skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Netflix gives away free servers to cache popular content near the users so the ISP doesn’t need to pay for the bandwidth to stream multiple copies of the same thing

You have to be a decently large ISP to qualify. So, this is helpful to big players BUT big players can also afford a PoP in a major hub where they can likely directly peer with Netflix.

This is also a "black-box" system on your network, likely behind your edge firewalls and DMZs. So, you will have to deploy extra network infrastructure and monitoring protect the rest of your network from Netflix. If it was outside your edge routing/firewalling it may as well be on a peer network.

So, this isn't exactly a "free pass" for anyone to have superior Netflix service. And it would only serve Netflix. The ISP I worked with had a few racks devoted to this type of machinery (Google Global Caches, Akamai CDN edge nodes etc). We were not large enough to qualify to host an OpenConnect Box.

Even with one you have the additional issue that most last-mile providers don't exactly have a 40gigabit back-haul to all of their DSLAM or CMTS PoPs. So, some part of "congestion" happens down stream of the data centers. This is why companies like Comcast will put one of their On-Demand video storage boxes in that giant green box that is at the end of your street. You are literally talking with a server next door. OpenConnect style boxes cannot compete with that proximity and that deployment strategy is partially responsible for one of the "smoking guns" in this debate where people claim proof that Comcast slows Netflix in favor of their services.
Practically all of mathematics can be formalized in Coq. One notable exception is the internal consistency of Coq itself (due to Gödel's first incompleteness theorem, I believe).

Coq's logic is intuitionistic, which means it's impossible to prove the following: forall P, P or ~P. But this actually makes Coq more powerful than classical logic, not less, because:

a) If you want, you can add that proposition (called the law of the excluded middle) as an axiom. Now you have classical logic.

b) By not adding that axiom, you can show that certain results do not depend on it. You couldn't do this if it were built-in.
Please don't post like this here? It breaks the site guidelines. Specifically this one:

"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Desktop apps are much more intrusive then web apps.
they have some this in the labs https://labs.strava.com/clusterer/

You can search for yearly/weekly events.
IMO, the content is good, but the customer service and such is terrible
I'm afraid security is important on typical HPC systems (at least university ones). I'm horrified to be assured cliinical data on the filesystems is secure when there are trivial privilege escalations on the system. We really do need a microkernel-type capability operating system, though most of what I see is failure to do system management or sane configuration of the batch system.
There should be a Hacker News MadLibs form:

UserOne: Don't use [insert language] and [insert framework] because [bad design flaw] and doesn't scale.

UserTwo: But [BigCo with millions of users].
Used Nightly for a few weeks before and after Quantum.

Definitely a huge improvement. The web response showed it. But I went back to chrome for the last few days. For 2 windows / 20 tabs it's definitely faster in just enough places to make a difference.
Fake news is a distinct category of story that is easily quantified. It is a real problem that the United States faces and if we don't attempt to combat it, discourse will suffer. Since you're a fan of Wikipedia articles, try reading this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_websites_in_the_Unit...
Stepping through the proofs in the IDE is the only way to understand them. But that is like stepping through a program in a debugger---it's inefficient if you have a lot to understand.
I always wondered why they branded Chromecast with Chrome, it has almost nothing to do with a browser besides the funny gimmick where you could show a web page through it. Maybe an implementation detail.

I suppose I get it now. It was originally just branding to promote a Chrome monopoly, and now it's an artificial exclusive feature. I love the idea of Chromecast but it's sad that it's still so closed off.
I could see your bosses workflow working as long as he has a library of common elements. For graphs I tend to use yED, which is nice. You know how LaTeX has the mantra that you input the data, and it worries about the layout for you? yED is similar, you add nodes, connect them, and then you chose from one of two dozen layouting algorithms, like "hierarchical", "swimlane", or even "family tree".
If you already know your data (which must be the case with arrays anyway), you can simply pre-allocate a pool from where the elements of the linked list will be taken. This guarantees that elements will be allocated from the same region in memory. It is a simple technique that I use whenever I believe that a linked list will be needed in a high-performance context.
A .deb file would only work on certain distributions. Why wouldn't you use your distro's package manager to download Firefox? I guess it might be helpful to have a note on their site telling Linux users just that.
That's a very good point. I also think there's a difference between Automated Theorem Proving and AGI since entities with high-functioning general intelligence(i.e. AGI) aren't necessarily good at mathematics. ATP is a specific form of AGI in my opinion.
> If conservatives are people who are dominated by physical fear

That's not what the article is saying at all.
No, he is clearly not.
This is kind of a strange complaint. You’re using Linux but you don’t want to use the version packaged by your distro, yet you’re uncomfortable opening a standard tarball and following the intructions within? Yet you’re complaining that Mozilla didn’t go the extra mile for your obscure situation.
The best board games we played at PAX Unplugged
I wasn't hating on anyone, I was describing the very real perception of "e-bikes" in my area, and I did mention that it's a classist problem.

