skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is why I'll never buy a DAC that doesn't have a headphone monitor output on the front panel! The performance of low-latency audio has gotten worse over time, not better, at least on the Mac. (It was better under OS 9 than anytime since, I think.)

Another fun test you can do, if you have an analog mixer, is to run some input signal into the mixer, then to the PC, and then from the PC back out, and monitor both the original input and the signal from the PC at the same time. OS-supplied drivers typically make it sound like you're in the Grand Canyon.

But even with very expensive low-latency gear, you can still tell if you put one signal into the left headphone channel and another into the right. If there's actually zero latency, you'll perceive the sounds as coming from directly in front of (some people perceive as directly behind) you. It'll sound just like mono. Any latency, given the same volume level, will be perceptible as a difference in "location" of the sound.

My unscientific experiments suggest that you can perceive down to about 1ms latency quite clearly this way across most of the audible range. The minimum is frequency dependent (as you'd expect) with lower frequencies being less sensitive.

Presumably the human brain has evolved to be extremely good at arrival time comparisons (maybe even doing some sort of phase-difference stuff) as a way of triangulating the origin point of sounds. There are doubtless other specialized ways in which the brain is equally sensitive, so the 100ms rule of thumb seems pretty naive to me. 100ms might hold true for the "main loop" of the human brain at the level of conscious thought, perhaps.
My take on RxBars: "glue has never tasted this good." They are an OK snack, but - as you say - I feel like I need to brush my teeth immediately after I'm done eating one.
Whales and dolphins lead 'human-like lives' thanks to big brains, says study
you haven't seen exactly because they were banned and their comments hidden. Everyone who has an opinion different from the gender/racial what not equality BS get banned. Fools are running the world and sites like this
Should check out some of their newer videos, they are still at it.
Not sure what you mean with "share your VMs remotely".

You can of course install whatever remote server you want inside the VM but aside from that you can connect to a VM directly using VRDP.

But you can also manager your entire virtualbox instance using RemoteBox ( http://remotebox.knobgoblin.org.uk/about.cgi ) or from a web GUI using phpVirtualBox ( https://sourceforge.net/p/phpvirtualbox/wiki/Home/ ).

I'm sure there are other options as well.
The Lounge, a modern web-based IRC client, has released v2.5
It doesn't pass the sniff test. Musk demonizing AI to slow down progress in self-driving even though he's very big on it and pushing hard to make it work? What?
I once worked on a Finance project which had grand aspirations and decided it was going to Do Things Right by starting with extensive specifications.

The developers insisted on all behaviour being specified and documented before they would start coding. Of course, a truly exacting specification is equivalent to code. So the users who had been tasked with describing the required functionality ended up inventing their own DSL and “coding” the entire system in Microsoft Word.

Needless to say, they were the only ones who understood the spec. IT cried foul. Business cried “this is what you asked for!”

Cue months of arguments over what constituted a proper spec, during which the users essentially taught themselves how to code. The software eventually ended up being written by transliterating the DSL into actual code.

It worked, but remains to this day an unmaintainable mess.
I'd suggest trying more popular flavors of BSD first. Especially if you're installing on physical hardware, dragonflyBSD may be hard to begin with.

FreeBSD on the laptop has decent support, and in a couple of weeks you will learn about initrd etc. to be able to work with DragonflyBSD.

If you want to learn more about system internals, you might want to learn how to use bhyve (FreeBSD's awesome hypervisor) on FreeBSD.
By trying to use bhyve you will learn how to extract the kernel from an img build, load it etc.

Have fun and good luck on your studies!
To oversimplify, property rights are often said to be good against the world, while contract rights are good against specific others.

A share of stock is itself a set of contractual rights, but the record owner has a property right in the share (and often a physical certificate). It doesn't matter if someone takes your share or inadvertently/accidentally sells it to an innocent buyer. It's still yours and you have a better claim to it than any buyer or later holder.

But a beneficial owner of a share held in "street name" has only a contractual right to his shares--essentially a promise from his broker that the broker will have at least [x] shares for him (note this means he does not have a claim to any specific or identifiable shares and his broker surely holds many times more since they'll have many other clients). And on top of that, his broker has an account with DTC that involves a second layer of contractual rights to the stock--essentially a promise from DTC to the broker that DTC will have at least [x] shares for the broker (again not specific or identifiable shares and DTC certainly has many times more shares since DTC holds nearly all shares held in "street name")

If your broker or DTC accidentally or inadvertently disposes of too many shares (and this can happen surprisingly often) you only have recourse against your broker or DTC. The agreements between [you and your broker] and [your broker and DTC] do not bind the new owner of the shares, who has no obligation under those agreements and, as a bona fide buyer + current holder, also has a better claim to the shares than you do.

