skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I have an i7 quad core sandy bridge in my laptop, and I just casually play games, generally older games I pick up for cheap during steam sales. I do some somewhat heavy development on the box, but have never felt a need to upgrade at all.

When I bought it in early 2011, I knew I was on a next-gen architecture that would last me awhile, but I really didn't think that 7 years later the only reason I would want a new laptop is because the bezels and overall size seem clownishly large by today's standards.
I've got people on my Facebook feed posting regularly about how we all need to buy BTC now while it is on the rise. They brag about their winnings and encourage others to play too...
Except we have entire sets of laws and systems to try to control and expose the risk of other investments.

ICOs are the Wild West, with the added benefit that they’re totally intangible so you can’t even be stuck holding the bag.
The key difference is that the companies raising money via ICOs are co-ops, not startups.

The reason startups go bankrupt when they have too much money though is because they're forced to spend money before they have product-market fit. And in the same way that the value created by good software scales exponentially as more dollars are invested, the costs of bad software scale exponentially as more dollars are invested.

Whereas money raised by co-ops is more akin to having money in your personal bank account, and it's not often that individuals go bankrupt as the direct result of having too much money. Sometimes they do, like with lottery winners, and I suspect we'll see that a bunch in the short term. But once we have better rules and norms, I think it's going to be less often that we see excess money killing co-ops.
>I.C.O.s represent the most pervasive, open and notorious violation of federal securities laws since the Code of Hammurabi

Can someone explain this statement to me? Is he saying I.C.O.s are the most flagrant violations occurring since the Code of Hammurabi was written, or is the Code of Hammurabi itself a violation?
why some men won't rap battle.
> what does he think that FileCoin gets right that others are getting wrong?

FileCoin retained a reputable law firm [1], restricted their applicable marketing to accredited investors [2] and used a template agreement designed by lawyers to comply with the law [3].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/dealbook/initial...

[2] https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/10/filecoins-ico-opens-today-...

[3] https://saftproject.com

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice.
Predicting Success in Startup Consumer Brands
What is "wallstreet"?
FT is now owned by Nikkei fwiw.
CO2 footprint management and transparency.
Nice try. All of said negative externalities are also tied (directly or indirectly) to the sanctity or value of human life.
One that bothers me the most is automated high frequency trading. They can cause the entire market to crash because of one mistake.
https://gorails.com/ has a ton of solid videos.
It's a subjective judgement, and not really useful. Some more useful questions are: which are illegal, and which will fail? The answer to both of these questions is "almost all of them".

Even so, it might take a long time before they start failing in large numbers and law enforcement starts taking action. Until then, a lot of money will be won and lost.
Headlines like these give me confidence that it will keep going. It may crash, however, most people would be caught off-guard...these things aren't telegraphed, plus, what's the motive? To save me money? or to make more money for himself?
Laundry. Collect it, wash it, dry it, fold it, steam/iron it (if necessary), put it away. I don't want to cummicate, coordinate, deliver, or pick-up. Just make it happen once a week and I'd pay a few hundred dollars a month.
Were there any pro-clinton sponsored ads?

That would be a smart move to hedge against the pro trump campaign failing
> The thing I find disappointing is how much people refuse to accept reality. Most people will not believe the two paragraphs I wrote above even though there is declassified material literally acknowledging exactly what happened. But it doesn't fit the way we naturally like to view our government, so most people resort to cognitive dissonance instead of acknowledging that their preconceived notions might not actually be correct.

This is a critically important point when it comes to many (or most) facets of our society. I'd add to that the fact that most people don't like to admit they have been fooled. They cling to the narrative that has been instilled in them from birth, ("The US Navy, a global force for good") because that's the world they want to live in, that's the world they've been told they live in, and that's the world they have perceived their entire lives.
Thank you, these are really good points I'll have a think about.

> Will you have equal access to the company bank account (to see expenses and gauge how good the company is doing)? Will you be a director (able to sign or co-sign contracts)? Do you have the same class of shares as the other founders and proportional share of votes?

Is it wrong/stupid not to want to care about that? I enjoy the technical side, I enjoy the idea of managing people, but I want to delegate as much business problems as possible and concentrate on the tech.

Basically, I would be interested in this arrangement because I enjoy working with this person, and for my value/wealth to be directly proportional to the effort I'm putting in. And because the problem space is interesting, obviously.
It's good for moving money out of countries with strict currency controls. There's a ton of conceptual value to a currency that exists beyond the control of any central authority.
In general, I agree with you. That said, from the perspective of an actually dead teenager, where their friends turn in evidence that, in retrospect, maybe they were having a hard time, it's hard not to want something like this.
Well, the obvious difference (IMO) appears in the article:

> Coin offerings generally happen without the involvement of financial institutions or regulators because investors pay for the coins using Bitcoin and other virtual currencies, which can be sent outside the traditional financial system.