I'm describing the classism, not participating in it.
One difference might be that continental US have not been invaded in modern times. Within living memory, most of Europe was invaded and occupied by foreign powers. This may be part of the reason that nationalism and pride in the military etc (perhaps until recently?) has been much less prominent in northern Europe.
government doesn't control the prosecution but government makes the laws and regulations. that's enough. And government in Germany is super cozy [1] [2] with car makers.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/business/energy-environme...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/germany-w...
Interesting! Didn't realize Ubuntu had included it already. I almost always assumed Ubuntu package manager is always behind by a few versions (like it is for everything else).
That seems to be exactly what Mozilla is doing no? Research and investing in tools that help people learn to navigate information online and judge for them self. Haven’t found anything that suggests they plan on blocking websites.
So I'm wondering what is the bridge between "proof-assistant" and "automated (or partially automated) theorem prover".

As someone with "journalistic" (but fairly in-depth) knowledge about these topics, my guess is that something like a proof-assistant will have to be paired up with some kind of logic programming system (like Prolog, or a kanren-derived system or something).

I guess then the problem of combinatorial explosion in logic search translates directly to the combinatorial explosion of proof-steps in a proof assistant. Hence my mention of partially-automated (more doable than fully-automated).

Probably some kind of a "database of facts" would also be involved, making it an expert system (reminds me of metamath [1]).

Is it fair to say, partially-automated theorem proving is a fairly advanced version (and not without added complexity) of a proof-assistant, and will help ease some of the grunt work involved in using a proof-assistant by hand?

[1] http://us.metamath.org/
This question gets at the heart of computation, logic and provability.

Coq is based on a logic system called the "Calculus of constructions" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus_of_constructions. As such it has the same limitations as that logical system.

Most notably, Gödel's incompleteness theorems place a limit on what's provable in Coq, or indeed many other systems.

There are various kinds of logic systems, each with different kinds of 'power'. Power is a double-edge sword in logic systems, as with power comes the capacity to introduce paradoxes and inconsistencies.

As with programming languages, certain logic systems and automated logics are suited for particular cases. For example, there is a system 'MetiTarski' like a Domain Specific Language, designed to prove theorems about real-valued special functions.(https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~lp15/papers/Arith/).
Volatile in comparison to what exactly?
Well, you're using linux, you should know how to go around this (the tar.bz2 used to have a run-firefox script though) or try the distro package manager

In Mac and Windows it's frictionless
I'm used to the assumption that my package manager is out of date. It usually is (e.g. it still has only OpenCV 2.4). I have a huge pile of PPAs to solve that ...
As someone who's not really used Chrome aside from browser testing (which used to involve a lot of cursing because flexbox min sizing was broken), can you explain what Chrome profiles offer over e.g. container tabs? Are you using them as separate cookie jars, to install different extensions or something else?
There is some investment and finance going on in shanghai these days. It isn’t world-class, but everyone wants to be there to learn and look to the future. Kind of like how HK and Singapore were 40-50 years ago.
> In fact your point seems to be that Java/imperative languages are better than Haskell/functional languages, for a reason that you have tried to elaborate and that I have failed to understand.

Not at all. My point is that the reason for preferring a formalism is largely aesthetic and pragmatic, and almost never mathematical or universal. Indeed, one pragmatic reason to prefer classical imperative programming is that in many cases, it makes formal reasoning easier, something that comes as a surprise to those familiar with the math of FP but not of imperative (you don't have to take my word for it; here are Xavier Leroy and Simon Peyton Jones saying that: http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/stg/Milner2012/Monday_Panel-ht...).

But if you knew me you'd know that I don't care much for programming languages at all, partly because personally I don't feel much of a difference and partly because the empirical evidence so far show that there is little if any practical difference between them (at least modern ones). So I resist any attempt (by lmm this time) to claim that functional languages are "better designed" because of one or other of their properties. They are not, but they may be languages that lmm or you find aesthetically appealing, and more productive because they match how you like to think about programs.

I'm skeptical of all languages, but I am at least hopeful of languages that haven't yet had the chance of proving themselves, which is why I'm curious about Eve, the most theoretically-advanced language that I know of, and one whose semantics I personally find appealing (actually, some of the ideas behind Eve have proven themselves quite spectacularly in realtime, which is why I'm even more hopeful).
The best way I know to find new routes in my city is to join a local strava club and see where others are running. If I travel, I rely on the Segment Explorer but I agree it is not perfect.
Websites and -apps that run in just one browser are worse than ones that haven't yet switched to HTTPS. It is 2017. This has been going on for 20 years. Browsers are more like each other than ever before. There is no reason for this in a new app.
Unfortunately, does not use persistent data structures.
Ask HN: Bitcoin/crypto and taxes – how does it work, worldwide?
This is a baseless conspiracy theory. Cheating is not par for the course, it was shocking to the emissions compliance community that VW had blatently lied and cheated.

