skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Two points:

- What he describes in the abstract is nothing new. Part of your work as an applied mathematician is to take mathematical models developed by others, e.g, in the form of systems of differential equations, and treat them as absolute truths (for the sake of computation; essentially you create "a mathematical bubble" for yourself and choose to live in it), study the consequences, and present the results. So his claim of "I advocate" is disgusting plagiarism/credit-snatching of a well-known technique.

- What he actually advocated is total bullshit as far as physics is concerned. You can live as long as you want in the bubble of your mathematical models. But if you have to connect your math to reality, you have to make your math subordinate to empirical data, and if the data disagrees, your shiny mathematical model is wrong, period. Also don't forget what George Box said "All models are wrong. But some are useful".
New ICO Scandal: Alex Tapscott Namedrop Blunder Sees Startup Refund All ICO Cash
The person making the claim has the burden of proof.

Maybe repeating a string of specious arguments that have already been debunked or refuted elsewhere in the thread isn't the best approach for your brand-new HN account.
Yes but flex units can be used not just in grid context.

Consider this:

<p>Foo <input style="width:1fr /> bar.</p>

That <input> will span free space left in the p element from "Foo " and " bar."
Because it's an obvious way to get more people to default to Google Search. Just like how IE defaults to Bing. Until recently Google was the biggest contributor to the Mozilla Foundation due to their deal to enable Google as Firefox's default search engine.

There isn't any benefit in Google locking users into their free software if it means users on other platforms can no longer use Google's revenue generating services.

Your point about brand awareness is valid but not really the same as what I was originally discussing (software lock ins). Eg Google's products work fine on other browsers so there's no actual technical lock in however users are encouraged towards Google because of brand familiarity and browser defaults for search and home page.
It's a British crown dependency, and afaik not the only tax haven under British rule. And it seems like there's no much the EU will be able to do about those.
There are rumours and speculation about this, but my reading into it is that this is going to be a single SKU (maybe 2 or 3 variants), possibly for a single customer.

My best guess is Apple -- they were already using Intel CPUs with AMD GPUs, and they probably opened up their checkbook to make this collaboration happen. It should give them performance and power benefits, and Intel and AMD sell the same number of CPUs and GPUs, respectively, as before.

Not sure why you think this is so anti-competitive. Who knows if NVIDIA was offered the same deal and declined? They are much less prone to making "semi-custom" parts for third parties, while AMD already has a track record of doing this for Sony with the PS4 and Microsoft for the Xbox One.
For the US to start taxing Apple's foreign income abroad is not like taxing an American living in Ireland (and even that is crazy). It's like if the US started taxing an Irish person in Ireland[1].

However obvious it is that EU Apple is a sock puppet of US Apple, directly imposing taxes on foreign companies operating in foreign countries would be met with retaliation. It is not a smart nor a profitable trade policy.

[1] This actually does happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_American
It's not evasion. They're paying everything they're legally required to pay. If the state proves that they didn't pay what was required by law, they'll pay it, with penalties.
Warhead assemblies for the B53 (9mt) are thought to be retained for this purpose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B53_nuclear_bomb#Role
Must be a cyber attack because if it was a technical problem the mass media would have reported it already.
Pretty sure on a blank page Confluence has no table of contents. I am always adding those to pages. Maybe you are using a template. My recollection of using MediaWiki is that it was also better in that regard.
The book contains references for every data source it uses, all of them are available as Open Data. So you can load all the data, and copy/paste all the SQL queries with just the Book Edition.

The Full Edition isn't so much about the code contained in the book (SQL queries) as it is about having the very database used in the book handy to replay the queries.

I understand that the Full Edition doesn't make the same value for everyone, and it's fine. That's why it's not the only option. Given how many are sold compared to the other options, I'm confident it still is a solid option though.
At Vistaprint, we used MediaWiki, hired a dedicated librarian, and, most importantly, had a culture of documenting everything on the wiki. The last point is most important. Everyone in the organization _must_ adopt the mindset of checking the wiki first. If the information is not on the wiki, figure it out, and put on the wiki. I vaguely remember wiki articles even being a (minor) metric for annual reviews. At one point, Vistaprint tried SharePoint but we quickly went back to MediaWiki.

At edX we have information spread between Confluence and Google Drive. Search is not ideal for either. Information sharing is not great.
>Forced repatriation? I hope it’s clear why that isn’t a good approach.

It isn't clear to me. Why is that?
Lowering the US corporate tax rate to say 10 or 15% is the only reasonably feasible solution. Incentivize companies to book profits in the US. Then increase the dividend tax rate to compensate (depending on if this ends up being tax neutral or not -- it might very well be tax neutral given the extra profits that would be booked in the US)
My understanding of the economics (via popular-press reporting [1,2]) is that corporate taxes are effectively paid by workers and shareholders.

