skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Softbank are looking to buy shares at this lower valuation since they are a different class of share to what they would get otherwise; these are common stock (employees will be a major source of stock for the sale)

They are different, but not that different. Also, Softbank are purchasing both common and earlier preferred as part of their tender. All at the same price. Someone tendering their Series F or G preferred stock would sell at a lower price than what they paid (in the case of the latter, over 30% less). The tender is at a discount. It is a down round.

The $1bn at $69bn is simply a cute ploy investors are pulling to avoid having to mark down a big investment.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal nor securities advice. Do not buy or sell anything based on this Internet comment.
Not 50 acres. Give people a quarter acre to 10 acres. So they could still live in or around a small town.
It seems it would have the effect of magnifying down markets. (Down 30% in the market? Pay us another 1.2%, please, selling shares if you must; we don't care.)

Over the course of your life, the government will get more of your wealth that you (or those you designate) will. (At 5% CAGR, the government is ahead by year 54. At 3% CAGR, they're ahead at year 56. At 8%, year 52.)
So, how about:

- False positives?

- People temporarily accessing other peoples computers and purposefully triggering the algorithm?

- Oversight?

- Scope creep?
The Peugeot 205. I assume you also play Dirt Rally and know what I mean, but for everyone else, the car in particular has a bad case of turbo lag that masks ridiculous amounts of rear biased acceleration as long as you can keep the RPMs up.
> It does worry me a bit how it seems the group could have gotten through if they had been a bit less sloppy.

I guess they believe the stories they tell about the media? It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that journalists actually do their job.
No, it means with the public data available it is impossible to say as a matter of fact what you are claiming.

We don't know the split between preferred and ordinary and we don't know the liquidation terms.
Grandparent was probably joking but I also don't think an appeal to authority adds much to the conversation here because mainstream media doesn't have much authority left.
> it has no effect on the current valuation at all

Agreed, this statement was probably a little strong. But certainly it doesn't represent a new $48B valuation as the article suggests.

I suppose I'm objecting to the implied suggestion that Uber is having a down round (a few other commenters have jumped on that) because of the negative public sentiment they are copping at the moment. It's not like Uber needs cash right now, and I really doubt the board would approve a deal which brought their valuation down for the sake of money they don't need.
NASA’s next flagship telescope is “not executable” in its current form
> We compared our OSQP solver to other general-purpose solvers. That's why we chose GUROBI and Mosek.

Your computational results don't support calling OSQP general-purpose. OSQP does okay on the easy problems you randomly generate, but this doesn't seem to generalise---OSQP gives results on a bunch of the Maros-Meszaros problems that markedly disagree with previously published work.

> However our point is not to compare our solver to specific methods for certain classes (like libsvm).

You may not want to compare against libsvm's solver (though I imagine you look pretty good on the problems you're generating) but there is also a lot of data available at the libsvm webpage. This data might serve as a more representative SVM testbed than the random easy instances you're creating.

> In the benchmarks we are comparing examples with randomly generated data because we were interested in ~1400 problems in a range from 100 to 10 million nonzeros. The examples are not just random QPs, but data are generated in a reasonable manner and they have the same structure as problems people would actually solve in practice.

The "random QPs" and "random equality QPs" do seem to be "just random QPs."

I get cond(A^T A) ranging between 1.3 to 1.7 with your Lasso problem generator. These instances are going to be incredibly easy to solve, even with very naive algorithms. (Separately, why not eliminate the 'y' variable from your formulation? You get a formulation that's about 100 times smaller, and you should see a corresponding speedup.)

> In the arXiv paper we described in detail how we generated and checked optimality for the examples.

Yes, you check for a bunch of residuals' infinity-norms being smaller than 1e-3. But you get results that differ markedly from the other solvers' results. To me, that raises the question of whether the 1e-3 test is appropriate.

> As mentioned in the README of the repository that you checked out (https://github.com/oxfordcontrol/osqp_benchmarks) we used the conversion scripts from here: https://github.com/YimingYAN/QP-Test-Problems
>
> If you know better ways to convert the Maros problems (or other QP/LP benchmarks) to mat files or other formats compatible with Python, please let me know. I would be happy to try them.

Well, QPS is a punch-card style input format like MPS. Like MPS, I imagine you can write a parser for it in a couple of highly unfulfilling hours.
I think "impossible" is maybe going a little far; I met my wife in college and was engaged at 23 and married a year later. There are other problems though -- most people don't have the kind of financial security you'd want to raise a kid at that age and they probably don't want the lifestyle that comes with it yet (despite getting married early I don't have kids five years later).
The interesting thing about whole disk encryption is that it is not really breakable if a reasonably long password/phrase is used. Using a TPM adds a huge attack surface for no practical reason. A large enough attack surface in this case that it is almost for sure going to be broken. The user only is going to be entering the password/phrase once per boot.