The history of defeat devices is... complicated. Keep in mind the EPA chief is a political appointment. Their own interpretations of their own regulations can vary significantly from one administration to the next.
I'm starting to think that the measure of "too big to fail" is campaign donations, not percentage of GDP or something.
Agreed, good architecture doesn't come into play until you need to add a lot of complex features or scale significantly. Initially architecture doesn't really mean squat. I would concentrate on making the codebase flexible, but that's about it. I've regretted making some of my software with a cool but complex architecture when I should have been focused on what the product does.
I'm aware of a research project to see if reliable identification of "fake news" websites is possible, but there's no "blocking" coming to Firefox. That would violate point 5 of the Mozilla Manifesto.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/manifesto/
Maybe this says something about the article writers?

Most Rails applications I see have minimal monkeypatching and I can’t remember the last time I had to debug an issue related to one. On the contrary, monkeypatching is most often used to fix issues in libraries that would otherwise require forking or pushing changes upstream to the project to fix. For example, Rails 3.2 is missing a few time duration methods from Rails 4 which Ruby 2.4 relies on so you need to add those via monkeypatch to run Ruby 2.4 with the legacy Rails version if you can’t upgrade everything at once.
If you’re a touch typist physical keyboard layout doesn’t matter too much. Beyond ergonomics, at least.

On that note, I’m loving the increasing number of games that read the OS keyboard layout and display appropriate key mappings instead of assuming every gamer uses QWERTY (some games do even worse and don’t use the key code but the mapped character forcing me to rebind keys or switch layouts).
Disclaimer: it's hard to take any effect seriously anymore until it's survived meta-analysis. Having said that, I'll bite...

1. Some of the most conservative people I've known were my sports teammates (football, baseball, and basketball). Due to their above average physical abilities and training, these were also the people least at risk for being bullied, physically harmed, etc. Seems at odds with the study's effect right?

2. I'm quite liberal in my political and social ideals and yet I'm deeply skeptical and cynical when it comes to trusting other people, groups, nations, etc. to safeguard my best interest, i.e., I feel "conservative" in many ways too. Bernie Sanders is sort of my spirit animal. How should the study's effect play out for people like me?
It doesn't hang for me, but it is slow and even lags in Quantum on an underpowered machine on Ubuntu. Works fine in Chrome though.
If labels are failing, it's kind of hard to provide evidence that requires labeling people.
Incremental change is often counter productive. Major change requires major problems because people are inertial. Picture things as a number line. 0 is something 100% beneficial to society at expense of special interests. 100 is something that is 100% beneficial to special interests at expense of society.

Major changes, such as single payer healthcare, require major action and major support. It's highly controversial and would require a massive rethinking of an enormous amount of our society - and all at substantial risk to many people. To get this sort of action you need people pretty far along that number line - perhaps at 85 - to drag people out of their naturally inertial state. And indeed it may have been the case that before the ACA people were starting to reach into the 90s. What has the ACA done? It's certainly a very flawed system and that's seen, arguably predictably, skyrocketing premiums (an average 25% increase in premiums in 2017 alone [1] ) and other more systemic issues such as rapidly decreasing competition. But it's better than what we had before, even if just incrementally. But now instead of being in the 90s, our numberline on the 'fairness' of healthcare is now somewhere in the high 70s. Another way of looking at this is that the odds of something like single payer entering the political conversation, which was a very real possibility before, are now effectively zero.

And this has been a recurring theme throughout many of Obama's actions. Of course this all begs an obvious question. Was he behaving this way intentionally to maximize the value of special interests, or was he just a well intentioned person trying to make progress in a difficult system? Given one of the first things he did after leaving office was to go give a private talk to a wall street firm on healthcare, for a $400k "speaking fee" - well...

[1] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-obamacare-premiums-are-risi...
not sure corrupt is the right word, but I get your point
Yes. I have used rails since about 0.6 and evaluated other frameworks since. Nothing comes close for me, especially for CRUD apps. For anything complicated (50+ models), things can begin to feel unwieldy but it helps to be disciplined about how you structure your code. I find trailblazer very useful in that regard.