If that wasn't specific enough, here's a very detailed summary and analysis of the current stock ownership structure and mechanics:

http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article...
FWIW I like to jump in and start coding, but what’s happening behind the scenes is that I “see” the algorithm or architecture in my mind. It’s not exactly a foowchart or a state machine, but it does have a sort of plastic manipulatable shape.
That is also true, though I'm not sure I knew of sci-hub back then, or if it existed. I 'finished' a few years back.

I do still pay passing attention but my quasi-scholastic approach has settled down.

One benefit of contacting them directly is you can often get copies of more than just the paper. I've had them send me zipped copies of their research and, in one case, even sent me a couple of DVDs full of stuff.

On a whole, the community was very approachable and I simply explained what I was doing and why. There weren't any negative responses and I was clear that I'm a mathematician and not a climate scientist. It was very unlike how I'd been led to believe, as far as uncooperative responses.
Context in this quote:

> Cereal sales have declined for years, and Kellogg's snack-bar business also has performed badly—with its once-strong Special K brand losing its allure with consumers

Kellogg’s doesn’t know how to build a business anymore and needs to go out and buy fresh young businesses like RXBar.

This purchase doesn’t just give Kellogg’s a new product to sell, it’ll probably help teach an old dog new tricks.
I can't see how the no arbitrage hypothesis applies here. You're talking about different currencies. No arbitrage doesn't mean that whatever you do to the world won't change anything.

That said, you're probably right that interest rates would be lower since the demand for debt would go down since Bitcoin is deflationary but then again that goes against what you stated in the first place.
I'd guess that the amount of energy harvestable in the form of sunlight from otherwise unused land far exceeds the amount of energy in the form of coal resources in Australia.

But how to ship it to China and India? Set up some high voltage lines? Convert the locally generated electricity to some form of transportable, easily re-convertible embodied energy?
You've confirmed my suspicions about linkedIn. It feels very 'corporate' and stiff.
Amazing to see people stumbling upon millions. Most techies are trying to come up with clever technical solutions to try and build an online business. Whilst elsewhere there are people making millions from reviewing mattresses. Or whatever the next accidental hot market will be.
> It may seem difficult and tedious, but this is how you engineer something rather than merely 'develop' it.

Don't agile approaches encourage this, focusing on features and things that can cleanly be assigned story points at the expense of a bigger picture, with velocity being the focus?
Think of who you needed the most during the hardest time of your life, and be that person
Hacking King 5 Broadcasting's Live Polling
No, it's not widely used anymore, although I wouldn't call it rare either. The most popular image CNNs don't use them: ResNets, Inception, VGG, fully convolutional nets, etc.

The Google query gwern cites is highly misleading because "normalize" in the context of neural nets for computer vision almost always means "subtract the average and then divide by the standard deviation."
I'd be very interested in reading that!

Unfortumately, there's no objective metric to quantify the importance of each development, which is a problem for charting it, but this kind of thing has been attempted for the development of life on earth, and of technology, based on complexity.

e.g. Kurzweil's singularity stuff. I think his charts are quite well argued for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPTCountdowntoSingularity...

It's also been back-extrapolated to estimate the genesis of life (which pre-dates earth, they find): https://phys.org/news/2013-04-law-life-began-earth.html

Moore's Law has a similar chart, but it's easy to quantify in FLOPS or other computation units, so doesn't really help here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moore%27s_Law_over_120_Ye...
Put your shmancy geforce on an insect-sized mobile robot, and see how far that gets you.
The Architect Who Married Modernism and Ancient Khmer Style
An odd source for related content, but you reminded me of this which I saw a few months ago: https://imgur.com/gallery/BdfNEko
You can't leave unprotected access by law, because you, as a camera owner, are responsible for personal information stored as a record. If you talking about hacking, I wouldn't worry too much -- anything can be hacked and there are much more cost effective ways to obtain personal information in millions than hacking cameras one-by-one.
Pretty cool. This takes me back.

One thing I noticed is I can see which squares are mines when I zoom out all the way on iOS. Not very noticeable but there’s a thin red line on the bottom of those tiles.
This is, arguably, evidence that people are becoming more intelligent about investing. In particular they're realizing that they (and others) are nowhere near the brilliant investors that they think or present themselves to be. I think the most clear evidence of this was the bet between Warren Buffet Ted Seides, investment author and managing partner of a private investment firm. Buffet bet $500k that an S&P 500 index fund would beat the average of any collection of five managed funds (such as hedge funds) chosen by Seides.

That bet started in 2007 and Buffet won, trivially. The S&P index was up 85% in that time. And the managed funds were up 55%. Perhaps more importantly, that excludes management fees. Managed funds often demand quite ridiculous fees with hedge fund managers often taking a large percent of all profits just for themselves. When accounting for the fees of the funds Seides chose, the return for an investor in his managed funds would have seen just 22% versus the 85% for an index fund.