In the case of Apple, many employees are high-income individuals. One way to tax them is to raise Apple's effective tax rate, by closing loopholes. Another would to move these individuals to a higher bracket, and tax them directly on income. The latter would allow the tax system to target only those employees who actually are high-income individuals. I don't know how that plays on Hacker News, but it doesn't seem to be politically feasible.

Apple's individual investors are probably mostly high-net-worth individuals. (Apple might have more non-rich investors than a blue chip like GE does. I know quite a few middle class individuals whose only outside of funds are in APPL or TSLA. They have brand loyalty even if [with TSLA] they don't own the product. It's like playing fantasy football.) (The individual investors with the greatest number of shares are super-high-net-worth, of course[3].) To a progressive, it seems fair to tax them more, which taxing Apple effectively does. Those individuals aren't going to pay taxes on stock appreciation unless the capital gains exemption is rolled back. Now that Apple is paying dividends instead of just appreciating, raising the income bracket could be an alternative to closing the loophole.

My understanding is that institutional investors in general are largely funds, endowments, and pensions. Apple seems to be mostly funds[4]. Funds are probably held by middle and middle-upper class individuals with mutuals or indices in their portfolios. (The poor don't own stocks. The rich own them directly.) The loophole benefits them. [Big disclaimer: I'm a novice in how to interpret this, and I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong.]

[1] "Who Pays the Corporate Income Tax", Bruce Bartlett, New York Times, Feb 19, 2013. https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/who-pays-the-c...

[2] "Who Ultimately Pays the Corporate Income Tax?", Uwe E. Reinhardt (Economics @ Princeton), New York Times, July 23, 2010. https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/who-ultimately...

[3] "Top Apple Shareholders for 2017", John Edwards, Investopedia, October 6, 2017. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/120115/top-5-ap...

[4] "Apple Inc. Institutional Ownership", NASDAQ. http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/aapl/institutional-holdings
So, this might seem like strange bedfellows, but recall that AMD and Intel are both competitors and each other's customers.

AMD licenses x86 from Intel, and Intel licenses x64 from AMD (because Itanium failed to win the 64 bit market).
No it doesn't. That is the difference with money. If you acquire a $10 note in good faith as payment for something, the history of the note doesn't matter.
Not really. The standard model has them as fundamental particles, I think you might be reading too much into the analogy.

Also, they aren't individual quarks "combining" into something else, it is an interaction between baryons which are groups of quarks and the "output" has an exchange of quarks between the baryons. Quarks can't be "free" at most energy scales due to color confinement.
autocomplete is completely behavior inside the user's browser. You do not own the user's browser. Would you also like to block zooming or other accessibility features because you don't like the way it looks?
I hope it's Google's bug bounty program that's paying off.
Crypto VC Firm Aborts Public Listing and Returns Money After Falsehoods Revealed
We used MediaWiki for documentations, however we were very unhappy with it. We have almost all an computer science background, but did not like the MediaWiki syntax and the interface.

We created Teamemo (https://teamemo.com) because knowledge management should be easy, fast and fun.
A word from experience: an extender card can introduce noise, which can lead to observations of self-induced problems due to the introduced noise. I don't think this is the case for your situation, but symptoms the runt edges you observed could be caused by the extender.

Also, I have on occasion observed the magic of an extender card causing a flaky card to function properly.

If you get stumped, you might want to depopulate some non-essential cards to open up a space to get your hands and probes on the card under investigation, while it is directly plugged into the slot. Excuse me, I mean get your hands and probes in there while the system is powered off.
The college student problem is btw a very real concern in social science i.e. way to many studies have been made using local college students as study subjects, which is useless in a world where the average person speaks bad English and think the US is the biggest threat to world peace(however wrong that view might be). I.E. you cannot and should not build your algorithm about what is normal for your local but have to look at data that might not be available to people other then Facebook.

Foreign influence is a reality in every single election, worldwide, to the point where nobody have even accused Russia of doing something that the US would be comfortable making illegal when it comes to US based organizations interacting with foreign nations.

The problem is that the entire debate starts from an obsolete(fake past) view on how interstate relations work in the modern world where the diplomatic corp plays the only major role, where as the reality is that with the modern Internet traditional diplomacy have given way to a much more direct people to people interaction meaning that you cannot just assume that a post being foreign and exposing a viewpoint that's not organic to the beltway are the product of state controlled a botnet, it might be a foreign movement deciding to engage in modern direct diplomacy.

And Facebook cannot grow while remaining an US centric platform so the commercial drive for facebook is to become the facilitator of direct people to people diplomacy rather then a defender of the old diplomatic model as some American politicians obviously want them to be.