Things are different in the case of something like a phone. In that case you are pretty much forced to use some low entropy key that could otherwise be brute forced. Then a secure hardware device makes sense, particularly if the phone does not use the device for everything but the kitchen sink as in this case.
Using a Smart Contract to Force HODL
> But "conspiracy theorists" will make an excuse to discredit them, regardless.

Conspiracy theorists will always find because they want to. I don’t think anyone needs to worry about what they will or won’t latch on to, because worrying about it implies that if something wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t latch on to something else. But they always will.
Not sure if you're religious it not, but let me phase it like that. God put you on Earth to be you and do it your way. In an evolutionary context, it's a random process where the value of an individual can only be determined in hindsight after you're gone. Hence you need to be you and leave judgement to the ages. If you're at all concerned about that, you're a long way from being cluster B or dark triad, so don't sweat it.
I'd love to see where the practice of photographic plagiarism is covered in the famous culture deck!
I understand plenty about libertarianism. The Rome example was a digression about taxation. In Rome, the taxman was not the state but rather a sole proprietor more akin to a corporation. Did that make his over reach any better? No.

I have no idea what a libertarian society would do since it is a theoretical construct. You could have a libertarian city or even state but somehow practice falls well short of theory. Y'all prefer to live here rather than there. I too prefer to live here. Must be a reason for that.

You can't imagine a libertarian IRS. Yeah, well it does sound kinda funny. But then I can't imagine a libertarian corporation either and again, I understand plenty about libertarianism. I only understand Delaware C corporations in each of the 50 states.
I agree with your main point.

I would go a step further. Mainstream media outright lies. You're willingly covering your eyes if you think otherwise.

We have our own false truths that we tell ourselves--you probably look at other counties or back in history and think we are somehow different from all of those people in this respect.

The problem they have is that Facebook did not control the narrative as well as mainstream media--as your examples of Bernie and Trump illustrate. However, the "Fake News" campaign will change that and get them in the club with other media outlets.

You can already see media's attitudes towards FB start to change. Today, this article in the NYT seems to tack on a high five to FB at the end--even though FB was not even really (primarily) what this activist was blogging with[1].

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/27/world/asia/vietnam-ngu...?
I'm okay with just imagining feeling like I'm sitting on a rocket if it means I also only have to imagine paying for the rocket.

My point is that VR hits a "close enough" point at a much lower price, and flat screens didn't really do it. This dynamic doesn't exist with, as an example, skiing, where actually skiing isn't much more expensive than virtually skiing.

Maybe one day having a car for the track will be economically feasible, but for now I'm pretty happy with primarily accessing the sport through VR at a fraction of the price. I've actually looked at the cheap end of actually racing cars, but it's just not feasible because of hidden costs until a lot of things change about my lifestyle. Until then, a VR headset is far more doable.

I suspect a lot of people are in a similar boat, so having something pretty cool to actively participate in is a big improvement over just watching.
I meant a diverse set of CPUs and architectures on desktop, not an actual term.
True, but it sounds like rural homes are the ones at risk of losing copper. They are the same homes that done have reliable cell service. I don't have reliable cell service at home. It is ok some days, but I bet there is only one tower and some days it just disappears.
That's a really good point and I agree that those tools could really help people. Anonymous expression of suffering can be therapeutic; people say things to Siri that they've never told anyone

I just have an adverse intellectual and emotional reaction when I hear people suggest AI / some app is the solution to mental illness. It devalues the hard and thankless work that therapists do, reduces people's deep suffering to a trivial engineering problem, naively presumes superiority to the centuries of research humankind has done on the mind and suffering, and is just logically and factually incorrect

There are plenty of ways to improve access to care that would have more cost-effective benefit than AI. If people started investing in those then maybe we could actually see some improvement

/endrant
That's assuming you stop earning, but of course most people will not stop earning. Also, the typical way this works is that the wealth tax gets added to your income, so if you end up not paying income tax by definition you don't pay wealth tax.

Example: Say I'm worth 1M credits today and my wealth tax is 10K (1%), that means my income gets another 10K added to it. Real income is 50K, + 10K so I pay tax as if I earned 60K. 40% of that works out to 24K worth of taxes.

In a bad year I'd earn maybe 10K, add that 10K (I'm still worth that 1M), and that year would pay 40% of 20K, which works out to about 8K.

Progressive tax scales can further improve the situation in years with low income.

The markets don't have much to do with this, it's a fictive income, not what you actually made.
So... Twitch bits on a blockchain?
> It's not absurd to believe that humans will never be able to invent machines that match human level intelligence

It actually is absurd and it's easy to see why: nature evolved a series of progressively more intelligent biochemical computers by accident, simply by trial and error.