As time goes on people are beginning to understand variance. Take 'x' hot managed funds and in any given year some percent of them are going to outperform the market as a whole by a ridiculously large amount. And the next year some small percent of those that did this last year will again do the same the next year. And so on. The problem is that it seems as we extend to the time frame onward, the number of individuals or organizations that can genuinely beat the market approaches 0 -- and becomes a pretty good proxy for illegal behavior such as insider knowledge. The only thing that masks this is that each year as we lose 100 'underperforming' managed funds they're replaced by 110 new hot, amazing funds being managed by the next big thing.
dobi1.com
Pretty well actually. There may be too much debt but debt is clearly a good thing.

Also don't forget if you want to save, to earn interest means you need to lend so at the end of the day you're going to need debtors.
This is really interesting, but the fact that you have submitted it twice and mentioned it twice in comments begs the question: why?
It doesn't log passwords using EnableSecureEventInput.
There are probably other use cases, but Apple seems to have implemented things rather well here.
And religion <> politics. Except to the bloody Midieval Christians, anyway

The loss of most of the Eastern Roman Empire and the defeat of the Persian Empire by a religious-based empire at around the same time indicates this "exception" may not be quite as universal as you seem to believe.
I’ve only referred to the train as the metro and the buses as the bus. I’ve only seen in one city the locals refer to the train as the metrorail. And that was Miami.
It looks bleak, but 99.99% owned by 1000 people is deliberately misleading.
Have to agree, despite the ease of use.
>On the other hand, if you told me to strike a key less than 100 ms after some visual stimuli

If it was audio cue, I'd point you to "Love Live School Idol Festival", a rhythm game which "perfect" judgement window is some 32ms. Decent players will get perfect most of the time.
Mine last updated a couple of months ago, around the end of August. (V2.01.12, superhub2ac)
Well, in the first place, I think my original comment was pretty clear that the word "gene" is used in multiple senses. For example, the words immediately following your quote are "if it's being used that way here...".

In the much less important second place, it shouldn't be hard to imagine that two different phenotypical processes might both be cued by the presence of the same chemical.
They chose yeast because a lot of the basic eukaryotic biology is conserved (as compared to humans) and it's basically free to grow more yeast quickly. This means you can run your experiments super fast.

Conversely, the above has resulted in a big number of yeast trained molecular biologists, who end up applying yeast work wherever they can (see: law of the instrument). Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Yet all of these are about 100x better than the cowboy attitude 99% of developers these days have. So I'd say that every time you come across a blog post extolling the virtues of formal proofs, verifications, and static typing, you should listen.

Because you are awful at programming, and security, and these things will help you. Sure, they won't be enough, but to think they are anything other than minimum requirements for security is being incredibly arrogant and deluded.
Compare front-end [1] design philosophies (such as used in waterfall development) vs iterative design philosophies (such as in agile development). As a non-software, 'real world' engineer (mechanical, heavy industry design) looking in from the periphy of computing as a hobby/amateur interest, it appears to me like software engineering as a discipline has sort of forgotten about why and when FEED is appropriate and, critically, how to implement it when it is.

Let's reflect: iterative design is popular in software engineering because software usually suits it. Changes are easily iterable, you can often roll changes back, there's relatively low cost to cloning changes across millions of instances, code's design lifetime is relatively short, etc. In contrast, 'real world' engineering (civil, heavy mechanical) favours FEED because the cost of change rapidly and prohibitively rises with time, so nailing down the scope and structure early is critical, there's long procurement times for changes, the design lifetime of the finished product is measured in decades, etc.

The rub is that there's a small niche of software design, such as protocol design like this, or certain firmware scenarios, which far more closely resembles the latter even though it's usually done by a community used to and trained in the former. Although it's for different reasons, all the things that make FEED appropriate for 'real world' engineering also apply to these sorts of software tasks, but software engineering as a whole doesn't appear to[2] focus on teaching and supporting the necessary tools and techniques for performing that process well.

Flip that on its head, and it's why software companies quickly begin to run rings around companies traditionally focused on hardware once software starts to play a bigger part and the limitations stopping iterative design from working begin to disappear. Software engineering largely biases towards iteration (understandably) and when it works it allows for good advantages. But in embracing those advantages, software engineering as a discipline has begun to lose an understanding of FEED and the careful methodology it delivers.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-end_engineering & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front-end_loading

[2] I admit I've not done a CS/SE degree, but I've gone through a couple of subjects run online and I talk to friends who did do it and that's the feel I get. Besides, just look at HN's generally trending articles.

edit: With all I wrote, I don't mean to undermine the extremely good work that the devs designing these protocols, etc. almost always perform. It's far beyond my ability. I am speaking more in a general sense about how Soft. Eng. seems to have thrown out the baby with the bathwater in declaring agile philosophies as 'the best way'. My feel is that the pendulum seems to have swung too far past 'best' towards becoming 'only'.
No, it's not. It's very dangerous to draw correlations like these(i.e. see all the "crime going down"/"crime going up" explanations) because of the huge potential for noise; it's not like we only take one societal decision per year to be able to measure its actual effects.
I didn’t listen to much of this, but the two seconds I heard “I guess it’s all the..” there’s definitely clear artifacting from either auto-tune or compression on the word “all”. And I’m listening on an iPhone.