Essentially it's a throwback to the days before any financial regulation existed.
why? You're not going to be convinced no matter what I say, because the challenged as posed is a pure trick. Both "better system" and "strong economy" are multivariant. So long as I say "in [place] that has laws mandating [some labor condition], they have [some value higher] in [some dimension]", and you will say "but in [some other dimension] they are [worse]". No matter what case is presented, you will refute it by any means that suit your argument to keep your own already-held conclusion that the profits of the few justify the subjugation of the many. So I could click around to various labor laws and economics statistics and say things like "Denmark's Working Environment Act dictates a standard work week of 37 hours and more than 48 hours a week and they have a higher GDP per capita and their national debt is 39% of GDP compared to the uk's 89% of gdp and they report higher levels of happiness" and you might say something like "yes but their taxes are higher and their life expectancy is shorter and also open-faced sandwiches are bad". There's no one metric to define "better system" or "stronger economy", so the challenge as posed has no merit. So long as you are looking to justify the stance you already have to yourself, you will.

Really, I cannot convince you of this point based on evidence alone. I can only tell you this: I am literally disgusted by your stance and I would never want to work with you or for you, and I think that society as a whole will start to see the software industry as a force of evil, moreso and moreso with each passing day, so long as your stance is the norm.
Ironically, the news works in the same way as BTC prices. There doesn't have to be any intrinsic value as long as people are talking about it.

The tulip mania comparison is lazy. It's just a way for pass of FUD as a "scholars approach", when in reality nobody knows if it is a bubble or not since it hasn't yet crashed.

When the price sinks down to <1k/btc and stays there, we can look back and laugh over the tulip mania. Until then its all speculation, on both sides.
Nah, it's taxes. Pretty transparent really. They want to raise taxes and stimulate the economy instead of the opposite which has never ever worked.
Ah, yes, and the government knows best, right? If there's a law, then it must be safe and good for everyone!
And then proceeded to sexually harass others via their platform.

They needed to go, and they were not a net positive to society.

The best quote on the topic (pretty sure I saved it from a HN comment) I've seen is:

> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.
ok go ahead and list them?
fwiw, i think there are many ethnic minority private school girls who have just about as much working against them in total as a working class white guy. parental income is definitely a huge factor, maybe bigger than any other. but i would not agree that it is far and away a bigger deal than race. i think depending on where a person is, a black person can, because of their skin color, be in a much more precarious position than a white person with a smaller bank account (yes, even in 2017, and while it's gotten much better, i think it's still a huge problem, and there is statistical evidence to back up that assertion).

also consider that people (of all races) may attend private schools on scholarship. i would have to dig up a citation for this, but my recollection is that kids who go to good schools and get good jobs and all are still at a disadvantage relative to their peers who did the same but who have some inherited wealth or who generally come from a higher income bracket. this is one of the ways in which it's statistically advantageous to be white: inherited wealth makes it hard for historical discrimination to not be seriously self-perpetuating.

> but far more people than would be willing to admit it publically are very much against quotas, or positive discrimination, or whatever the current PC term is for giving someone a job on the basis of their skin colour/gender and a perceived social injustice.

does this sort of positive discrimination happen much? i mean, i think race can reasonably be considered one of the adverse circumstances to use when e.g. framing a person's college application for consideration. similarly, i'd say a white working class kid definitely has disadvantages that a well off black kid doesn't (but likewise, a woman has disadvantages that neither of them has, and realistically, the well off black kid has disadvantages that the working class white kid doesn't). but to get back to your original point, can you point to research that shows that there is effective positive discrimination for minorities in any general private industry or even government context? or, some major organization that practices that approach to the detriment of white male applicants, or to the detriment of the product or service they offer? because i am aware of a lot of research that says there is effectively the usual old style racial discrimination against minority candidates. so your point here feels like a straw-man to me.
The basic analogy underlying this article is wrong. The US is not analogous to a joint-stock company, and the US GDP does not correspond to the revenue or income or profits of a joint-stock company.

The US government could be considered somewhat analogous to a joint-stock company, but the US GDP does not correspond to the revenue or income or profits of the US government either. The proper analogue would be the US government's revenues from taxes and other sources, but of course that just makes this proposal into universal basic income. It doesn't give anyone "ownership of a share in America".

