skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
[A bunch of quite tame stuff that I nonetheless regret posting due to the heat surrounding anything remotely near this entire subject area]

[EDIT] You know what? I'm just gonna leave all this to retrospectives from sociologists and media studies folks in a decade or two. Any discussion about this whole slice of online life is always too much of the usual Internet misunderstanding-one-another, but with the knives out. There's a ton of really interesting stuff going on around this topic, but it's just not worth trying to discuss, no matter how much good faith is brought to the table. Suffice it to say that it doesn't look like anyone in this sub-thread has been trying to associate the OP with anything unseemly, that certainly wasn't what I was trying to do (god, why on earth would I want to?) and on re-reading my post in context it also doesn't appear to be what I did do. I'm bowing out.
It is a pity Amazon didn't make the deal earlier. Can you disclose if the Goo team got anything out of the acquisition? Great to see the project lives on!
> The system was specifically designed so the masses can force change without violence.

Point is, you need masses. Masses that are interested in politics, and actually have the time to be interested in politics! If I would have to work two (or more) jobs to get by certainly politics were solid bottom of my priority list. Democracy needs an electorate that is interested in democracy or it will get owned by a minority who is, and then dismantled.
Your article assumes that to sell on Day 3, the exchange has to borrow $1,000,000 from a bank.

That's now how an exchange works.

For the price to be 1,000,000 USD for 1,000 BTC, there must exist buyers with 1,000,000 USD and sellers with 1,000 BTC with orders to trade at that price.

There's no "house money" since exchanges aren't casinos where the players bet against the house. Buyers and sellers are transacting with each other, matching buy orders with sell orders.

The exchange doesn't have to borrow the USD from a bank, the buyers bring the USD to the trade.

There is no "liquidity shock" unless the exchange steals or loses the buyers' USD. And that's a different argument.
Great summary of recent Computer Vision. Over 203 references!

One exciting topic I did not see mentioned (maybe I missed it) is image denoising. Excellent paper here - https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03981. The CNN proposed in the paper is really compute intensive but the denoised images are really amazing.
To be honest, the Amazon Prime thing makes me pause for a moment. What happens when Amazon is involved in a scandal, what will WaPo do?
Who cares, then world is full of idiots including myself
I’d love for those downvoting you to join in on the debate. I’m less familiar with Ghandi but what you say about Malcom X and MLK is consistent with what I know about the situation.
Settle down and have kids early, play the long game instead. Seriously. Have kids when you're ~25 (closer to the optimal age for having kids), then by the time you're ~45 they'll have moved out and you'll have the time and the financial freedom to take risks, do what you want, sail around the world etc.

We've done this. And let me tell you, working 40 hours a week when your 8-month baby lets you sleep on average 2 hours per night is a lot fucking harder than the 70-hour tech-scene work week. So given the choice, I'll take the former when I'm young and fit for it, and the latter when I'm older and wiser.
> But you're talking about corporations which are already state created entities.

I wasn't specifically, but that's besides the point. From a fundamental principle, libertarians don't want a government to designate and classify collections of people and determine their legality, no. But regardless, if you have a group of people that consists of what we colloquially - not necessarily legally - would call a corporation, small-ell libertarianism does not permit a government to be able to commandeer its behavior any more than that of an individual.
I imagine it’s already happening. See one of my other comments in this story.
> Off the top of my head I can probably think of a dozen developer tool ideas that I'd consider paying for.

Would you care to share and discuss those? There are quite a few categories of developer tools, a non-comprehensive list of which could include:

- generic, one-size-fits-all tools that reach a very wide audience: IDEs, issue trackers, CI and code quality tools

- frameworks and libraries, which also are fairly generic

- one-off / niche tools and scripts for very specific purpose: Those are usually developed in-house to solve a specific problem and out-of-the-box they often don't have a lot of reproducible value outside of a particular organization.

Most of those don't real lend themselves to being realised as commercial products, in part because of existing tools, particularly open source ones and also because the target audience is more likely to implement a tool they need than any other audience (http://threevirtues.com ...).
Get in government, dedicate yourself to public service. Violence is the lazy and cowardly way out. You can't beat your opponent so you beat them up.

When I say evolve, we're not the apes in 2001 anymore are we?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strWmj-vZ88
Anecdotally I discover about half of the youtube videos I watch through youtube's search (for things like tutorials), but the other big chunk is from other social media platforms like reddit, twitter and facebook (i.e. other people linking me videos). A really small portion of the videos I watch are from suggested videos on their site.

A far cry from the early days of youtube where I would spend hours just flipping from suggested video to suggested video.

I'm not one who tunes in regularly to someone's content either, but I imagine that people who do follow several youtubers would probably still watch their favorite people on another service.

