key which is the used for the payload. They don't do that. AFAICT, everything is using the ECC curve.

[2] https://keybase.io/docs/crypto/kbfs
What Law Firms should be doing to Secure their Data-They are a gold mine
I'd like to second the gluten thing, as an unexpected behavioral change that changed my life immeasurably.

I was told to cut wheat down to 10% max of my diet, under very strange circumstances (not going to go into it here; it was weird and made no sense, also, this person wasn't a doctor or anything and didn't tell me how it might affect me to change my diet this way).

I tried it for two weeks. I went to the store, got gluten-free equivalents of regular foods, and this was long before gluten-free was a fad so it was hard to find stuff.

Within two days, literally, I felt 10 years younger. My digestion went from kinda bad, always feeling bloated, often unpleasant times in the bathroom, to, well, a really good experience. My skin went from being kind of sallow and puffy to healthy and glowing.

I used to strain my back and neck regularly, and for no reason. I'd spend maybe a month's worth of days limping around with back/neck strain. That ended, entirely.

My mood improved to an amazing degree, which was also really surprising.

And last, I used to get sick 4-5 times a year, and without fail if I didn't get enough sleep, even two nights in a row. Now, I get sick maybe once a year, much more in line with what I see in other people.

I think I too had a low-grade gluten intolerance (probably not celiac, though I've never been tested); getting rid of it was probably the best health decision I've ever made, for impact on quality of life.

Anyway, just wanted to share my story. :)
> NB: Even in skill-based games, the odds still always (and I mean always) favor the house.

In BlackJack, card counting can reveal plays where the odds favor the gambler. In sports betting, which can be though of as a market with high commissions, skilled players consistently make decisions with positive expectation.
It may, I see 250GB available for my keybase files.
Saturn and Dreamcast emulation are pretty good these days, so you can relive all these games if you are so inclined.
How to Legally Own Another Person (2015) [pdf]
Indeed. Back in the day we called this "pattern sensitivity" and didn't ship product that suffered from it, leading to loss of $$. Collectively the memory industry seems to have screwed up big time, but persuaded everyone they didn't.
> But the critique of frequentist models is entirely sophomoric. It boils down to, “You can’t do something an infinite number of times. Therefore, everything we know is wrong.”

> Fuck off, man.

I say this with zero sarcasm: you're a real treat.
Yeah, I would disagree with a lot of C++ devs on this. But I strongly stand by my opinion.

First of all, it's not even a substitute. m_foo won't work if it's declared in a class based on a template parameter; you'll still need a qualifier. And suddenly that makes the code inconsistent, which in itself is kind of bad. Inconsistency makes it harder to read code and spot mistakes. And why should how you refer to a variable change based on the mere fact that the class containing it takes a template parameter?

Second, there is really no good reason why you should have to change

class C { C(int width) : value(width) { } int width; };

to

class C { C(int width) : m_width(width) { } int m_width; };

Ambiguity? Not really. If you actually follow the convention of qualifying member variables with this-> or the like, nobody would ever get confused at whether the "x" in x = 1 refers to a local variable or to a member variable. Literally the only reason to do this is laziness in typing, and C++ was most definitely not designed to be the language for saving keystrokes. You just have to get that notion out of your system when using the language; it just leads to worse code (speaking from experience).

Furthermore, there is no reason to encode the member-ness of a variable into its name. What's so special about that information? Should we start encoding the access specifiers too (private/public/etc.)? What about whether it's a class member? s_m_priv_width instead of just width? Why can't we just call the variable whatever darn thing it represents?

And my tongue is halfway in my cheek here, but this feels akin to naming your American kid AmeriAlex instead of just Alex. What sense does that make?

Finally, let's get semantic highlighting out of the way -- it fundamentally cannot with C++ syntax or with the C preprocessor, and it's twice as impossible with the two. It's never clear what m_foo refers to. Is it a global or is it in the base class? If it's in a header file included by two other .c files, and the preceding header files declare different base classes, what color should it have? It would refer to different things (maybe in one case in a namespace, and in another case in a class). Coloring is just an unsolvable problem in this language; it's not reliable in telling you where a variable referred to is declared.
The part of the ETL you'd want to "crystallize" is just the transformation from raw data to feature vector.

Beyond that, you already "change in ETL" when you experiment. I'm not sure how this changes anything.

Out of nowhere you've sprinkled in "multi gpu support" which I'm not sure is relevant here. Do you mean as part of training?

We handle the gpu bits for you. All you do is define your transform logic, it runs on one of our backends like spark and then when you go to allocate a tensor boom gpu.

There's no special compilation or process needed to make this happen.

Dl4j supports multi gpu training out of the box. All you need to do is uses our parallelwrapper module.

We can also do distributed training with gpus on spark as well (yes this includes cudnn).

You've also for some reason decided to attach an open ended coding library where you can do whatever you want to a database?

