skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I remember reading that the Germans were supposed to sing the Horst Wessel Lied, Nazi Germany’s unofficial anthem, but in that case, the studio would have had to pay royalties to the Nazis. So instead they chose Die Wacht am Rhein, which is apparently royalty free...
Most definitely there was a very good video about lead engineer (I think) talking in front of a hexagon spy satellite from the 1970s a lot of the information on it is declassified now, but he did say that the resolution on them still was and all he could say was that in the 1970s "I could read a newspaper on a table" and that's all he'd say on the matter.
imagine how far technology has come along since then

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtmtYlcPYYA The video.
> which would never be considered by ... a superhuman

How would you know?
Sigh... "You just had to go the basement bathroom past the sign that says beware of the leopard!" (To misquote Douglas Adams). I had to have a friend tell me that there's seamless transfer between yhr 2 systems, if they really wanted to let you know they would've had this trading capability as no. 4 in their "Getting Started"..
Actually it's pretty easy, just take the die size and punch it in to the 300mm wafer calculator, estimate the yield, use the going estimate for TSMC wafers, and you have your number (very accurate also).
Part of the irony around bitcoin is that some of the early users of Bitcoin are from the Occupy Wall Street movement. We all remember hearing them request donations via btc, people giving thousands of btc for them to buy pizzas.

I think (entirely without proof) it's likely that many of these organisers were/are holding large quantities of bitcoins themselves and have become unwitting millionaires.

I haven't heard anybody mention this before, but I'm very curious to know if this bears any grain of truth. If the people who led rallies against the top 1% suddenly find themselves deep inside that 1% tail.
Ask HN: How to make sure I'm able to use future life extension tech?
Hypothetical example: It's 2030, a new anti aging tech adds 30 years to lifespan, but it only works in people with really healthy livers.
Based on what we know today about likely anti aging tech, are there certain things we should do or avoid doing today to be able to take Max advantage of any breakthroughs that are hopefully soon to arrive?
Maybe some clarificatio on that: While it's true that heroin is distributed to hardcore addicts (at cost and paid by health insurance) it is in no way readily dispensed.

The conditions to enter those programs are rather strict. Depending on age, attempts to kick the habit and other factors.

That said. I'd say that the program is very successful for two main reasons:

It massively raises the health of the addicts and lets them actually conduct a normal life despite being addicted.

It also totally changed the image of the drug from something around hero mystique (as it had in the 80s and partially 90s) to a total loser drug. While there certainly still is a problem for a lot of addicts uptake has seriously declined.
I'd wager the same would not be true if that $5 saved after income tax represented 30 minutes or more of work on the job. Sure you might not refill the bottle but empty reusable bottle sowed become more common/affordable everywhere, and plenty of poorer people would definitely recycle. You're just a single person, if you're talking about policy you need to look at the total impact
I plugged it in and followed the simple set-up instructions. The process was interrupted because my device required an update.

No surprises there but the update process descended into a continuous loop farce that didn't look like it was ever going to end.

So I put everything back in its box with the intention to try again at some point in future; 2 years later it is still there.

The price was not so high that it warranted an instant return; I intended to have another go when I had more time - just never got around to it.

So yeah, it was expensive in this respect. Maybe I should have persisted but I value my time and don't see why I should waste it on small issues like this.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chromecast+udate+problem

I noticed amazon offered a better option actually with a LAN connection instead of wi-fi so I opted for this knowing that sending it straight back wouldn't be a problem, if it came to it.

I bought the Chromecast from another UK retailer where a refund would involve a lot more effort..
ESCORT SOFIA – ESCORTS – ESCORT ATHENS – ESCORTS ATHENS
>except no news site has any confirmed specs.

Because there IS no news. This is not news. This is an announcement to announce that the actual announcement is tomorrow.
Ask any GM.
Isn't that the default, with no other arguments?
Are my eyes failing me?

> C++17 includes the following new language features:

> ...

> utf-8 character literals

> ...

> char x = u8'x';
Let's break this down and consider things carefully. To informed researchers, what is most surprising here is not that the AlphaGo Zero algorithm beat stockfish but that MCTS managed to outperform Alpha-beta search. I'll venture a hypothesis as to why this was.

