skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Because the "center" of the G is not the optical center. Same reasons as everything else in the original article. Take a look at the image at the top of this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface_anatomy. The crossbar of the E (and R) are higher than vertical middle. And they differ from the x-height.

Despite your affinity for geometry, geometric fonts are the exception, not the rule. And even geometric fonts often have tweaks that make them less "perfect" geometrically but look more correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-serif#Geometric
The founder has been doing import/export for a decade, maybe he likes the industry and is just making a joke.
I have not had this problem with Safari (at least the latest) - the app I work on is pretty snappy, minus api requests taking some time.
Thank you for your comment. I'm working on some examples based on methods which are different from the ones adopted in the original paper.

In that case, the comparison is done with an online perceptron and MIRA algorithm. Of course, I don't want to repeat the same experiments (that I believe correct), so I'm benchmarking in a different way and with more complex datasets.

I understand this is a limitation, but I'm going to integrate with other pieces of information.
Actually there is a way to know about a gamma ray burst before it's approaching. Thanks to neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova_Early_Warning_System
Bitcoin Traders and Index Funds
ARC in Objective-C only applies to classes following Cocoa retain/release patterns.

Anything else is not under ARC support and thus fails under the same memory allocation patterns as C.

Additionally there are the C pointer manipulation, strings and arrays.
Boot from Apple File System on VMware Workstation
This makes me think of optical margins which are used in some typesetting software (like LaTeX with the microtype package). The thing is when it comes to geometry for human consumption the only thing that matters is how it looks. My Dad actually taught me this a long time before I knew about typography. He told me that while a spirit level is an important tool, it's a mistake to put a shelf up level if it doesn't look level next to the ceiling.
On the contrary, the article never mentioned bell curve, gaussian, or normal distribution. You're projecting your own assumptions onto it. The reasoning may be suspect, but it makes no assumptions about distributions and you've misunderstood it entirely.
Never because of Elon Musk :)
I don't see at all how this makes the laws "total failures".

You're asking the emissions testing people to: believe that random guy X is going to keep his car, that he's only going to use it for one short trip a day, that the check engine light only means one thing, that it's within legal limits despite the check engine light being on, and on and on and on.

You're asking them to make an exemption--or somehow modify the laws to account for "Grampa says he will only drive short distances"--on a whole host of things they have no way of verifying or even knowing, and that makes the laws total failures?

I guess I can't see how you're proposing that vehicle emissions be regulated at all, if "this car hobbyist says..." and "grampa says..." are relevant factors in determining the road-worthiness of a car.
Maarten Cox stelt met trots zijn nieuwste single voor – Vlaamse Schlagers
The bug behind BIP 50 caused a fork, however the bugfix wasn't a hard-fork. By definition a hard-fork is a fork that require all Bitcoin nodes to be updated. In the case of that bugfix only some nodes had to be updated (the ones run by miners making up a majority of the hash power) then the rest of the non-updated nodes automatically reorg'd to the right chain, the one with the most work.
Email account from 1996, forwards directly into gmail spam folder!
I've got nothing against C. C was not around when Knuth published the first (1968), second (1969), and third (1973) volumes. [1] By inventing a programming language, Knuth was able to avoid syntactic changes between versions (e.g. K&R C looks odd for someone who started with one of the ANSI C's).

At the time, 'best practice' might have been Algol 60 or maybe Algol 68 because they were what it meant to be a standard language in those days even though implementations varied widely.

[1]: Whether C would have been a reasonable choice the time of the fourth (2011) volume is another matter.
Not really, this looks like a nuisance suit that hired a publicist. Googlers don't want to comment on lawsuits, it's time consuming and turns into deposition, which are time consuming. Also, most googlers are not anywhere near X, Flux or for that matter outside google proper. So what would they say?

You have to understand: Google gets sued a lot . It is a function of having money. I wish everyone on HN as much success as google, and if you do even a fraction as well I can guarantee you'll be hiring lawyers at a steady clip as your bank balance attracts lawsuits.

Doesn't mean people shouldn't be careful when partnering with Google or anyone, but there's no end of people who think when they have some idea in their head no one else on earth has it and can execute on it.

Nearly 8b people on this planet means that someone, somewhere, is probably working on 'your' idea. Some of them at Google. Some at Apple, some at some yc startup across the room from you. Only answer is to ship better and before they do.
Thanks for letting me know! I will stuff different languages over the coming months to better manage such things :) didn’t know that
We have performance memes because profiling is hard and we're often unable to get a hint beyond our intuition.

People like to act like you just open a profiler and see actionable data every time, but that's under ideal circumstances. In a busy application, you're more likely getting nickel and dimed by more subtle things. And your flame graphs stacked with React/library internals that don't point to a single problem in your code. And you have to have the skills to recognize and verify small performance gains when you do have them.