Baked in ML in the database servers is already notoriously bad. The whole point of what we're doing is to provide a middle ground.

Data engineers have to do this anyways.
Essential image optimization
Shameless Plug: https://auditus.cc

Uses Amazon Polly for the speech gen
Show HN: Cryptr – A simple shell utility for encrypting and decrypting files
that's not helpful. the pictures would already be taken and uploaded to servers without my permission reguardless of whether or not I wanted my picture taken or what's visible (contracts, trade secrets, people in various states of undress) .

also this isn't about Google spying. it's about Chrome's bad camera permission model. any company can abuse it
I'm not a historian, but I believe Hitler expressed his anti-Semitic ideas quite clearly in his book prior to taking power. Hitler was involved in violent attempts at revolution, and murdering political opponents and rivals prior to taking power.

Bannon ran an unorthodox campaign premised on populism and nationalism. That's quite different.

The harm in equating Bannon and Trump with Hitler stems from the charge not being true. The harm includes the fact that nearly half the country supports Trump, and you are (unfairly) equating them with Nazis. This is quite polarizing for politics, in addition to being unjustified.
To compare with x86, 1.7 DMIPS/MHz is slightly less than the original Pentium (P5) at 1.88 DMIPS/MHz, and well behind the Pentium Pro (P6) at 2.7 DMIPS/MHz. Later x86 microarchitectures are vastly more efficient, with modern i7s achieving closer to 10 DMIPs/MHz.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_instructions_per_secon...
Your linked source there says Qatar literally pledged the money for Bill’s 65th birthday and wanted to deliver the check in person. I think the “husband’s gift” description is pretty accurate.
What is the state of personality theory constructs with respect to empirical validation (e.g. fMRI)?
Yea, it definitely continues to be an annoyance. I have some great bluetooth headphones, but if I forget them I can’t exactly pick up a cheap pair. The adapter works well but it’s easy to lose, especially if you want to use it in a car and also have to remember the lightning splitter so you can charge your phone at the same time.

That said, totally worth the improvements in water resistance. I use it in the shower all the time.

Mostly I just use headphones much less.
How Patrick Campbell Bootstrapped Two Successful Tech Companies
The odds that a Hacker News user will die tomorrow approaches certainty. The probability that that person has read this particular comment are considerably lower, as every user doesn't read every comment.

I've been playing with the "actuary.py" program and some generated data using awk to come up with estimates based on some very crude assumptions: that there are 100k users, that the ages are uniformly distributed from 20 to 50, and that they are 80% male.

time ~/bin/actuary.py $(
gawk 'BEGIN { srand(); for( i=1;i<100000;i++ ) {
age=20 + int(rand() * 30);
sex=(rand()>0.8);
if( sex=="0") sex="m";
else sex="f";
printf( "%s%s ", age, sex) }
}')

There is a 5% chance of someone dying within 0.0 years (by 2017).
There is a 50% chance of someone dying within 0.0 years (by 2017).
There is a 95% chance of someone dying within 0.01 years (by 2017).

That last number tells you that there's a 95% chance of someone dying within 0.01 years, which is to say, 3.65 days.

The script fills out the likelihood that we will all die (we will) ... within a given time:

There is a 5% chance of everyone dying within 85.66 years (by 2103).
There is a 50% chance of everyone dying within 87.7 years (by 2105).
There is a 95% chance of everyone dying within 90.71 years (by 2108).
Probability of all dying in 1.0 year: <0.001% 100.0
Probability of a death within 1.0 year: >99.99%

The actual daily uniques were 300k, and about 3m monthly, as of about 3 years ago. My 100k population may be a good estimate of the actual number of humans in the daily read. The age distribution almost certainly skews generally younger, but extends older, so don't take the values as gospel, only a general indication.

I also believe the mortality tables Randall uses have been updated since.

The script takes over 6 minutes to run on a rather modest system at 100k individuals.

HN user data (from ~3 years ago):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9219581

xkcd "actuary.py"

https://blog.xkcd.com/2012/07/12/a-morbid-python-script/comm...
If you have many databases all attempting high volume conflicting ACID transactions constantly, it would seem eventually consistent is better than never commit a single transaction.
Lead Fullstack Engineer
It fits the "natural versus artificial" dichotomy. i.e. anything is natural if it comes about without human agency.
Not if Microsoft keeps this up: https://github.com/Microsoft/WinObjC/tree/develop/Frameworks...

I'm not saying that's entirely reasonable, but it exists.
I've lurked around 4chan more or less my entire life. It remains a vital pulse on the trends and gossip of the internet as a whole and the unfiltered opinions of the international community. I spent a lot of time on there during the election season. Specifically /pol/.

It's amazing what the unconscious social reward system can do to groupthink in such a contained, anonymous environment.

