skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
From what I've seen I came to this conclusion (further input from HN readers gladly accepted, maybe I got something wrong):

It seems that yesterday at around 01:00 UTC, someone with a huge amount of cash on GDAX started a buying bot, which bought BTC in small increments every second or so at market price. Judging by the GDAX volume in comparison to normal volume and an estimated average price, I'd say this person bought about 50-60k BTC for around 800-900 million dollars. Shortly after this buying activity started, the Bitcoin network mempool got clogged by transactions - and it doesn't seem like spam, but more like legitimate transactions with fees attached that would normally go through in an acceptable timeframe. I'm pretty sure this is people realizing that GDAX is the place to sell right now, thus they're trying to move BTC from other exchanges and from cold storage onto that exchange. However, most of them likely didn't get there in time, but the buying bot apparently had no upper price limit and just continued buying its way through the order books, until finally arriving at 19,6k$, when someone apparently hit CTRL-C.

During that time, the price on GDAX and all other exchanges decoupled, as arbers probably gave up on arbing (guess they ran out of coins or cash respectively and weren't able to interchange the funds between the exchanges, just like all the sellers). Even the Koreans, which usually are paying a large premium with regard to Western exchanges, almost lost all of their premium over GDAX for a few minutes.

I have only one idea who could have caused this: a single person or entity trying to load up on huge amounts of coins, planning to use them with corresponding orders on the upcoming futures markets. They probably got surprised with the CBOE announcement of starting futures even a week earlier than CME and thus had to speed up the buying plans a little, regardless of the premium they'd have to pay this way. The tricky question that remains however is: are they going to use these coins as a hedge, or are they planning on dumping them to do the inverse of what they just did (artifically lowering the market price, so their shorts on the futures markets earn them way more than they lose on the BTC exchanges)?

And of course: is this over now? GDAX went down and up again, and the mysterious and frequent buys at ridiculously high prices have returned as well, although the blockchain had practically no time to re-stock GDAX with coins. This person definitely doesn't care at all about the price and just wants to load up on any coins it can get really, really quick.
Five percent is fine for what they're doing (it's not trivial). But this assessment is pretty messed up.
Have you tried going to a different doctor?
There was another add-on called Toolbar Autohide that used to hide the Toolbar + Addressbar and worked like a charm.

You could set the sensitivity, height and other tweaks to control the collapsing of the hidden bars.

Using undecorated windows, that left me with nothing but a window of the web page. No addressbar, no tab bar but available at a quick mouseover.

I hope there's some way of achieving this in FF Quantum.

I already have the TST plugin with the F1 key toggle and hidden tab bar.
77 year old retiree proves anything can be done in Excel including beautiful art
Pretty well. There are several active research groups working with AI/ML for materials science research. Since you asked about AlphaZero, here is an article directly about the DeepMind guys working on this problem: https://qz.com/1110469/if-deepmind-is-going-to-find-the-next...
You could leave a piece in a pot as you're making soup if you are iron deficient.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucky_iron_fish
Yep, around $70m to get it above $20k.
thats a dangerous line of thinking. along the lines of telling an investor "if we just get 1% of this massive market, we'll be huge!"

if people decided to invest 2% of the worlds financial wealth into, say, drawings i made of million dollar bills, then my million dollar bill drawings would be worth $6 trillion. since i cant draw that fast, price would go way up

it would be incredibly hard to get 2% of all the worlds wealth. for reference, private equity as an asset class (including venture capital, growth equity, buyout funds, etc) has only like $2.5T in assets
>The only thing they get "tax free" is tuition, which they shouldn't be paying because in most cases they aren't even taking any classes.