If you want people to feel ownership of a share in America, then owning land in America is indeed one way to do it (as the Homestead Act did, which the article refers to). Another way would be to own a share in a US company. One could even corporatize the US government and give every US citizen a share in it. But none of those things would correspond to giving out shares of the US GDP.

Frankly, I'm disappointed to see Sam Altman making such an elementary mistake.
Well technically you are speculating by paying for the energy to mine the coins. You could take that money and save it as cash/M1 if you didn't want to speculate.
I wonder if the hacker news algorithm looks at the people who make the post to know if it should be promoted or not?

One thing I have noticed is that when you post things, they get a lot more attention than when I do hehe.

Thanks for that (:
Also, this is why the fantastically wealthy tend to be for increasing the income taxes: they pay none of that, but they pay those incomes, the growth of which they hope is restrained by higher marginal taxes.

Trust capitalism, but not capitalists.
Probably you don't, it's likely an unverifiable proposition. But "better at ethics" is a completely different question than "better at implementing a given ethical stance".

The people frightened of intelligence explosion are worried about something like an AI version of existentialism: a mind that accepts some moral system without even trying to justify it, and then optimizes accordingly. It's certainly possible to just accept as axiomatic ethical standards which don't come from any intrinsic feature of the world.

I've seen lots of essays (not this one) claim that morality will "inherently" emerge from intelligence, which I think is absurd. Shit, my moral views aren't an 'inherent' product of anything except my evolution-shaped brain that feels empathy.

That's where I think "AI won't be like humans so it's fine!" essays screw up so catastrophically; "not like humans" is exactly what people are worried about.
>outrage<
I do NOT give Facebook - or any other party - permission to know if the Suicide Bit is flipped.... S'rsly, is anyone else not having a serious "WTF!" moment about the very substance of where we are at?
>/outrage<
Why dont we regulate everything like that.
Why do we allow people to spend 2M$ on a Car or 6k$ on a bag?
Why do we allow people to buy unlimited lottery tickets or gamble everything away in the casino?

Those examples have cleary less benefit for society then the dumbest investment strategy.
Let people invest, sure tons if people will lose their shirt but they will learn from it and stay away. Everyone else in the society gets to Enjoy the increased liquidity in the society. Why does anyone think that its ok that we created this random gatekeeps in the society that block ordinary people from investing beciase they are to “stupid”.
The accredited investors sheme is a fraud, the arbitrary number on 1m$ networth to be an accredited investor is a joke. Thats means that even a Business Prof. Can’t invest because the SEC deems him to be to stupid.
Multiple Servers access using a single public IP
The idea of accredited investors horrifies me. The only way to get rich by investing is to get in early when the valuation is very low. These type of rules guarantee that only people already rich will be able to get in early.

The reason cryptocurrencies & ICOs are popular is they let anyone speculate and day trade.
this video is the best explanation for how mining and blockchains work IMO:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4

It's long but very clear and thorough.
people are idiots. The tulip bubble (and most every bubble since) have ended in a lot of tears because of leveraged trading. While there is some leveraging going on in the cryptocurrency market today, it's far less than any we've seen of late (and far less than the tulip bubble).

If you don't want to end up crying about bitcoins or crypto you do the following: 1) make a plan that you're happy with. 2) if it fails, oh well 3) consider your assets lost as soon as you put into cryptocurrency.
If they truly have monopoly pricing, and almost all users were willing to pay an extra $1 for VPN, they are already charging you for it.

In fact, it would be worse for them, because if everyone is paying as much as they can bear for internet, and they have given some the option to opt out of an unneeded service, then they will lose money.

Assuming they have total monopoly power.
I code Python professionally (and passionately), and would consider myself quite experienced. His code in '
When Cheryl Met Eve: A Birthday Story' is the most beautifully constructed stuff in the world. That sort of stuff isn't about coding ability, it's about a reasoning process that some people have developed to such an extent that it's innately beautiful no matter how it's expressed. I'm sure his javascript solution would be nearly as beautiful.
> "Wall Street is an eight-block-long street running roughly northwest to southeast from Broadway to South Street, at the East River, in the Financial District of Lower Manhattan in New York City. Over time, the term has become a metonym for the financial markets of the United States as a whole, the American financial services industry (even if financial firms are not physically located there), or New York-based financial interests."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street
ICE invites tech companies to help track visa holders’ social media activity
The first example with dime, nickel, etc makes sense, but the one with the cab not really. Not all taxis in the US are yellow. To my knowledge this is mostly a NYC thing.
http://whatthefuckisethereum.com/#scammer
David Karp - CEO/Founder leaves Tumblr
Acquisition and administration of public housing projects. The world needs more publicly housing for people of all economic statuses. It seems incredibly time consuming to build or convert private housing due to vast amounts of paperwork and groups that must be involved to finance and manage these projects. Automation can help to find a business plan, search for funding, help run governance, and do accounting for the on-going operations.
Before they can stop it, they need to learn enough to learn how to correctly characterize it, without hitting non-fraud in the process. That's easy to do in an HN comment box, with nothing at stake if you get something wrong, and all the ambiguity of English working for you. It's somewhat harder to do when you require legal precision and are interacting with trillions of dollars worth of existing market.
The lab. too much human error from temporary unmotivated young workers.
Evolutionary Algorithms are a subset of Population Based heuristics. I don't think its "souped up BS" to use the term.
I think this is an important measure, but Facebook is literally the last company I'd trust to get it right.