Most people do not make use of user scripts that allow better threading or quoting, and as such there is so much noise in between the comments relevant to the conversation a user might be following that one has to develop a strategy for ignoring things that aren't relevant. Often this will cause the individual to lump certain responses together and to disregard anything that resembles that lump. This contributes to polarization and hostility among susceptible individuals.

There is a lot of hyper-feedback between users of like mind, who are mostly ignoring everyone else. It doesn't take much to go from 'let's all look into this email trove" to "The Clintons are clearly committing criminal acts and hanging out with convicted pedophiles" to "Hillary Clinton sacrifices goats and eats babies"

Some people perpetuate an idea as a joke, a fraction of them understanding that others who truly believe the idea will only take it as truth. But there is an attractive sense of comradery in the kind of trolling that goes on there.

Many more people could possibly have been agents of various organizations shaping the conversation in certain directions.

Certainly, Correct The Record had a large presence on places like 4chan, as well as people jokingly dishing out common CTR lines, to the effect that it was easy for many to believe that whatever the posts they lumped together as "shilling" were against must be true. In addition to CTR spam posts, a lot of posts like "well maybe Hillary doesn't eat babies and Donald Trump is probably lying through his teeth on most of his commitments just like her" fell into that "shilling" category.

It was fascinating to watch it happen so fast, just a few planted threads and suddenly an entire board just completely digressed into right-wing Pro-Trump "MAGA" shouting idiots, some of it ironic, some of it planted, but so much of it in earnest. So much memery and shitposting. /pol/ is kind of a horrible place to be now.
Show HN: MathC – a pure C math library for 2D and 3D programming
I'm a friend and colleague of Michael's at MIT. This article is very nice and gives a good summary of what made Michael so special. In a lot of ways, Michael was the animating "spirit" of the MIT theory group. He had an encyclopedic knowledge and incredibly deep understanding of basically every area of computer science, and many areas beyond; in the short year that I knew him, we had conversations about everything from convex optimization to computer architecture to rent control laws to Medieval philosophy.

Michael was a truly remarkable researcher. Ludwig's comments about him being the type that you "only see a couple of times in a generation" are accurate. I also recommend watching the start of Yin-Tat Lee's recent talk [1] at the Simons Institute. Yin-Tat is a prolific researcher himself, so his comments carry a lot of weight.

For those wondering about Michael's publication count: computer science (and especially theoretical computer science) is a "high publication" field, in part because of the nature of publishing in conferences and in part because the field is young and there are many good open problems. Still, Michael's publication record is abnormally strong and reflects his collaborative nature. Regarding the comments about co-authorship, Michael could easily have been a co-author on a dozen more papers if he had cared, since he often contributed the main ideas to projects that he never formally joined. This was definitely my experience collaborating with him. I expect that Michael will be more prolific in the next year than many living researchers, from the point of view of publishing.

His papers (incomplete list here [2]) are very well written, by the way. I recommend checking them out.

The most incredible thing about Michael was the way he learned. If you talked about something that he didn't understand, he'd quiz you about it until he did. And he did this with everyone, from brand new grad students like me to famous professors.

At the same time, Michael was incredibly generous. He liked to talk, and you could interrupt him at any time and he'd explain everything to you with astounding patience. Michael wasn't in science for glory; he just really loved learning and teaching. He's already profoundly missed and our entire community is shocked by his untimely passing. My deepest condolences go to Michael's family.

We hope to have a memorial website up soon, especially since Michael was too humble to have much of an online presence.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pIheZseT1U

[2] https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=t3kDJHQAAAAJ...
Hm, it definitely isn't supposed to work that way -- could you share OS & browser so I can replicate? I can't get it to happen on OS X / any browser.
Geo Key Manager: Broadcast/ID-based encryption for private keys using bn256
Thank you for the kind words! It's really rad to hear.
Welcome to the club!
Have you tried and disliked the Google keyboard? That's what I used when I was on a GS6, and it was pretty good.
That's great for you.

I still want cheep, easy to find, simple, reliable personal audio that doesn't depend on a low-noise RF environment.

I still want to EASILY interface with /all/ of the current devices that accept standard electronic line-in signal.

Sure, my use case is different than your's, but that port is still useful and it is a feature.

Just make the battery a little thicker to keep things uniform and give us all a full 10 hours of watching videos on a plain / train / etc.
The inoremap jk <esc>, inoremap kj <esc> configuration gets you back to normal mode only from insert mode. What do you do if you want to return to normal mode from visual mode or command mode?

What if you want to type an abbreviation and expand it when you escape from insert mode to normal mode?
No wires!!

But seriously, I've been so happy with my recent bluetooth purchases. I guess I could try the jaybirds in one ear, but they are noise isolating, which is less than ideal, and i think it would bother me more to have one ear blocked and the other not.

I definitely would NOT want to deal with wires to a phone somewhere in my pocket while cycling, seems potentially hazardous. Just a wire connecting them could be doable.