That's my point. If you swap the $20k in my example to tuition, the economics is exactly the same. They're being charged it either way. The fact that the university is giving it "for free" allows them to pay the grad student that much less. As a result, taxable income vanishes.
The Pareto distribution more applicable in this case, since we're talking about research and scientific discovery.
Very few people do that, though. Certainly not enough for the stores to do anything about packaging.
Makes sense, but wouldn't it be cheaper to stick a motor on the light to vibrate and detach the snow/ice?
Hence “if their lawyer is also on the Lightning Network“
Considering that even my far-from-flagship phone has an eight-core processor, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12-core in the near future.
Why are all threads about Bitcoin nuked from the front page? Threads with great discussions disappear in a blink. I'm sure the same will happen to this one.
Respect the thought here, though definitely feel like we're still a ways off. That said, what resonated most with me was the footnote:

"I believe attention hacking is going to be the sugar epidemic of this generation. I can feel the changes in my own life — I can still wistfully remember when I had an attention span. My friends’ young children don’t even know that’s something they should miss. I am angry and unhappy more often, but I channel it into productive change less often, instead chasing the dual dopamine hits of likes and outrage."

Further underscores for us as a society to find time to step away from technology and experience the "world" (nature, art, human interaction, etc.).
The cybernetics movement has always sat uneasy with me.I don't see how a full transition to improvements in the physical plane will help human beings who are primarily intuitive, feeling beings. We are already disconnected from our bodies, now why would we continue to attempt to augment our minds and limbs with machine parts. I don't want to be a machine, I love my brain. My brain has emergent properties far more complex than any machine, and even if we could build computers that mimicked the brain or parts of the brain, I would like to keep my own. There is no other brain exactly like mine. My brain took millions of fucking years to create-- it's amazing that I'm alive. Machines are not alive. One could attribute a small amount of consciousness to them, if one were especially philosophically inclined, but still machines seem anti-thetical to the way we exist that it seems so wrong to develop towards "merging" with them. I have no trouble using a machine to facilitate the communication and visualization of my ideas, but this thing will not become a part of me.
The books are on https://www.gdax.com/, Coinbase's exchange intended for big trades. Coinbase is more of a consumer retail site. I assume the latter is what is going down, but it's hard to tell as they both seem fine at the moment.
1. The key UV for vitamin D production by our skin are UVB rays, optimal between 10am and 2pm, except in the winter at 40+ latitude when the rays travel longer through the atmosphere due to the low solar angle. For instance in Washington state your skin cannot produce vitamin D from November to February.

2. UVB do pass through clouds. (But not through glass windows.)

3. Arms and face exposure are sufficient if you spend 10, 20, or 30 minutes a day depending on UV index of the day (the higher the UV index the less time you need to trigger vitamin D production) and on your skin color. There is some kind of "reservoir" effect that limits production of vitamin D to a maximum, so sun exposure time beyond the above does not have any benefit in terms of vitamin D production.
Both map-reduce and for-loop are idioms. That is, they are things that one fluent in the language should be able to read at a glance. I suspect that dvt has more experience with languages where the for-loop is the standard idiom.

And in fact, many languages have only one or the other as a standard idiom. So it's really pretty simple: Use the one that's a standard idiom in the language that you're using.

Your language offers both? It's still pretty simple: Use the one that's better understood by the people that you're working with.

They understand both? The project still probably leans one way or the other. Prefer the one that is more commonly used in the project. Projects wind up using subsets of languages; using things outside the subset, while valid, looks "odd" within the project.

It's all about minimizing the cognitive load on the reader. It's not about what the writer prefers.
> big money institutions are testing pump and dumps for when short contracts come into play

Big-money institutions won't do this. Random individuals taking advantage of the fact that lots of value rides on relatively little volume? Much more likely. Combined with the fact that the exchanges, intentionally or unintentionally, lock liquidity when volatility spikes and it's 1907 all over again.
Here: https://gumroad.com/storyboards

For now these are mostly focused on film ratios and storyboards but there are plenty more in the drawers.
“People can reduce essential shelter and some other expenses and increase their free cash flow by choosing to love together” isn't a problem; it's just a basic fact that is as true without UBI as with it, which encourages expense sharing and group living arrangements, especially among the less wealthy.
It may actually go up higher than that, markets tend to over-react to large investments.