I've recently started to learn vue.js and it's making JavaScript a pleasure to use alongside rails. I think my future projects will be vue + rails by default
Erm, do you count the wikipedia article as a conspiracy theory as well?

edit: which is the base of my "baseless" theory which I clearly stated as a possible theory, not a fact

edit2: and maybe mark your edits, as edits? Otherwise it looks like manipulative arguing.

And to me defeat devices seem not so complicated. Simply cheating. VW just took it to a new level.
So many in the tech community support Net Neutrality, it's always shocked me that more people don't build bots to submit comments like the opposition do.

Surely the tech community could easily submit a few billion (trillion?) legit-looking comments in support of Net Neutrality that would a) completely cripple the servers or b) produce so much spam that it overwhelms anything useful and all comments are ignored....

why not?
Would it be correct to say that '60 out of 1000' has more predictive power than '6 out of 100'?
I'll stop using Chrome for work (UX Engineer) and personal use when safari mobile, chrome for iOS, and chrome for Android will each become Firefox.

A browser I'm the only one using, has no use for me.
I agree. Co-founders are by definition not hired. They should not have to "prove themselves" over the span of a week. Rather, you should already have the proof and conviction based on months to years of prior experience that they are the right person with the right skills.

Moreover, please do not be the silly business person who walks up to some engineer and be like: "I have this great idea, it's going to be great! Can you build it for me? Oh and by the way, because I guess it looks like you're going to be the technical one, I guess I'll have to be the CEO, and I'll take 80% of the equity [despite you doing all the work]." I've had enough of those stupid conversations before.

Good technical co-founders build what they want to build. Not what you want to build. Thus, you need to align as people, and build what you collectively want to build together. Technical co-founders work for themselves, not for you.
Another excellent Parnas paper: "A Rational Design Process: How and Why to Fake It"
Yeah definitely. I think the scope of desktop apps is often wider though.

With web apps any telemetry data is pretty much limited to things on that domain. Browsers have access to more in principle.

I guess if the data transmitted is not personally-identifying or profile-building then it's fine. E.g. number of sites only, not urls. On second glance at the new FF page https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/ it seems like the stuff they collect is pretty innocuous. Paranoia ftw.
> I prefer Isabelle myself, as I find its proofs more readable in a traditional mathematical sense.

Just curious, what makes Isabelle easier to read? I haven't tried it.
The second category there is typically people who adopted Rails and then ignored it's culture of testing. One thing about Ruby is that you better have good test coverage if you ever want to be able to safely upgrade your dependencies.
If you're joining 3 months into what's often a 7+-year mission (where if you're successful you'll be underpaid for a long-time and make your money on stock) and you expect a 90-10 distribution of shares you better be getting something like a salary (co-founder in name only). These kind of distributions are part of why yCombinator discourages unequal co-founder distributions. You're asking for the company to implode over co-founder issues if you think your 3 months at the start is worth a 90-10 distribution in shares especially when as a non-technical founder hiring a technical co-founder the technical co-founder generally has bigger opportunity costs financially.
I'm going to guess that what the question is referring to is not random charitable donations, but large projects in the old Rockefeller/Carnegie mold. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have done this, but not too many others. Eli Broad has dedicated major funding for medical research. Peter Thiel seems to be determined to destroy society. I guess it depends on how much the feel themselves to be a part of society, and want to keep it going.
Ask HN: Being Pro-Net Neutrality, Should ISPs Be Classified as Utility Providers
like water and electric...
There is actually a whole theory around this, and has lots of implications for the designs of hedonic and sensory scales.

I work on modeling human sensory perception and preference of food and beverage products, and have had to design scales that work as a true "metric";

Most scales suffer from 3 primary problems:

1) avoidance of the endpoints

2) tendency towards the mean

3) minimum information gain

For example; on a 10 point scale, very few (> .5% of respondents) will mark a 1 or 10 (this is problem 1). In addition, 5's are over represented VS the expected amount of 4's and 6's (problem 2).

These problems together reduce the amount of information inferable from the collected data. There is a number of ways to measure this, including information theory (think of the avoidence of the end points and tendency towards the mean as a lossy compression algorithm for the true signal) or as a sampling of an unrepresentative population to infer the posterior distribution.

A 100 point scale has the same problems as above, and in addition suffers from a lack of consistency (reproducibility) - respondents are likely to give a product a different score (say a 92 and 94) when asked about the same product multiple times. This will frequently lead to non-parametric rank reversals, which 1) prove that a 100 point scale is not a "metric" and 2) show that the amount of information is further reduced at higher optionality.

Thus - the discrete scales that work best are:

A) 1 - 7

B) 1 - 13

as they both do not suffer from avoidance of the end points, both have no selectable mid-point (forcing respondents to choose a point above or below the median), and are highly replicable (very few respondents will switch rank orders).
If you make cash profits, you should declare them, probably