Informed skepticism would have discounted MCTS against alpha-beta search but wouldn't have put much stock into the idea that Neural Networks couldn't learn better features than what has been painstakingly handcrafted. We know that given sufficient data and an appropriate architecture, neural nets have achieved better local minima than humans. This shouldn't be surprising anymore. A structurally adapted searcher will always do better in its adapted to domain. A Cat is so good at being a cat, it doesn't even have to think about how to cat. Choice of optimization method, input pre-processing, loss function, hyper-parameters and architecture together define a search space, a structural prior and how to navigate.

Returning to alpha-beta vs MCTS, my view is that earlier work on the chess search space being ill-suited to MCTS has not been invalidated once you account for the synergy between the neural net and search method brought about by the imitation learning approach. What might be happening here is the neural net not only learns to correct when it goes out of bounds, it also learns to account for missteps of MCTS!

The AlphaGo Zero Chess Program is clearly smarter than stockfish from the perspective of its ability to better navigate the search space but before talking about fire alarms there are some things to note.

Assuming the paper, AlphaGo zero does well if you hold compute fixed and adjust time, but how does it do as you move along both compute and time? This is of relevance to the general community, especially if AlphaGoZero skill degrades gracefully enough to allow it to be a better tutor than current engines.

Contrary to the no fire alarm claim, we should see sudden improvements everywhere due to how close joint, structured prediction, reinforcement and imitation learning are to each other. Unexpected improvement across a broad class of problems is a fire alarm. Right now, POMDP or games with hidden information and multiple interacting agents are still very difficult. Structured prediction is still difficult. Granted, this was before AGZ, but Neural Nets+MCTS had to be modified to Neural Self-Play before it could work just ok in poker-like games.

What we should take away is the power of combining searching and learning. I'll argue that what is now being called expert iteration was presaged in an antique 2006 paper [1] where Hal Daume et al discuss the power of a learning algorithm trained to imitate a search computed policy. Even with limited compute and data, you can use similar ideas under the learning to search framework. The imitation approach is what's consistently yielded great results, whether applied to neural nets or logistic regression.

[1] http://www.umiacs.umd.edu/~hal/docs/daume06searn-practice.pd...

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10994-009-510...
Beautifully stated. Makes me appreciate more the people that put themselves out there. It is definitely a hard road to speak up for things you believe in but definitely a necessity to freedom in my opinion.
Wallpaper* Bespoke and Wix for designers
Then you’re more open minded than most.

The point I was trying to get at is that when discussing a topic like “it is ok to use obviously political examples in a book about programming”, then it’s more interesting to consider what your response will be when they’re political positions different from yours. Nobody minds being “confronted” with opinions they already hold.

Note I explicitly didn’t give an example like ethnic cleansing or shooting gays. Advocating for murder isn’t political opinion in my book.
Another example of these timeless movies I think is Bringing up baby (1938) which is still hilarious.
I don’t see it in my database, and it’s never been played on Lichess, even in bullet games.
Why would they go to DDG instead of directly to the source (Bing)?
Why in the world was this downvoted?
Finland celebrates 100 years of independence
Are there good estimates of the amount of bitcoin lost every year due to carelessness? Based on many anecdotes like this, I fear it's pretty large.

Bitcoin was supposed to be slightly inflationary, due to mining. But if a sufficient fraction is lost every year due to hardware failures and forgotten passwords, it will end up being deflationary. Someday (around log(1e6)/log(1+x) years from now, where x is the fraction lost every year), there'll be only 21 bitcoins left in the world, trading either at 0 or a number with 3 or 4 commas.

[edit: fixed in/de-flation mixup]
To be fair, if I'd been writing about PL/SQL - which is possibly the worst language ever conceived - for as long as that author had, I think I might start to go a little mad with the examples after a while as well.
That doesn't explain Portugal.
My main objection to the examples he gives is that a book about technology leaves little to no space to expand on these matters. I think that providing context is of utter importance in written media. In some sense, the author exerts control over the reader, as reading is all about internalising the author's thoughts, and does not give the opportunity to (immediately) ask questions. Just stating (hidden) opinions about things that are off-topic, abuses the trust that a reader puts into the author. Correspondingly, such examples borderline on being rude and are likely to result in strong reactions when discovered.

A well-balanced treatise on something that traces the author's line of thought gives the reader the opportunity to consider his own opinion in the light of the information that is being presented. However, as I wrote above, a book about technology is not the right place for an excursion into the history of war-crimes, and a technology author would first have to convince the reader that he is actually eligible to talk about these matters.