At these scales moving that much money around is not as simple as subtracting a number from one set of ledgers and putting it into another.
This is exactly my question. What happens when these exchanges face the inevitable panic/bank run?
On the 10th bitcoin will be listed on the chicaco exchange. This is the reason for the price swing lately.
I prefer Amazon Dog. Then you get all of the benefits of a real dog, but it lives in the cloud.
Thanks for the reminder, I forgot to add the sarcasm tag. Added now.
I was just like the pictures with pretty colors and buttons.
My personal Nova was much uglier: https://www.flickr.com/photos/timonoko/102552851/in/album-72...
Yes. but, his line of reasoning explains what everyone else is probably thinking.
Tinfoil hat off!

Shouldn't an exchange be able to handle volume? Seems like a basic requirement.

Regardless, I still believe that with the introduction of shorts, were going to see bigger swings.
> pre-Exchange Act history

I googled this but couldn't find anything relevant. Can you give some background/context?
by what means will a cancer research bot take over the world? it doesn't matter how smart you are if you don't have the necessary means to do something. i think it's a fantasy, something that people who imagine themselves to be very intelligent have latched onto-- the idea that their best quality is the best quality.
I'm super pro singularity. I've been watching what I think will be the key to that next step of growth: Decentralized AI.

Using the blockchain for decentralized access to distributed machine learning models and creating a heterogenous network of autonomous agents that can collaborate, learn, and grow will be huge. One of the companies I see doing that right now is https://synapse.ai/ and it's pretty epic if you dig into their yellow paper.

When we start building a global brain where everyone can contribute, then we'll really start seeing what the future can hold.
Pity. The underlying Nacl/PNacl technology is eons ahead of wasm, with better, if not equivalent security. It even had simd support!
> Roughly 1000x slower?

Not really. A modern Coffee Lake i7 has several distinct advantages over GPUs. (AMD Ryzen also has similar advantages, but I'm gonna focus on Coffee Lake)

1. AVX2 (256-bit SIMD), for 32-bit ints / floats that's 8 operations per cycle. AVX512 exists (16 operations per cycle) but it its only on Server architectures. Also, AVX512 has... issues... with the superscaling point#2 below. So I'm assuming AVX2 / 256-bit SIMD.

2. Superscalar execution: Every Skylake i7 (and Coffee Lake by extension) has THREE AVX ports (Port0, Port1, and Port5). We're now up to 24-operations per cycle in fully optimized code... although Skylake AVX2 can only do 16 Fused-multiply-adds at a time per core.

3. Intel machines run at 4GHz or so, maybe 3GHz for some of the really high core-count models. GPUs only run at 1.6GHz or so. This effectively gives a 2x to 2.5x multiplier.

So realistically, an Intel Coffee Lake core at full speed is roughly equivalent to 32 GPU "cores". (8x from AVX2 SIMD, x2 or x3 from Superscalar, and x2 from clock speed). If we compare like-with-like, a $1000 Nvidia Titan X (Pascal) has 3584 cores. While a $1000 Intel i9-7900 Skylake has 10 CPU cores (each of which can perform as well as 32-NVidia cores in Fused MultiplyAdd FLOPs).

i9-7900 Skylake is maybe 10x slower than an Nvidia Titan X when both are pushed to their limits. At least, on paper.

And remember: CPUs can "act" like a GPU by using SIMD instructions such as AVX2. GPUs cannot act like a CPU with regards to latency-bound tasks. So the CPU / GPU split is way closer than what most people would expect.

-------------

A major advantage GPUs have is their "Shared" memory (in CUDA) or "LDS" memory (in OpenCL). CPUs have a rough equivalent in L1 Cache, but GPUs also have L1 cache to work with. Based on what I've seen, GPU "cores" can all access Shared / LDS memory every clock (if optimized perfectly: perfectly coalesced accesses across memory-channels and whatever. Not easy to do, but its possible).

But Intel Cores can only do ~2 accesses per clock to their L1 cache.

GPUs can execute atomic operations on the Shared / LDS memory extremely efficiently. So coordination and synchronization of "threads", as well as memory-movements to-and-from this shared region is significantly faster than anything the CPU can hope to accomplish.

A second major advantage is that GPUs often use GDDR5 or GDDR5x (or even HBM), which is superior main-memory. The Titan X has 480 GB/s (that's "big" B, bytes) of main memory bandwidth.

A quad-channel i9-7900 Skylake will only get ~82 GB/second when equipped with 4x DDR4-3200MHz ram.

