skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You really shouldn't be surprised, at this point, by Coinbase going down during times of high activity. It happened on November 29th (when, in fairness, everyone was going down), and happened four times last June, which should have been their canary-in-a-coal mine.
Not much. 1% of asset allocation for an institutional investor is enough for that.

EDIT: You currently need $70m to bump the market above 20k on GDAX. That's a lot for retail investors but not much if institutional investors get involved.
The objective of international nuclear regulations is to avoid a small group of hotheads from wiping out humanity/most of the world’s ecosystems due to their botched experiment (and that’s giving them the benefit of the doubt, you could also imagine some crazy cult who believes that inducing a nuclear winter is the only way to heaven).

What do you think ISIS would look like in the world you describe?

So uh yeah, your argument is pretty insane?
This is already happening. For example Coinbases’s new COO is ex-Ameritrade
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin

The insane rise in the valuation of Bitcoin. How many times we have seen a currency or an asset that represents this kind of momentum? Clearly no one has seen this coming (that soon).
What we call AI is very good at pattern recognition. I haven't seen examples yet though of AI learning quickly. It can teach itself how to play chess, but it takes a very large number of attempts before it becomes good. The rate of learning for a human is still much faster than for an AI. (We just hit a plateau faster). I'd put my money on a child that has played 10 games of chess vs a computer that's learning from scratch and has played 10 games. I wonder if there have been any studies on trying to speed up the pace of learning for AI.
Calling $16k on a security that is amidst an explosive growth is hardly insightful.

“If some listened they might have made some profit” - I think you’re giving yourself too much credit here.
Many of the exchanges are down. Consensus time is very high. Would anyone have been to take their profits?
You're dead on. We've seen this in talking to companies and have gotten their input on how to properly scope + size services. We'll be publishing these insights in an upcoming chapter.
It's not. The productive (e.g. industrial or jewelry) utility of gold is about USD $80 per ounce. But the price is at over $1200 per ounce. In effect investors haven't just not been ignoring gold, they've been buying it at such a rate as to pull it away from its intrinsic uses.
the structure of the exchanges and the market make a huge difference in how trades happen. one very real example of this is happening now: many people cant make BTC trades happen, while "uptime" for the other markets you mention is virtually 100%

so the fact that BTC is crypto doesnt change anything about how trades happen, but the massive differences in market structure between crypto and established markets makes a huge difference

edit: and the fact that the difference is larger does matter. volatility is one of the core inputs of derivatives pricing, and for a derivatives market to exist, volatility must be estimable. having a derivatives market has major influence on prices and liquidity of the market for the original security. for BTC to really go mainstream, markets need to evolve
Perhaps we could build some sort of neural net that ingests AI research papers and then outputs the next big thing in AI. \s
Denying Dystopia: The Hope Police in Fact and Fiction
The neural network was only fed with games from self-play. No historical game whatsoever was given. At least that's Deepmind's claim.
Tons of Fn Data to Prometheus
"How much money needed to come into the bitcoin market for it bump from 15k to 19k?"

Almost none.

If there are just a few transactions at a price, well, we assume that is the worth of all bitcoins in existence.

Which is a crazy assumption, but hey.
And conversely, it just fell by $3,000 in 20 minutes. Why would anyone accept it for a purchase when there's a good chance it'll be worth substantially less not long after?
Automatic recognition of speed limit signs
Had to be a lot. Should have screen recorded it, but instead recorded with my phone. The order book entries and chart were going nuts. Entire sections of the book disappearing at once. The chart would go almost entirely flat several times.

Almost always you see minor movement on the order book except maybe sometimes at the actual mid point it may update a bit. The chart is almost always balanced until the past few weeks it's be HEAVILY weighed towards the sell side.

71K+ BTC had been already traded by the time it hit high 19k.
Now what would happen if Coinbase went down at a time when Bitcoin was going through a short period of decreasing value?
Similar, I put down a $1000 for a year of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Doing something like that is a lot more fun and life changing than just lifting weights at a gym.
Keep in mind, the change in $ isn't important, it's the percentage change over time and the variance.
You don't need money "coming into" to increase value of Bitcoin.