If that stuff doesn't line up, then you're stuck with little more than superstition and hoping other people's solutions generalize over your
problems.
Legitimate request: can you provide some actual benchmarks or examples that demonstrate these perf issues? Part of the reason why Ryan, Michael, and others like myself are pushing back on this is that "creating functions kills perf!" has become a kind of "received wisdom" that people are blindly and dogmatically passing around, yet there don't seem to be hard numbers to actually back up what everyone "knows" to be an issue.

Ryan did also address the `shouldComponentUpdate / PureComponent` aspect in the post already.
Yeah I read that comment and I agree with you

> What would count as a "master theorem" for some field, anyway?

I think you gave good examples, but it could be something like the discovery of Calculus, where suddenly a lot of problems became tractable. And in the end we even managed to solve (some) differential equations by solving polynomial equations.

So maybe you're right and it's linear algebra all the way down, but we're missing the weird trick to convert a factorization problem into a polynomial or something like that
There's a difference between accidental reordering/dropping/corruption of packets, and malicious interference by middleboxes. The TCP mechanisms can deal with the former, but the latter can fake all the necessary sequence numbers and checksums.
The Two Most Important Things to Look for When You Hire Your First VP of Sales
> But I feel anxious when I get feedback because I feel like there's some moral duty to fix the site.

Don't worry, you did an awesome job and the world is a slightly better place because of it.
YouTube removes video advertising colombian sex island holiday
There's no need for economic activity to cease; hard forks can be very smooth. I agree that segwit should have been a hard fork.
Hmm, all these news just tell me the winning strategy is no longer being generous like it was in 00s, where free/open source/access exploded, rather selfishly secretively keep all information to your advantage to yourself. Not sure I'd like to live in such a society. Can't wait to have enforced-by-automation toxic daily life.
It's copyright violation to modify copyrighted content before delivery without permission, especially when it's commercial content (ads) that is being injected.

Ironically, a similar argument is being used against adblockers, the other "benevolent MITM" application for modifying content: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14978228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990137

In other words, if those lawsuits succeed, they could set an unfortunate precedent against even personal "modification of content".
Something seems fishy about applying this math here. The human population is vastly bigger today than at any point in history. We don't know how big it will be in future. As an individual human trying to estimate your chances of being alive today this would seem to throw off the statistics. I'm much more likely to be alive today as one of 7 billion than 200,000 years ago as one of probably much less than a million. On the other hand it we go on to colonize the galaxy for a billion years I'm much less likely to be alive now than at the peak of our galactic empire.
Also worth looking at are literacy tests for voting rights given to African Americans in the Jim Crow-era southern United States.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_right...
Far Manager
For the error plot, as this is an online method, I consider every sample implicitly as a test one. The goal was to show that after N correction, the algorithm converges to a weight configuration that is compatible with a specific data distribution. As I wrote, this can be a limitation (common to many online methods), because it's almost impossible to filter outliers out and the tolerance to noise is surely worse than an offline algorithm.
Well for people without rich parents, the cost dorms with a meal plan is pretty onerous, and much more expensive than renting an apartment a little farther away. Adding 10-15% to that would limit it to the rich, the people who don't consider the cost, or the people who see the risk as worth it.
Romanians aren't a race, they're barely an ethnic group. That said, if I state a fact ("Romanian driving culture is terrible"), does that make me racist? There are exceptions (there are two Romanian drivers who drive safely), but for all intents and purposes that's irelevant. And not only do I speak after having seen the exact state of Romanian driving culture (I've been rear-ended and had other near-accidents just for stopping at a crossing), but the statistics confirm what I'm saying.
If you feel I'm wrong, please go to Romania and use the street crossings without stopping to check for cars, we'll talk afterwards. You might notive the sense of entitlement Romanian drivers have ("the road belongs to me, it's my right to allow or disallow a pedestrian to cross, they need to check the road before crossing, I don't have to slow down").
Ouch. I might have thrown that away...
Fear-mongering?
I think the charitable reading is:

In the _absence of information placing you somewhere specifically on the timeline_, assuming "I'm somewhere in the middle" works surprisingly well.
Shelly has a customisable keyboard extension bar at the bottom. And I use nano :)
No, it means that I consider there to be a difference between language constructs, variable names, strings, comments, etc. - in other words what a parser does. String/based find-replace muddles these together. An IDE is but a collection of similar tools. I’m not strong if I choose to walk and weak if I choose to use motorised transport.
11 myths about the future of gun control, debunked after the Charleston shooting
> is the founder of biocentrism, a theory that space and time are constructs of biological sensory limitations

This "theory" is old and well-known.