Twitch has also already proved that the Let's Play genre was ripe for the taking by another platform and they built their own discovery model around it.

Not disagreeing with your comment just sharing some of my own observations. If someone wanted to be the "youtube of droneflying" and there was an audience for it, they could probably plug this service into their own social media platform and make it happen (again, if there's the audience).
That’s what they teach in the classrooms you faithfully attended. Gotta love the raptured eyes of the pupils, so alike those wondering about the virtues of Stalinism...
It would be great if that were possible, but a lot of the value of therapy comes from the therapeutic relationship rather than a specific type of therapy. Most types of psychotherapy tend to have the same level of effect in studies, suggesting there is no "recipe" for the type of therapy that works. This phenomenon also suggests (but does not prove) that the human relationship, rather than therapeutic program, accounts for the measured improvement in outcomes

Not to say an AI tool wouldn't be helpful for some people, but it isn't clear it would be that useful. And i don't know of any evidence or plausible hypotheses that an AI tool could work for anything other than mild anxiety or depression

AI + human therapy could potentially be better than human therapy alone however
"who, if anything, is pressured to overestimate" um, why would they be pressured to overestimate. They don't want to scare away customers who would think "well I'm not sure if my internet is fast enough..."

HD video streaming is surprisingly not the most bandwidth intensive activity. Facebook is actually more intensive. As is online gaming. And HD streaming is especially easy when its done by netflix which already has a network non-neutral setup https://www.beet.tv/2013/05/netflix-2.html. You may think "well, that 10Mbs is the same whether or not it is being streamed from next door or across the ocean", but you'd be wrong, due to the fact that low latency network connections are much more efficient at using that bandwidth.
This [1] says it's closer to 30% but still significant (I had to look it up, and this is the first article I found)

[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/social-media-contributi...
I'm not going to comment on how you should have done it without seeing the code. You can throw out terms like reactor base class, MWSR (which I've never heard of but am assuming is just an MPSC using non-standard terminology) and ring buffer, but that's not enough to go on to talk about your specific situation. Moreover, it sounds like you're using C++ which isn't a language I've spent much time coding in, so I'm ill equipped to talk about mocking frameworks available to you.

> Allow me to laugh at your measly 27 from atop my high horse

If you're going make snide comments, I'll stop this discussion. Suffice it to say you missed the point. 27 isn't just a number, it's a number arrived at by applying an exponent. Exponents get really big in a hurry. As the author of a crypto suite, I'd expect you to pay exponents a bit more respect. Testing 3 different cases per dependency gives you 27. Testing 10 gives you 1000. Property based testing is not a substitute for this kind of coverage. It is, however, complementary. It allows you to increase the base number which is raised to the exponent.

> I could have mocked my ring buffer without writing another full featured ring buffer. Mocking looks a bit ridiculous in this case.

It's safe to assume from this comment that you don't really understand mocking. Mocks aren't an implementation of an interface to be used in tests. Mocks verify that they were called in an expected way/order and give back the appropriate value. They don't actually do anything. They're highly coupled with each test case. This is why most mocking frameworks dynamically generate the mock per-test and let you simply verify the call(s) and tell it what to return.

> This feels backwards

It's absolutely not backwards. The main purpose of a test suite is to find a very specific type of bug...regressions. It's not to avoid other sorts of bugs other than the fact that forcing developers to write tests will force them to think about their code in ways that make them realize they missed something during implementation.

But the most important thing is to be able to rely on them to tell you when you've broken something that previously worked. Every single time I've come to a code base that was either missing tests or relied too heavily on integration tests, we've had a significant problem with regressions and, over time, developers shied away from making significant changes to the code base because they were afraid to break it. And the result is that ossification that you try not to achieve. But when you see a code base with a commitment to unit tests, you also see one where developers are free to make the necessary radical changes without fear of breaking existing functionality. They make the changes, run the suite and let it tell them everywhere they forgot to change, whether that be in application code or test code.
They're activists, but sometimes activists stumble on the truth too.
Even conservatives who don't like what they do love to exploit the false beliefs that are engendered by Project Veritas’s efforts; them getting caught in their fraud on one before they manage to turn it into a propaganda story, rather than almost immediately after as is more commonly the case, won't change that.
Is that really true? Searching around, I can't find anything talking about what a co-op is that doesn't mention member control as a big part of it.
So basically it's like a right-wing CNN?
A major news organization choosing to publish off-the-record comments is itself a pretty significant event that I'm glad to find out about. It's a sign of extreme confidence in their story (and a lot of irritation at Project Veritas), because that's the sort of decision that, if mistaken, can lastingly cripple a publication.
I'm quite libertarian but also against monopolies and pro trust-busting.