Still, and as I already wrote in some child comment, the author is correct that current technology-books often contain a "hidden" agenda (software being framed as something that primarily satisfies commercial or business interests), and it is also correct that democracies should more openly embrace discussion on polarising topics instead of tabooing it. I would argue that these two issues are best addressed in the following way:

a) Authors should actively think about whether examples are sufficiently neutral, e.g., talk about a database for the organisation of your "birthday party" (all people have birthdays, and many people celebrate them in one way or another) instead of talking about the database managing your companies' employees (at least if the title of your book is not "Relational Databases in Human Resources"). Note that being neutral is different from being uncontroversial. For example, when writing about cognitive neuroscience it is impossible to not (at least implicitly) state that humans are "just animals", although this statement surely upsets people's religious feelings. Yet the statement is still on-topic and neutral, since it is the very premise of this line of research.

b) Non-fictional texts are intrinsically about providing context, and deviating into the off-topic is only watering down the value of these writings. In the context of written communication, democracy is best advanced by providing opinion-pieces which are clearly labelled as such, and (in a perfect world) refer to completely unopinionated material for context. So if you want to advance democracy, embrace discussing your world view, but only when you know that your audience is ready for that (e.g. by clearly labeling your writings as such, or by making sure that your peer actually wants to talk about this topic), and back-up your claims.
I'm not sure which one I have and I'm not at home sadly. When I was having problems most was at my first apartment where I had symmetric gigabit.
Sometimes this is just to avoid spam. I setup a simple API for testing for comment-spam in real-time here:

https://blogspam.net/
Go is OK, but it was a bit mean of the authors to hijack an existing name for a programming language.

This was the pre-existing language:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go!_(programming_language)

Google reacted to the criticism saying there are many products named Go. Well... that's a 2-way street. If there are many products called Go then why picking that name in particular?
I think that post greatly undersells the potential energy production of nuclear fusion. It tries to discount that potential by noting that however you go about it, if you want to produce more energy than the sun, on the surface of the Earth, then the average temperature of the Earths surface must exceed that of the suns surface.

But this is not a problem- it's well known that nuclear fusion reactors on Earth would burn much hotter than the temperature at the sun's surface. The average temperature of the Earths surface can exceed the average of the suns surface no problem, as long as much of that is concentrated in small areas- namely, the spaces occupied by the reactors!
Easy deployment with Vagrant
This is an important point; making a drug illegal can sometimes lead to people seeking out more dangerous drugs that are legal to use instead. Bath salts (the drugs, not actual bath salts) are a good example - a large part of their popularity they weren't illegal at the federal level until 2012.
Yes, great catch! Perhaps Tom said "3 weeks" to Dick, Dick said "4 months" to Harry, and Harry said "5 years" to Jane! :-)
Yes, the total supply of funds in circulation is increased by making it circulate; however, this question was about solvency. We're not expecting Tether to hold 800m in liquid reserves, but we definitely are requiring Tether to have 800m in assets (as they claim to do) and to demonstrate that it really is so.

The claims others have on you must be balanced by claims you have on others, otherwise you're defrauding your depositors; and if you want to accept money from the public, your words can't be taken at face value but need to be verified (and publicly supported) by trusted, independent external auditors.
Are there any specifications to create a flavor of Android apps to specifically target Android Go Edition (similar to the Go version of Google apps)?
I don't know about Occupy Wall Street specifically. But I do suspect that many of the Bitcoin 1% have cryptoanarchist roots. The smart ones have diversified, of course. Maybe they'll do some good. Whatever that is. It's hard to tell, anymore.
Me neither but I wonder if it's because I'm in Africa
I agree that dependency management and GOPATH are two annoyances that need to go away. GOPATH in particular is a constant pain when you work across multiple machines like I do, and feels like a mandated anachronism/catechism (your workspace must be like we want it to, and we don’t care about your own methods).

On the other hand, lack of proper vendoring, version pinning and getting random versions of libraries off GitHub makes a lot of people anxious about long-term reproducibility.

Like a peer of mine once said, “maven is forever. They don’t call things ‘artifacts’ for nothing, I can even do archeology in my dependencies”.
The BBC has another whole set of constraints on it when it comes to it's commercial services.

Other content creators and such aren't operating under royal charter, funded by a license fee that every person in the UK watching (or recording) any live tv (not just BBC) or using iPlayer is obligated to pay.

The BBC can certainly engage in commercial services, but it's balancing act will be different to most other content creators.

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/h...

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one
The Stockfish engine provided by lichess on the game you linked doesn't seem to mind those moves - it has most of them in the top few lines after a few seconds of thinking time.

Qe1 and Kh1 are fine if the plan is to prepare f4.