I don't have a Facebook user, but I wonder how much goodwill Facebook has in the bank with its user when it comes to things like this.
Two things stick out to me after a first read:

First, this actually learns a schedule for each hyperparameter, not just a good set of fixed values, automatically discovering learning rate annealing and related techniques. This seems incredibly powerful. It is also learning hyperparameter schedules specific to a single training run - which seems interesting but not obviously helpful, especially since many of the learned schedules fairly closely match the baseline hand-tuned ones.

Second, it seems like they're optimizing against their validation metric directly; isn't that basically 'cheating' (i.e. defeats much of the point of having a separate validation metric in the first place)? It also seems completely orthogonal to their technique - could they not have optimized for the same loss function as the network itself? Is this an improvement over state of the art, or is it just overfitting to the validation metric?
You can substitute “since the Code of Hammurabi” for “in all legal history”. He’s simply using more flowery language.
The major benefits (at least to me) are:

1. As a buyer, sending money via Bitcoin means whoever I'm buying goods/services from won't be able to bill me monthly, they won't be able to lose my credit card info, and they can't overcharge me.

2. Also as a buyer, there are also no "restrictions" on who I can send money to, and how much. Nobody can close my account because they don't approve of what I bought,
or can restrict where i'm able to send money to (ignoring custodial wallets, which can do all of those things to some extent).

3. As a "merchant", receiving payment in Bitcoin means that I don't need to worry about "chargebacks", "reversals" or any other way that the money could be taken back after it's been sent.

4. As a developer, Bitcoin is a fantastic way to receive tips and donations. I don't need to maintain an account with some service that might go under or get hacked. I can create an address for donations securely once, and can put it everywhere knowing that it will work indefinitely.

Yeah, I agree that at this point people trying to live on Bitcoin are a little crazy, but if more and more places start accepting it it's a fantastic way to buy and sell things that is a lot more "safe" feeling for all involved.
I agree. If Facebook can use mechanisms like this to help treat the disorders they cause we don’t have to look at their true cost to people’s lives.

/s
I have the same problem. I found that building a platform is not an issue. It's always the price.

> I know, building a CDN isn't simple, but when I tried to build my own platform, it wasn't about building something about video streaming. It was about creating my own CDN to lower the costs. I don't think I'm alone with that problem.

Were you successful in starting something?

Did you end up creating your own CDN?

Lets say someone had a platform, servers and were ready to rock:

- How do they implement that CDN?

- Could it be a case of getting hosting providers who offer Nth percentile or unlimited bandwidth (to a point)? I've seen these packages on webhostingtalk.com

- What are the costs associated with that?

- What are the gotchas with maintenance and running costs?

Would love to know your thoughts.
Executive class job operations. Imagine how much better the world would be if instead of having a half dozen executives breaking the companies back with absurd compensation packages, there was just an automated system that replaced their functionality. Employee increases in productivity could actually result in greater employee earnings! It would be like living before 1980 again!
Oversubscribing != throttling.
Larger ROB/OoO window than Xeon? Wow.
i dont dispute there is some utility to the currency. i mean, i guess you could say that governmental instability / dumb monetary policy drives bitcoin's price to some degree?
This reminds me of the quote attributed to Albert Einstein

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

I really thing what Einstein is getting at here is the ability to simplify things to the level that a six year old can understand it. Of course, you probably can't simplify the mathematics to the level of a six-year old, but you can simplify the concepts so that they are understandable by a six year old.

I've found this to be true in my own life. I think I understand something, but then I try to teach it to someone else and then I learn that I don't really understand it. So I have to go back and study and think about it so more until I understand it better. If I really understand thoroughly, inside and out, then I find that I am able to simplify things such that I can explain them to my young children.