However, we are not merely limited by our (biological) sensors, but by our sensors+actors.

That is, we can't see too far in the sky, but we can build telescopes. And microscopes. And other strange machines with whom we interact mostly by looking at numbers those spit into some computer. Science has long overcome our biological limitation, and is more driven by our technological limitations: What if our computer programs which evaluate our experiment's sensory data are wrong? What if the CPU is defect? Or the wiring with the sensors is bad? Better take some more computers and let them calculate the stuff again. And take some more humans to evaluate everything. And better repeat whole experiments from time to time. But that's what we are doing (or least: know we ought to be doing) all the time.

There's a lot to criticize here with design of studies and repeatability of experiments, but our biological limitations play a fairly small role here.
In Sheri S Tepper's wonderful novel Sideshow (the final part of the Arbai trilogy) a planet of (increasingly rare and nativist) baseline humans is set up to answer the question: "What is the destiny of man?"

The answer comes back: "To become something that is not man."

Extinction itself isn't really anything to be scared of. The real question is whether we're replaced by something better, and maybe what those superior beings would think of us after we're gone.

(That last question is answered in one of Stephen Baxter's books with: "an extremely successful animal that enlarged its ecological niche")
Do they communicate still? Monks in middle-age Britain who lived in silent(-ish) orders used sign-languages, eg for meal times when they were supposed to be listening to the readings.

A vow of silence when you still "talk" with sign seems a bit of a cheat to me.
Problem is this prediction can be effected by almost infinite factors. And among those factors, many of them are still unknown to us.

Which makes this sort of prediction very very inaccurate.

But, well, it's fun to read and think.
Yes: https://www.gnu.org/s/gdb/news/reversible.html

This has approximately nothing to do with C++ or even "language communities".
The closest thing number theory has to a Grand Unified Theory is the Langlands program. It's a huge, highly interconnected, often surprising bunch of conjectures relating number theory to geometry, algebra, and even[s] string theory -- and also something that I know next to nothing about. :)

I'll put the Wikipedia[w] intro here, and note with some happiness that Frenkel has used that exact phrase before:

> In mathematics, the Langlands program is a web of far-reaching and influential conjectures about connections between number theory and geometry. Proposed by Robert Langlands (1967, 1970), it seeks to relate Galois groups in algebraic number theory to automorphic forms and representation theory of algebraic groups over local fields and adeles. Widely seen as the single biggest projects in modern mathematics, Edward Frenkel described the Langlands program as “a kind of grand unified theory of mathematics.

Wiles' proof of the modularity theorem (and hence Fermat's Last Theorem) is a proof of a some of the Langlands conjectures "in dimension 2": one of the pinnacles of human mathematical achievement is just an incomplete portion of a special case of Langlands' vision.

> Andrew Wiles' proof of modularity of semi-stable elliptic curves over rationals can be viewed as an instance of the Langlands reciprocity conjecture, since the main idea is to relate the Galois representations arising from elliptic curves to modular forms. Although Wiles' results have been substantially generalized, in many different directions, the full Langlands conjecture for GL(2, Q) remains unproved.

To give you a little taste, here's a 10000-miles-above-the-ground view of what this says.

A modular function is a certain kind of object in complex analysis (something like calculus with complex instead of real numbers[c]).

A Galois representation starts with a Galois group, which tells us something about the large-scale structure of a number system, and extracts[p] ("represents") a small part of the information it contains: the full "absolute" Galois group is incomprehensibly complicated. Every elliptic curve gives rise to these representations.

There's no reason these things should be related: most number thought the modularity conjecture was an improbable goal. Now think about how it's just a tiny part of a much larger whole. They don't call it "fantastically bold"[n] for nothing.

---

[w]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langlands_program

[s]: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/4748/why-is-ther...

[n]: https://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2010/08/what_is_the_lan...

[p]: As I understand it, Wiles' proof only uses 2-dimensional representations.

[c]: ... but it's hard to overstate how much nicer and more uniform everything becomes!
I'm assuming you mean Holacracy (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holacracy)? Not trying to be pedantic, just making sure.
Err no you didn't get it.
Actually it does use non long tail distribution see the whole 95% figure etc. Those are assumptions about the distributions.
Going to do this tonight. This is a great idea. Thank you
Sort of related is one of my favorite Wikipedia articles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_far_future?w...

Quite a few mass extinction events to live through if we don't get off Earth.
How a Pair of Orange Scissors Made Design History
The argument here is basically the "Doomsday argument" seen elsewhere except applied to to time instead of population. If you do this argument but say that we're likely in the middle 95% of the total human population, then your complaint will go away. However, that doesn't give you time estimates, so it's maybe not as intuitive a result as the one in this article.
Yeah it's one sort per line all running in parallel. The lines start off shuffled independently and have the same algorithm run on each line.