GPUs have a memory-advantage that CPUs cannot hope to beat. And IMO, that's where their major practicality lies. The GPU architecture has a way harder memory model to program for, but its way more efficient to execute.
They can bundle the charges to the patrons to reduce cost to themselves, while still charging fees as if they were making individual transactions.

I’m inclined to believe they’re already doing this.
Which got its own studio recording, which was maybe not an improvement: https://www.reverbnation.com/heathallyn/song/27160680-ai-chr...
Some people definitely are selling, it's not like we're seeing new BTC come from thin air for all these buyers (assuming they're getting BTC on their private wallets instead of an IOU that might not be covered with real BTC)

However, at the moment there's a lot of willingness to buy and little willingness to sell, and that's why the price is rising.
Bitcoin Soars to Almost $20,000 on Coinbase Exchange
While I agree with you that the amount of users probably raised a lot to the point were servers are stressed out, there's something slightly off with the data you present: the latest entries are actually smaller percentage moves.

Here is the same data with (approximated) percentage moves:

$0000 - $1000: 1789 days

+100% ($2000): 1271 days

+50% ($3000): 23 days

+33% ($4000): 62 days

+25% ($5000): 61 days

+20% ($6000): 8 days

+16% ($7000): 13 days

+14% ($8000): 14 days

+12.5% ($9000): 9 days

+11% ($10000): 2 days

+10% ($11000): 1 day

+9% ($12000): 6 days

+8% ($13000): 17 hours

+7.5% ($14000): 4 hours

+7% ($15000): 10 hours

+6.5% ($16000): 5 hours

+6.25% ($17000): 2 hours

+5.8% ($18000): 10 minutes

+5.5% ($19000): 3 minutes

Anyway, it's more the volume that is of importance here than the price when it happens.
"Art of Charm" - Used to be just about dating but now its a lifestyle podcast that involves interviewing many different people from different fields. Love their content and been listening for years.
Setting themselves up for a fall with all the recent rules and fees they're adding.
How early founders should decide on their own salary
Imagine a computer with a simple brute force algorithm but unlimited computing power. It would win 100:0 against AZ.

Would the grandmasters look at the games and say "Yes, it won every time but it's style is rather clumsy"?
Is there a viable alternative to Patreon?
Evgeny Morozov – Tech's dark prophet
Clearly it isn't a basic requirement because they exist without being able to handle volume.
UVB rays do pass through clouds.
That rule is not clear ownership. That rule is implied ownership and goes against modern C++ practices.

If I give something a raw pointer, I don't expect ownership to be taken over by that something.

```
auto window_ptr = new QWindow();
auto field_ptr = new QTextEdit(window_ptr);
```

First, requiring the use of `new` is bad practice in modern C++.

Second, passing ownership of `field_ptr` to `window_ptr` is unclear. Because I called `new`, I expect that I need to call `delete`.

```
delete field_ptr;
delete window_ptr;
```
Ooops... now I have a double-free!

I understand that Qt has been around since long before pointer ownership semantics were defined. But pointer semantics have been around for quite a long time now. The Qt Company really needs to modernize. Even if they don't want to use `std::unique_ptr` or `std::shared_ptr`, they can create their own (hopefully easily compatible) `QInstance` and `QSharedInstance` or something similar.

The raw pointers everywhere and lack of clear ownership is, in my opinion, a barrier to entry. I myself am pretty timid to use Qt because of it and I've got 10+ years of C++ experience.
It seems unlikely we will have any sort of effective governance for this (look at our current political system). At some point someone will invent AI that lets them gain an extreme advantage of some kind (financial, political or military). This accelerates current inequality and leads to revolution. Post revolution a new AI is created to manage earths resources for the benefit of all. Whatever AI is created will be flawed somehow and will eventually cause great damage to the human race. Alternative AIs will be created to improve or combat the incumbent AI and a sort of evolution of AIs will occur. Although AIs originally were created to optimize for the human race, survival of the fittest leads to AIs exploiting loopholes in their objective functions to find ways to replicate and hoard resources for their own survival. Humans will still be accomodated to some degree, but in more and more unnatural and distorted ways.
Good point. I'll attempt this tomorrow if this doesn't get picked up organically today.
Ah oh! Time to add backdoors for NSA
The Tab Groups functionality (later moved to an addon) and currently not supported in FF Quantum was better than just tabs. Made things much more manageable.