Some people think these two positions are at odds with each other. I happen to think it's the exact opposite. A large monopoly with complete control is not too different than the absolute control of an overbearing government -- something libertarians are quite against.
A dormant chip in Pixel 2 will soon let developers write better camera and AI apps
The cases involving intimate/sexual relations (consensual or not) are really difficult to address, and the general approach we have as the (at least nominally) secular and democratic part of the world is just crazy. Probably most allegations in most cases are true, but as it is now any male is quite open to the abuse of the general stance of the society and the law. Even being accused of something can easily ruin one's life, despite the "innocent until proven guilty" principle. If it's allowed to weaponise slander so easily, it actually hurts also whom suffer from sexual violence, reducing the credibility of their claims when they try to come out and pursue justice.
They will report it, or you will see editors and journalists leave. You see it regularly at compromised outlets.

(I do not believe in the slightest that the Washington Post is so compromised.)
I do this with cryptocurrency (ethereum and bitcoin) with what is now quite a lot of money, but I've pulled most of it out recently since this run cannot last. It will correct and people will lose lots of money. Except for that, I will warn you that what is illegal HFT on the stock exchange is now happening on the crypto exchanges. It is exceptionally challenging. Now, for my part, that's also part of the reward. But don't say I didn't warn you. You could get started pretty easily with the GDAX API, just to point you in the right direction.
The comparison with Vault is somewhat misleading.

- There are several free UIs available for Vault like https://github.com/djenriquez/vault-ui, they just aren't provided by Hashicorp

- I'm not sure what "file secrets" might refer to other than storing the contents of a file, for which Vault's CLI provides shortcuts.

- While Vault's generic k/v backend doesn't support purging expired values in order to avoid accidental data loss, there are plenty of other backends that integrate with AWS STS, Postgres, etc. to provide dynamic, short-lived credentials.

- I'm not sure how Vault doesn't support encrypted backups seeing as the data is already encrypted on disk. Take EBS snapshots or something.

- Versioning of secrets is a popular request and Hashicorp has some "vague plans" which is an improvement from "no plans." https://github.com/hashicorp/vault/issues/1364#issuecomment-...

Plus you get a full REST API, a ton of auth methods, granular access policies, etc.
Silly question perhaps, but does Bitcoin have a finite supply after all? I understand that mathematically they'll run out of hashes starting with zeros or whatever, but if they fork it once every X years, is that considered finite?
$120k is about what a good experienced generalist developer can make in London. You can up that significantly with domain expertise, or contracting.

IMO companies on the continent, outside of places like Switzerland, pay peanuts for developers. And you know what they say: pay peanuts, get monkeys. It's a bit of a head-scratcher if people with talent didn't leave. Could have an impact on that innovation, too.
The idea, as phrased, makes no sense [to me].

However, the thing I think you want to do...

Well, do it.

Start ACME Ultra-Automation Inc., hand out shares, and sell widgets.

-----

edit: In case it's not clear, I'm serious. I want to do this, and would, but I lack hustle.
Bitcoin's trading volume (and implicitly order book) is already bigger (impl. deeper) than stocks with comparable market capitalization, eg:

BTC: $160B market cap, ~$5B traded/day

INTC: $200B market cap, ~$1B traded/day

So if there was panic selling of INTC, the stock would presumably dive deeper and lower than a panic sale of BTC...
I think its relevant to post that, it does give an idea of the mentality behind the source. Shitpics might be juvenile but after looking at them it is not a bad description.
Bitcoin let's you send peer to peer payments online without going through a financial institution; that's what the whitepaper says it was designed to do, and that is what it does. We can all agree on that. I think everyone can also agree that there is some utility in that capability.

The question now becomes, what is the relationship between that utility and the quantity of bitcoin owned? I think the answer is clear: there is none, and based on that, I think it's safe to conclude that this gigantic rally based on a desire to own bitcoin is very likely a bubble.
The FBI/NSA/Police won't let those cases get to this point.

Every time a case with an innocent starts winding through, the government drops the case, after having caused much grief to the innocent in question, rather than risk having their surveillance powers curtailed.
> Violence? [...] That is the difference between a first world country and a second or third.

"Third-world" doesn't mean what you think it means. Switzerland is a third-world country.
Triple-entry is the intellectual idea that blockchain enables as a technology. It refers to the idea of cryptographically authenticating entries in a ledger, which makes double-entry accounting scale in terms of the auditing costs.

Currently business owners keep track of whether they are making or losing money by entering each transaction into a spreadsheet (or something similar), as per the rules of double-entry accounting. But each of those entries needs to get audited by a human third-party, which costs money. With blockchain much of the auditing work gets pushed onto computers, so you can audit trillions of rows for the same cost as auditing a few thousand spreadsheet rows without blockchain.