A nice side effect of this is that some lines of quicksort finish much more quickly than other lines. That is the major downside to quicksort (other than being non-stable in its fastest versions).
Top 10 Trending Java Articles of September 2017 on StackTrender
Hacking my language learning process
In my experience it has been due to several glaringly obvious oversights and blunders.

1) Not empowering developers by blocking access to critical resources, basically walling them off in a tightly-controlled box and still expecting them to do their jobs because "they should be able to figure it out". Ridiculous shit like no admin rights, strict enforcement of specific tools,etc. This is usually due to an IT or security department with a inflexi,no fucks given, block everything attitude.

2) Not hiring a strong architect who has the vision for project and the power to make major decisions. So many organizations don't think this is necessary and often have someone in management play this role.

3) Having a weak management team that won't stand up to the customer to tell them what can and can't be done, and not letting them dictate how to do technical things.

4) Skipping or not enforcing basic well-established engineering practices such as design, testing, peer review, etc.

5) Using ill-advised "solutions" platforms that are not intended for engineers but for business analysts with some tech background. These platforms are sold to government and enterprise by used-car-salesmen-like sleazy marketing departments that straight up lie about capabilities or omit huge faults or inabilies. Stupid and/or tech-ignorant management buys this shit and it's crappy, expensive licenses for years to come. They can't get rid of it because of sunken costs, etc.

6) Fear of anything open source

7) Inability to find good, reliable talent -- anything from engineers to testers to tech writers (and who actually have good English skills). Many, many people I work with are great engineers but have such poor English skills that I literally can't understand a thing they're saying, even in an email.

8) Management or stakeholders straight up not giving a shit and letting the project die due to personal problems, infighting, interpersonal issues, corruption, etc. This I would say is the most important issue.
The Dog Days of Cybersecurity Are Over
An alternate title would be: Jewish students were given more difficult math problems than their Russian non-Jewish counterparts

Otherwise, the title implicitly implies that Jewish and non-Jewish students received the same questions. That would be interesting!
Makes you wonder what kind of similar things that are designed to prevent access that we have from other groups in the past, present and future.
I actually have a lot of sympathy with this point of view. But there's a counterargument: if one fork has much greater hash power than another, then the minority is vulnerable to 51% attack from a fraction of the majority. So it's not like we can just ignore mining power, unless we make a fork that changes the hash function.

For Bitcoin, the difficulty adjustment would also need to be sped up, to keep the minority chain from being very slow for a while.
To me a hermitage is just a hermits home?

What are the recorded origins of monasticism? The Ancient Greeks formed intentional communities around philosophies/religion I think but I doubt they were the first?

Hermits forming an intentional community still seems too contradictory to make sense to me.
I had a big simulation to run that required lots of memory and lots of cores. I rented a machine for some 10 hours that it took and happily paid the 30-40 dollars that were charged.

those machines have a lot of value for specific workloads.
I'd pose this as caused by the simplicity of calculating in Z as a ring. This has allowed us to experimentally find many interesting true conjectures.

Number theory is no more complicated than any other system. What differs is the ease by which we can find statements that are probably true. If the field appears more complex, that might be because we've been enticed by these probably true statements.
Yeah, if that is right about China, it is pretty damning. And sure, given how few data points there are, it is the kind of thesis that would be impossible to really definitively confirm.
No, it makes no assumptions about any distribution whatsoever. This is like Chebyshev's inequality: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chebyshev%27s_inequality

Edit: it does make one assumption, namely that there will be a finite number of humans ever.
How to Set Up Htc Desire Eye Internet in Nigeria
Nigerians have taken to social media to condemn Iheanacho's 'One Corner' dance
That's a good point - the distribution over time should affect the answer.

I've heard this rule of thumb applied before to the same problem in a different way - rather than assuming you're somewhere in the middle of the time period humans exist for, assume you're somewhere in the middle of the list of all humans in order of birth.

(This version probably makes a much more pessimistic prediction than the article does?)

Edit: tgb got there first :)
It seems pretty clear to me from reading the article that the headline is simply using "time" as a shorthand for "the arrow of time," and the article tends to refer to the arrow explicitly. This is a common usage (e.g. "if I could turn back time"), so I don't feel like it's particularly objectionable.
Complexity. As many others have also listed reasons why, systems today are made using needlessly complex designs because of a lack of skill and for speed of deployment.
As to evidence for users moving from Bitcoin to alts because of full blocks:

The tx rate of ETH, LTC, and other alts started sharply increasing in March/April 2017, which is exactly when Bitcoin blocks reached capacity (~250k tx/day)