Not a pro editor, but I know my shit.
This article is a collection of straw men. It extrapolates the failure of one dot-com era startup (Mojo Nation) into the extremely wide ranging thesis

> As it turns out, bandwidth — and most computational resources — are simply too cheap to meter.

This is patently false, as bandwidth and all other computational resources are metered on a huge scale today, by centralized cloud computing and ISP companies.

It's even false for BitTorrent. The article describes BitTorrent with

> After Mojo Nation’s demise, a former employee stripped the token incentives out of the protocol and created a simple tit-for-tat filesharing system.

However, most serious BitTorrent users are active on trackers which require a certain seed:leech ratio, thereby metering the user's contribution. The fact that no money is involved has more to do with the fact that most of them are used to share files in violation of copyright, not because of some intrinsic law of computational resources being "too cheap to meter".

It also references some hare-brained scheme cooked up by Enron shortly before their collapse to claim that bandwidth cannot be traded, and makes the false assertion that all peering and internet transit today is free.
To the best of my knowledge, there is no reliable way to test whether a driver is actively intoxicated from pot. Existing blood tests will tell you if a person has used it in the past week or two, but not whether they've used it in the past hour.

So average measured blood-levels could well be up because more Coloradans are smoking, but that's no proof at all that more Coloradans are driving under the influence.

I wouldn't necessarily say that weed is harmless or safer than alcohol, but articles like the Denver Post one are written with an unfair bias.
> The problem is that there is a financial incentive for someone else who is not working with them to buy up the stock, immediately resell it with the normal guarantees (that they will pass on dividends, allow voting by proxy etc.), but not pass on such re-sell information to the exchange/company. Does the exchange/company have some sort of a right to prevent resale unless tenure information is tracked?

Yes, absolutely. That same financial incentive already exists in all sorts of variations. As a result, brokers (i.e. your hypothetical entity that gobbles up all the shares and then loans them or sells economic/voting rights) must be registered with FINRA and are subject to very extensive regulations, including rules from FINRA, the SEC and the public exchanges.

For an example, look at how long and complicated the NYSE rules are, mostly involving member organizations like brokers (click on "Operation of Member Organizations" or any of the other subheadings at the link below and then see, for example, rule 402):

> .30 Securities Callable in Part.—Member organizations which have in their possession or under their control bonds or preferred stocks of issues which are callable in part, whether specifically set aside or otherwise, shall identify each such bond or preferred stock so that their records shall clearly show for whose account it is held, except in the case of [two limited exceptions]

http://wallstreet.cch.com/NYSE/Rules/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGun5athdfg
A little OT, but personally I'm tired of hearing the term "growth mindset". It's a business buzzword that has become as meaningless as the inspirational posters of the 80's and the "hang in there" cat of the 70's.

I have children and I try to praise their effort and encourage them as much as possible. I do not ask them if they have a "growth mindset".

(Apologies to parent - I'm just venting)
I don't think anyone, myself included, knows how to quantify the risk of something terrible happening due to Trump's unprecedented Presidential demeanor and the associated erosion of institutions and norms. It's quite likely that many people, including the media, overrate that risk.

On the other hand, many of the stories you read in the media are true. Discounting or ignoring them because you associate them with emotionality or hysteria would be fallacious.
Likely forking sleep takes time.
To be fair, Super Hexagon relies heavily on repeated scripts of barriers, and only throws truly random geometry at you for the briefest moments where it's switching from one script to the next. I honestly found that the most frustrating part of the game - I'd see a new script and die.... But there's no way to force replaying that script. The game is random, so you have no way to learn to dominate one challenging bit, you just hope you'll figure it out next time it comes up, or hope it doesn't come up. I beat the "Harder" mode without ever figuring out how to beat some of the rarer scripts.
Because he wipes (writes to) the read-only USB stick? (The one that's had the firmware replaced with BadUSB, and which he then sticks in some other piece of hardware where it takes control of the machine and uploads his private key?
I've always liked this story better, it's in a somewhat similar vein: https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/
Maybe some classes are just that good. A lot aren't, I'm guessing, and you would want to at least take away something you could use in the real world from them.
Lol, obviously didn’t read the article which had an entire section dedicated to how auto-tune has such a successful brand that it’s used in speech the same as Kleenex, Google, etc