35. Nc4 stuck around at the #2 / #3 best move for as long as I ran that position.

Remember the Stockfish in the paper had 64 cores so you'd have to run your Stockfish for a while to get it to arrive at the same principle variation.
Or could be cancer is not detected as well in Mexico before death or in autopsies. And perhaps Denmark is much better at that.
It would be a trivial fork to increase the amount that each bitcoin can be subdivided by, so if the currency does inflate a lot, liquidity can still be maintained.
They have every incentive to ensure the highest security possible. Their entire business model and most of their revenue is predicated on consumers and businesses moving not just some, but all of their data, straight over to Google's custody and control. Indeed, it damn well had better be secure.

But I think they're compromised by those same business models. Google wants to provide intelligence, and probably more important to them, marketing data. This requires that the consumer is an open book to them, and their business decisions incorporate that. Up until recently, they were actively scanning email for marketing insights. In addition, Google's operating complexity, both business and technical, increases the opportunity for failure. And their other business objectives compromise their security work. That's glaringly apparent for their Android platform. There's more surface. And in a Google world, the email account grants direct access to everything — location data, purchasing history, passwords, documents... everything.

For another dedicated email provider, what they have to protect is also simpler. There are fewer moving parts. There's less to protect, which means that there don't need to be as many engineers. That means a careful and well thought out email provider /can/ be as secure, by carefully limiting their exposure, doing one thing, and doing it well.

There's something to be said for careful application of open standards and open source software, a smaller and more responsive team, and not building a massive single point of failure. I am a current Fastmail customer, and hope to remain, depending on the outcome of this review.
You should add "on a mobile device or small screen."

On a large display, 720p is soft. Even with sharpening, the detail isn't there.
If I leave Stockfish to study for longer then Qe1 comes up in the analysis. Which makes me wonder whether SF gets weaker in some positions the more it's left to think.
Technically speaking, a cat can continue to be an expense either directly or transitively, possibly forever, as long as the cat is fertile, has a fertile mating partner in reproductive age, and recursively produces successive generations of descendants, each one consisting of at least one live-birth of fertile cats surviving to reproductive age that you agree to be economically responsible of.

This duration would have an upper bound equal the minimum between your own lifespan and the ownership period of the cat(s).
Ask HN: Is cloud security a valid field to specialise in? How?
I'm a backend/cloud dev (AWS and starting with Salesforce) who wants to specialise and consult.

Is cloud security a promising field? I don't have the security credentials yet but since most of my experience is backend and cloud, focussing on security aspect seems the smoothest path for me.

From a personal perspective, I'm very interested in privacy and things like GDPR. Is that something companies would be interested in?

btw I'm in my mid 40s.

Any pointers highly appreciated, thanks
Some of us do. There is currently a group of committee members working on text handling. See http://wg21.link/p0244 and https://github.com/tzlaine/text for some future work in that direction.
The idea that it is a binary choice is a false one. The two parties will drone on about how other candidates are "spoilers" who only benefit who you see as the worse choice. That's nonsense, your vote should go towards who you think represents your interests best.

Yes, that vision ultimately needs more than just a third party win. The system itself is broken. It's still a better choice.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about various industrial wastes to comment on environmental issues. If that's what you see as the most important issue, why would you vote anything but Green? That's been a core of their platform for fourty years.
And that's why i never put passwords or other keys on data that I need to keep safe (as in an archive e.g.).

The chances of me messing something up and losing it forever is bigger then the chance of somebody actually steeling it.
Exactly! Which is why currently in Go rolling a container is "impossible." (it requires templates, as you showed with your Vec amd sort examples....something missing from the language.). It's very clear.
Not only he does that, he also explains the debug procedure like we're 5 years old. I'm so impressed.
It is thousand times better than getting shot in the street like dogs. It is this mentality which encourages 'strong' leaders who screw the general public left right and center.
Great to see some sanity among all these comments!
I don’t mind paying higher taxes if society as a whole benefits. The good people of California vote for taxe increases all the time for things like better schools or improved infrastructure.

If my taxes were going up to pay for something like single payer, I wouldn’t complain for one minute. However, in this instance, my taxes are going up to increase Ivanka Trump’s inheritance when that stuttering idiot father of hers dies. That’s some bullshit.
Yeah that's right. I think this might say more about the efficacy of chess engines over a certain point vs human analysis rather than the 'bullshit' I called.

I'd certainly fancy my chances against this AI more than Stockfish on a lower power.