This means you can create more complex types of businesses. In practice, it means you can create businesses where the incentives of the stakeholders are aligned in more efficient ways.
This doesn't mean anything.

Which ethics? Which morals? Yours?
> That's pretty weak one, which basically boils down to "no blocking, no arbitrary discrimination", and explicitly allowed "reasonable network management".

That doesn't differ much from the 2015 one, which basically boiled down to:

• No blocking,

• No throttling,

• No paid prioritization,

• Explicitly allows "reasonable network management".

The 2015 Order was for the most part essentially a reimplementation of the 2010 Order using Title II authority instead of Section 706 authority, because the problem the courts had with the 2010 Order was that they said it went beyond what Section 706 allowed.

Here is a copy of the 2015 Order [1]. The actual rules are on pages 283-290.

https://www.scribd.com/document/258492433/Full-net-neutralit...
I recently started working as a associate full-time at a large warehouse in US. I have a college degree and have worked as a junior Front End Developer in the past but my work permit expires next year so I stopped looking for a "real" job. I can answer any questions you guys might have as I don't thing there are any warehouse associates to answer directly in this thread.
This sounds somewhat like "Privatizing Social Security" that was a big topic under George W Bush. The part of your taxes that go toward Social Security would instead go into something like an IRA that is restricted to only buy relatively safe things like diversified funds.

It's not quite the same but there is extensive existing material to cherry-pick ideas from. E.g. https://socialsecurity.procon.org/
An employee was outed but it sounds like these employees were disposable to begin with.
If you want high quality olive oil, your choices are either American or Spanish. Italian olive oil (at least, the exports) are garbage and probably 49% Not Olive Oil.

I bought Italian EVOO for the longest time (it's all most super markets carried), but never understood why so many people loved to eat it over pasta, or said you shouldn't fry with it. I always thought the flavor was kind of neutral and always pan-fried it without issue. Then I learned about the wide-spread fraud in the Italian EVOO market[0] and decided to pick up some expensive ($9 a cup) Californian EVOO.

The difference in flavor was so stark, like comparing a steak and an all-beef hot dog. Good EVOO has a wonderful, vibrant flavor. Now we eat pasta with just EVOO and cheese pretty often. I also discovered that when you stir fry with good EVOO, it will take on a bitter, burnt flavor.

[0]https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393070212/ref=as_li_ss_tl...
This doesn't touch on a potentially even bigger barrier to adoption of better mental health care: that those who benefit from better mental health care often aren't the people paying for it, and that it is really really hard to measure the specific financial benefits of improving mental health in a way that will convince payers / employers / government to actually put real money on the line
This comment astounds me. I'm an engineer as well, and while I get the logic that you're presenting here, I can't help but squirm at the thought of someone else managing my money.

In fact, it's something I just do not understand at all. The idea of giving my money to a complete stranger and entrusting them with years of my hard work is nuts to me. If people just read a bit about finance and managed their own money (in ETFs, your pick of Mutual Funds, REITs, Bonds etc) it would avoid so many headaches for people.
If they want Bitcoin more than dollars, they could also offer discounts on people paying with Bitcoins. Doesn't need to be binary.
With the current explosion of neoliberal and libertarian extremists UBI is nearly impossible to pull off in this country, but hats off for trying. There has to be some value in at least trying something.

It's everything they hate, stealing money from their worshiped 'supermen job creators' to give unearned handouts to 'lazy others'. These ideologues care about 'society' only in as much as facilitating 'great individuals'.

The kind of hate campaign that will be launched to stop this in its tracks if it becomes anything more than wide-eyed utopianism will be unparalleled in history. Any so called experiments will be sabotaged with prejudice and fail.
On a completely serious note, I am happy to pay 1 or more developers to help me create a bitcoin fork. why not?
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10003400-the-net-delusio...
I really, really wish more professors had provided slides up front; many don't change them year to year anyway, and it would have helped immensely to prepare for the lecture and be more actively engaged. Syllabi are helpful, but even these days I insist on having at least a purpose if not a full blown agenda for meetings, otherwise what's the point?
The LA Times showed Disney plenty of integrity and determination, and at least one writer from WaPo supported them in that. I'd expect the larger organization to show a similar level of integrity.
Thought I'd mention yours.org [1] which has multiple ways of monetizing content. With micropayments it's much more feasible to support this type of model. See their FAQ for more info [2].

[1] https://www.yours.org/

[2] https://www.yours.org/faq/
At least gold has some practical uses (i.e. In electronics). So if people gave up on the idea of holding gold for the sake of holding gold, it would still have some residual value.

Bitcoin, however, seems to have no practical uses whatsoever.