And if you cannot use content or "national style" as a guide to spot bots you have to depend almost entirely of metadata about the IP or client involved especially as false positives based on content analysis have a potential for market backlash.
> The idolization of business culture has gotten completely out of hand.

I'm concerned that when these children grow up they won't have the coping mechanisms to deal with the fact that very few of them will get to be the CEO.

That and the general cultural impact of bolstering STEM careers at the expense of skilled, manual labor careers, which can pay the same or more - especially when partnered with a strong entrepreneurial mindset.

This stuff feels like a new outlet for overbearing stage/sport parenting types.
Close but without those artificial DOM elements.

Here is an illustration of the idea of flex units:

https://sciter.com/docs/flex-flow/images/flex-springs.png
No one is saying the US would make it illegal to operate an international company.

They're looking for ways to close some of these loopholes that are keeping a ton of tax money out of the coffers belonging to We the People.

Please don't conflate "closing tax loopholes" with "making it illegal to operate internationally".
>So throwing people in metal cages is a good solution here? Cause that's the cost that the US has accepted when violating these controls. And these laws don't exactly have a good result either.

Compared to the Opium Wars where China had to go to war with Britain to prevent civilizational collapse from drug use, yes jailing peddlers of poison seems acceptable.
this is great info, https://gridbyexample.com is also good resource
>>For the US to start taxing Apple's foreign income abroad is not like taxing an American living in Ireland (and even that is crazy). It's like if the US started taxing an Irish person in Ireland[1].

I'm not sure I follow. Apple is an American company.
Traditionally journals have required that the author transfer copyright of the paper to the journal upon publication. They no longer have the right to publish a copy on their own university site; some journals allow it, but many stipulate that the full text cannot be available without a paywall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_policies_of_academic...

That's changing, and many journals are moving to open-access policies, but it's slow, and the most prestigious journals often have the least incentive to grant authors published in them copyright of the work.

(There's something fucked up about authors transferring copyright of publicly-funded research to private entities: if the public funded it, shouldn't it be owned by the public in the first place, i.e. public-domain? And if it's public domain, then this whole issue goes away and neither the journal nor the author has the right to restrict access to the research. But this is one example of the capture of public goods by private entities. Hell, maybe this is why a good swath of America wants to de-fund science any chance it gets, when the result of their funding just gets captured by private entities.)
That is certainly possible. I've liquidated some assets before when I really didn't want to just because I was going through some tough times financially.
need another karma point for keybase.io
somone wanna help me out with that?
That's an odd definition of chaotic systems you are using.

It's not so much that chaotic systems can not be calculated but instead that enough precision of starting conditions can't be obtained to ensure an accurate result (for example, highly non-linear systems). The double pendulum system is a perfect example where computation is simple yet the system is still chaotic.
Cost of wind keeps dropping, and there’s little coal, nuclear can do to stop it
> In addition to immigration, Apple’s government filing indicates lobbying for climate change, patent reform, accessibility, health initiatives, diversity, and education.

Right. And we're supposed to eat that up. Why didn't they add happiness, rainbows, and kittens to that list.
If they were black-hat researchers, they wouldn't have reported the vulnerabilities to Google, and thus the researcher's reports wouldn't be considered duplicates.

My guess is they're either working for the bug bounties, or they're employed by a company that uses Android extensively and wants to make sure its secure.
I have a lava lamp on my desk. It generates a lot of heat. That wall must be pretty hot.

Here's the link to Lavarand the reporter references at the end: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand
I agree with everyone else that this change is for the better.

What will we do when they decide to make a change that isn't?
it's hard enough to interpret the letter of the law sometimes (i.e. ambiguous situations). You might as well have random or no laws then if you have to reflect about the fact whether you're breaking the "spirit of the law". This would mean different things to different people, and things are complex enough as they are.

Also, the spirit of the law argument seems more like a pass to politicians for doing crappy legislative work. If you make proper laws, this shouldn't be an issue.
That's great! I've been looking forward to Rust on microcontrollers. What's the current status? Is it fully functional so that you can use your usual Cargo and rustc? Are all AVRs supported?
The example input images are all with bad white balance or underexposed. Easy to tweak, by hand and automatically.
ISIS Celebrates as Mortgage Company Creates Platform “HomeFundMe”
Right? It would be like jury duty, but with a salary and amazing benefits! Brilliant!
I don't have hard data, it's just something that's known about the city. With a google search I can find some people mentioning it online, but not with any hard data.
Veteran's Day – List of Federal Holidays
The Residents of Wellesley Believe the Earth Is Flat
They acquired Geometric Intelligence a year(?) ago, and renamed them Uber AI. I think there is demand for Edward/PyMC3 backed by PyTorch instead of Tensorflow/Theano. Theano is being depreciated next year, which backs PyMC3.

https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2016/decemb...