'Ctrl + Shift + E' and you would get a thumbnail view of all open tabs. Worked great while it lasted.
Moving parts are typically a very vulnerable point of failure. Traffic lights must have high uptime and require low maintenance.
No, No, No! Conspiracy theories attract attention because they make the world seem more legible, when it's not. In this case, exchanges are not being attacked by shadowy corporations for short contracts.

Attention from price surges increases visitor traffic, and exchanges are understaffed or unprepared for the 10-100x increase in traffic volume. There's no need for complicated stories, evil corporations, or any of that nonsense. Stick with straightforward cause and effect.
Plausible. Shitty, but plausible. If you're right, I'll be pulling every pledge I have immediately and telling every campaign that I'll happily return once they leave.

I guess I'll find out next time they run and I can count number of charges.
California Dams: Daily Status
Bitcoin has the same issue as gold in that regard: it's not that easy to hold it securely both from third party attackers and from your own stupidity. You can encrypt everything behind a password, but what if you forget that password? So you write it down somewhere, but then what if this somewhere is stolen? How do you handle sudden death, or loss of memory? You can also leave all your crypto currencies to a third party, but do you really trust that third party?

These problems are mostly solved for "us", on hacker news. You might even say that it's easy to solve. Yet the status quo for anything digital around me is "hello123" as a password, and panic when having to re-enter the gmail password on that new iDevice because it has long been forgotten and neither "hello123" nor "hello321" worked.
Your Search questions, answered selfie-style
Ayn Rand style capitalism wouldn't allow the "heads I win tails you lose style" of capitalism we're living under today, which is by far one of the biggest problems.

It would also eliminate a lot of the unnecessary laws that benefit those who hold power (selective enforcement, tying smaller players in red tape, etc). It does benefit monopolies though, that could be fixed with fairly enforced regulation, which granted would be contrary to her beliefs afaik.

Most people who criticize Rand don't know very much about her philosophy in my experience.
The United States overhauled its regulation of securities exchanges, broker-dealers and other intermediaries in 1934 [1]. Before that, it was not uncommon for random exchanges to (a) run away with peoples' money while claiming they went bankrupt, (b) actually go bankrupt, and (c) leave small investors stranded while big ones cashed out. In other words, all the market dysfunction the cryptocurrency markets took half a decade of unsupervised activity to re-invent.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Exchange_Act_of_193...
Improve your command-line Go application with promptui
> triple digits

Is this referring to $ or %?
I don't care. I'm neither american nor interested in american gun culture. I'm just pointing out that it is simply false that citizens with guns can not have any impact.
How to speed up Ethereum in the face of Crypto-Kitties
Escape vs. BOSH, Chef, Ansible, Puppet, Salt, Terraform, Packer, Helm, Apt,
What institutional investor is going to put 1% into Bitcoin?
I agree, so putting this together from the parent's info:

$0000 - $1000: 1789 days

$1000- $2000: 1271 days

$2000- $4000: 85 days

$4000- $8000: 96 days

$8000- $19000: 20 days

Edit: Even on a logarithmic scale, bitcoin is experiencing exponential growth.
Look at the example here and make up your mind on your own: http://qmlbook.github.io/en/ch04/index.html
I don't think you need active learning to get results like this, just decent statistical analysis. There are parallels here with distributed query planning.
I have been trying to move some money off Kraken with no luck today. Can't withdraw. It says:

Feature Disabled
This feature is not currently available.

And the site is awful slow with intermittent Cloudflare error pages.
Yawn....where have I heard this before.
This--and just about everything else about BTC--makes me question the sustainability of this currency. I think a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money when this all comes tumbling down.

That said, I also had similar feelings when the price was at $1000. Maybe I'm just regretting selling those Bitcoins I had when they were only worth $10 each.
People should be mindful of the sample size they're dealing with when making predictions based on the history of civilizations.