If that's all we ever did with computers, like enumerating all Turing machines, we would eventually find one more intelligent than us. The fact that we can do even better than simple trial and error, for instance, by building machines that help us build machines, we drastically accelerate that inevitability.
This is probably the 409a valuation of the shares after the last round.
Isn't that the point? Professionals can't do it but for engineers it's supposed to be a cakewalk?
I'm usually pretty supportive of copyright claims, but such generic photos of generic objects are really pushing the envelope. Seems like you could make an argument that it's not sufficiently transformative under Bridgeman-Corel, given that it's the VHS Cassette design that's being fetishized rather than any particular contribution of the photographer. The publicity from the alleged infringement is probably worth more than any putative licensing fee - maybe $300?
Bigger news is that $1b investment is at previous valuation. No growth in valuation since last round.
First of all, punishment is two-fold: the formal punishment the court orders; and the informal one: how the community receives you after what you've done is known. I'm mostly concerned about the second. Maybe I'm not being successful at making that obvious. How a court decides is out of the scope of my argument. How the public decides is. And what I say is that ideally the precautions should be taken so that the court is first to decide.

On the last paragraph, I do agree you, and don't see why it should negate my statement that you've quoted. I'm on my twenties, so maybe I don't know enough, but how people flirt is definitely changing, and what is acceptable does also change too (interpreting "acceptable" not as "moral" but as "not frowned upon").
There's a huge practical benefit - the user gains disk encryption without having to remember a secure passphrase. That's a big deal.
Pure CSS Tabs for top-level navigation
That has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.
>A couple of years back I was enthusiastic about the rise of social media for informing and coordinating citizens to fight injustice. Now that I'm older and wiser, I can tell you that no evolution or revolution can happen because of Facebook, only regression. Facebook is poison.

I'll add to that. The internet is a great tool for coordinating citizens, spreading information, and fighting injustice. Having facebook, or any similar monolithic capitalist behemoth, in charge of controlling the flow of that information, is a BIG regression.

The internet was going to be great. How did it come to this :(
If later comers took more capital risk, in what way did they take less risk, exactly?

The semantics matter here. Perhaps the later comers were more opportunistic and optimistic about the likelihood of achieving a favorable return. But they had to take more risk, since they were later to the party and risked more capital (as you noted).
Quality? If the Guardian is considered quality journalism, the others are probably not worth the paper they are not printed on.

Most links to the guardian I see are opinion pieces clearly made with a certain audience in mind. It is an echo chamber: people pay to read what they want to read.

Does quality journalism exist at all? The only exception seems to be technical subjects, like science and engineering. And that's because there is a huge amount of effort being made to avoid bias at every level. And even that tends to be thrown out of the window as soon as it hits a popular journal.

Where are the journals where fact are analyzed from several point of views. Take net neutrality for instance, where are the articles that really talks about the pros and cons? My opinion is that net neutrality is a good thing, I don't need a paper telling me what I am already convinced of. No, I want a paper to first explain me what net neutrality really is, and what are the drawbacks and how it compares to the positive aspects. It may not change my mind but at least I will be more informed.
> but for the most part their bills get paid the same way facebook's bills do.

Yes, and they have a set of checks and balances to deal with that fact. I'm completely stumped why you would discount those checks and balances. Media outlets are all biased in different ways, and I share your disdain for some of those biases. That said, if they are a legitimate news outlet, those biases have little to do with their advertisers, so not sure what your point is.

Care to expand on your complaint?
The good thing is that if they were to go out of business, you wouldn't have made any technical investment since you just plug in the IPs to your applications and go.
Now that would be fun!
Maybe he can send them a humorous cease & desist letter http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-stranger-things-pop-u...
"Generally speaking, a property is a poor investment if you already have the money, they have poor returns and they don't grow in value outside of a few bubbles."

Real estate is a great investment for the risk averse (probably the best one too). Housing usually grows at the same rate as inflation if not a bit more and people will always need it. It doesnt drop 10% overnight unlike stocks. What other investments did you have in mind that you would recommend over real estate? (in the same risk spectrum)
I may be falling for a nice perception play from Uber, but I took this more-or-less at face value: Softbank is buying up a lot of valuable property at the moment, and even though Uber wouldn't be raising again for another 6-12 months, they wanted a piece. This is the mechanism they managed to negotiate.