Seems okay, they are taking cues from Edward/WebPPL, and have some pretty good researchers, headed Gary Marcus.
>Either googles solution is better or its not.

No, it's better for users who read the auto-filled boxes to make sure they are sane (which is what I do). It's not good for users that don't understand what auto-fill is (i.e. they think the website is suggesting it to them).
> How? Badly.

I was about to make this same joke. Glad to hear that everyone is just as screwed on this.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15638227
They are in opposition in the same way 'we need to drink water to live' and 'don't drown' are in opposition.

Just because something is bad at the extremes doesn't mean it is always bad. We need a government that steps in to address the well known issues with unfettered capitalism (externalities, tragedy of the commons, etc).
I think it's better over the long run to keep the CVE as the "canonical" name and just treat the others like nicknames. Instead we have branding, logos, domain names etc. Some argue that it's easier to get attention or shame a vendor by going all-out, but it seems like overkill for a simple mnemonic.
> Any reasonable antitrust regulation should kill it: […]

Or, alternatively, any reasonable monetary system, under which a $120bn company isn’t able to sell the $60bn[1] of debt required to complete the acquisition.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/06/business/dealbook/broadco...
I would say they the author dragged the readers into the dark depths of YouTube, but the billions of views on these videos belay that metaphor.

The ending is as pointed as it can be. It's hard to define what the solution is and how to go about dividing up responsibility.

Technology companies create these relatively neutral platforms which then grow and are gamed. In this case these videos are vying for mass attention from children which is subsequently monetized. They optimize, tweak, and mass produce their only paying regard to amount of attention they can secure. Taste, morals, exploitation of children, and everything else are meaningless so long as their videos receive an adequate number of views.

They did a good job of extrapolating this issue to other problem areas such a radical left/right videos or conspiracy videos. Here is an example of this issue in the form of Google results from yesterdays mass-shooting https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/927335154707828736

I think the lion's share of responsibility lies with the technology companies and governments. I'm hesitant to have government involved in their inability to keep pace or understand new and developing technologies. It's also hard to define how to solve this problem without censoring speech or disenfranchising it. It's hard for me to define what is the absolute issue and what to call it.

A "seemingly neutral platform" can become corrupted or systematically abused. You constantly need to account for bad actors and gray actors.
Except tax law is not always capable of being totally black and white. Have you ever had to work through small business or rental deductions on your taxes? Grey areas, grey areas everywhere, at least if you want to take all the deductions & credits you are entitled to. Nobody including the IRS can give you a black and white answer. (Repairs vs improvements, which are deducted differently, is a good toy example)

Part of this I think may actually be intentional, to prevent the accidental creation of technically-legal-but-obviously-exploitative loophole tax strategies. If it's fuzzy, you have to weight your risk of audit, your ability to justify your choice, and so on.

Anyway, in the corporate case there are also fundamentally difficult-to-define areas. For example:

Company A transfers its global IP portfolio to Subsidiary B. B is incorporated in Ireland, but is controlled and managed by directors based in a low corporate tax jurisdiction such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Andorra; crucially, under Irish law, this characteristic renders B tax resident in these havens and therefore subject to their relevant tax legislation. Subsequently, B grants licences to exploit the IP portfolio to Subsidiary C which is incorporated and tax resident in Ireland; it is this link between two Irish subsidiaries which yielded the name “Double Irish”. C is the actual operative unit of the Company A: it owns real estate, it employs workers, it exploits the IP portfolio, it sells advertising and collects payments, ultimately generating earnings. Nevertheless, C does not make profits, as it has to pay royalties to B for the IP licences; crucially, B pays very little corporate taxes because it is based in a tax haven. Thus this structure allows A to shift all profits emerging from its IP portfolio to a jurisdiction where they will not be subject to a significant rate of taxation.

This scheme depends in part upon the ability of the company to set royalties and IP transfer costs at whatever they like, independent of the real value of the IP. Clearly this is not quite right, but what is the real value? Who determines it?
Managing important infrastructure needs to be independent of exploitation, management, and/or regulation of content. You are either involved in editorial decisions or not. If you deliberately stay out of content decisions, and act like a common carrier, your liability should be limited and you get safe harbor protection. Editorializing and acting like a manager brings responsibility, - and liability.

Yoytube (Goole/Alphabet) needs to decide which level of involvement they want to have? Do they want to stay out these decision and close accounts only with a valet court order? Or are they a manager with greater power... that might be liable for problems casused by their negligence.