Early shareholders gain liquidity, Softbank gets cheap stock, and the market gets some bullish signals on Uber in the form of Softbank's backing. From the outside it looks like a pretty good deal. Of course there might be internal panic and I've got it all wrong, but I see some big wins for both parties.
I had high hopes for oko.press but since they seem to have 3/3 negative coverage of the ruling party, and not in an investigative way, but kind of sensational in headlines, I got disappointed. But Angora is an outlet I forgot about but remember very positively, I need to check it out again.
In discussing the basic income stuff offline I realized that there is a naming problem. If you call something basic "income" then it attaches to it all of the mental imagery/modelling around the word income which is something you get in exchange for work, so without work basic "income" creates a cognitive dissonance. This effect seems exactly analogous to home "schooling" which people attaching a mental model and imagery of the word "schooling" to the activity (which is learning).

By calling a basic income system American Equity, Sam shifts the conversation away from the word 'income' because this clearly isn't "income" in the traditional sense, to "shared wealth" which is much closer to the ideas brought along. I think it is a reasonable way to look at it, although I continue to believe that what is the fundamental factor is keeping wealth inequality in check. Extreme wealth inequality is just as unstable a system as extreme wealth equality.
Property owners generally charge as much rent as they can. Only in places where it is easy to build new apartments is there floor on rents. In that case the floor is a combination of constructions costs, interest rates, and the rate of return to investors of other opportunities in the area. So in a place where building is hard, the rents would probably not rise, but in a place with lots of land and easy zoning, the rents probably would.
Well if they don't have enough information to reach a diagnosis they can always head to the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.
Hmm I use a browser that disables auto play by default. I bet there’s an add-on for that.
I bought a used one in the 80's and found it an amazing device: simple yet powerful. A Turing Complete pocket computer. It should be noted that HP did NOT invent reverse polish notation, and the HP-35 allegedly borrowed a lot of ideas from the Olivetti Programma 101 computer, arguably the first desktop computer.

Still, the HP-35 was an amazing packaging of existing but relatively new ideas (at least as actual products). This kind of thing is what made Apple big: take different new but existing ideas and combine and package them well by keeping the good and tossing the bad or low-use features. Steve Jobs had a nose for how to use new ideas invented by others by carefully picking, choosing, and associating features. What you leave out is often more important than what you put in.

I've also read that HP was hesitant to advertise such devices as "computers" because that carried export restrictions per military concerns. Calling it a "calculator" got around that. The convention of defining "computer" as something Turing Complete came later I believe.
I agree with other commenters here - while some of the races turned into a procession, in almost all races, there were elements of interest among the smaller teams lower down the ranks.

I think the biggest problem here is the depth of the pockets of each team. Those with bigger engineering budgets are dominating the podiums, while the smaller team struggle with 'hand me down' parts that are outdated when they get to them.

F1 has had to ride the hard line between actually showing progress in automotive R&D and still being somewhat a gladiatorial sport.

The progress made with hybrid engines, energy recovery, construction materials etc. have been monumental, especially in the past decade. However, that has also lead to less noisy cars, and a reduced element of danger. Good things when it comes to road car operation, but can work against the sport in the heat of battle on the track.

We can applaud the safety standard that get better each year, especially after the death's of Senna, and more recently, Jules Bianchi, but that sense of safety is also turning people away. No one wants to see a driver die (A driver's chance of dying in an F1 season in the 60's/70's was something like 20%), but again - the sport has become somewhat sterile and staid because of it. (Not to mention - Ugly, with the introduction of the 2018 halos).

Perhaps the fascination with eSports is that you CAN actually bang another car off the track, and you will get to see the spectacle of a crash without having to live with the fact that you might end someones life in the resulting conflagration?
It's a new fiscal code that aims to change the way social contributions are payed, but has the side effect of lowering the salaries in the IT sector by about 6%. Many companies are rising salaries to make up for this, but the measure already annoyed a lot of people.
>It's within their right to do so on their platform

I will add that I think it isn't even in their right. "Private enterprise" or not, you still need to abide by rules, and just as a newspaper has to follow certain laws of press (and being a private company does not excuse them nor give them the right to do as they please), so does facebook, as the controller of a great deal of information, have to follow laws of neutrality and anti-censorship.
I get sick of screen touchers on a shared machine I use. This comment made me cringe.
Open-access quantum computer goes live in Japan
It's just some stupid film.
I don't want to spam this article all over, but Matt Levine, also at Bloomberg, I felt had a much better overview of that question almost verbatim, plus imo he's an excellent writer.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-16/softbank-...
Foiled Electrician Used a Snack Bag as a Faraday Cage to Sneak Off the Job
0.04% of assets. That’s not even worth mentioning.
It doesn't matter how generic the object is, it's the fact that this person was not paid for the effort put into taking the photo
> Simply lift up your hand and ask a question.

That scales poorly- O(n) cost per O(1) benefit
What's wrong with inviting people who wish to observe the input provided by others, and subsequent discussion?