All you need is back and worth trades in th market. It can even be market manipulation where some buy and sell between themselves.

Bitcoin has massive market liquidity problem. Once people want to sell, the price drops like a stone. This is why it would be convent to have "technical problems" or do DDoS attack to prevent sells and allow markets to calm.
Give it 10 years maybe.
Good point. I tend to subscribe to Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions [0] which I think suggests that a paradigm shift comes as collective observations mount and it is eventually exhibited through a genius on the cutting edge.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Re...
> The thing is, individuals and institutions worldwide currently own around $300 trillion in financial assets.[a]

The overwhelming majority of which is productive assets. The only major non-transient holdings of non-productive assets is of gold. And that makes up about half a percent. So 2% for bitcoin, which at absolute very best is a slightly better gold, seems like a real stretch.

> Note that before Bitcoin it was impossible to diversify away from all nation-specific risks.

Gold
Indeed, but it's definitely a hardcore pay-to-win game (at least ladder definitely is).

If you play well, you get to a point where your opponents' cards are way overstatted against yours. And that's where the temptation to give in and make a purchase comes...
Bitfinex seems to be working fine. I didn't try to buy or sell though.

Edit: The layout gets funky from time to time and needs a reload though. Probably not helping if they are really being attacked.
There is a 0% chance that I turn raw iron into a plow or sword. It has _no_ intrinsic value.

If I received iron in trade for some goods/services the _only_ value it would have is as currency.
This is not access to anything. This is a static dataset.
In the grand scheme of things sure, but definitely a large influx as compared to the size of the market in Coinbase.

We're talking probably low 2-digit millions to make big moves I think.
Wow. I only have a pile of $1 pledges right now, and this will significantly increase my bill for almost no gain for the people I'm supporting.
This is a big source of existential dread for me.

At one point about a decade ago, not long after college, I had this conviction that over time with more available granular information about the world, people would start to be more epistemic [1] about how they viewed the world. In fact what I found though, was that more information seems to have led to the opposite. That people's interpretation of the same information seems to reinforce already held beliefs about the state of things rather than update their beliefs.

Not sure where that leads the zeitgeist with ever increasing barrage and availability of information, skewed or otherwise.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology
I could see that happening, but with cryptocurrency in general; it probably makes more sense to have a diversified portfolio of cryptos than just one.
That explains why channels like Ben Heck and Techmoan and GameSack have enough of a market to make a lot of content. The long tail works much better than mass media, which is one of the reasons so many of us love YT.

I don’t see why that means advertisers aren’t, in some way, endorsing the content. If anything the fact there are so many channels and the content is more specific seems like a stronger endorsement than mass media.
`unique_ptr` and `shared_ptr` semantics
Yes, two phrases meaning the same thing. ("Takes an rvalue reference" is slightly less ambiguous because by-value parameters can also in certain circumstances be move-constructed).
> Advancement in nuclear technologies was basically shut down since the 1970's

That's not true at all! Civilian nuclear power in the USA (and most of the west) has stalled out since the 70's, but nuclear technology has seen plenty of advances over the intervening time frame. See esp. modern nuclear propulsion systems. Super impressive.

Also, this isn't a problem caused exclusively or even primarily by safety regulation in the nuclear sector. The evidence is in the failure of nuclear power throughout the world, despite significant variations in safety regulations.

In fact, if you look at root cause analyses for the failure of nuclear energy, you'll find that lack of regulation is a major reason for the failure of the nuclear energy. If the FF industries had to pay for their externalities, nuclear would be extremely viable (at least in the 80s-00s; now it'd have to compete with solar and wind).

> Computer technologies were only allowed to progress so quickly because people did not think computers were dangerous.

Again, this is a pretty wild assertion... Moore's law >>>> regulatory environment. Seriously. If the output of nuclear power plants had grown exponentially for multiple decades, we'd be in nuclear-powered paradise.
Is $33m really a lot if institutional investors want to position themselves before futures become tradeable? For a $10bn hedge-fund (and there are a few of those) that's only 0.3% of assets.

EDIT: As I write this, levels with sell orders of 100BTC often get cleared in less than a second. Probably because people who would sell aren't aware where the price is now but for now, demand seems to clearly dominate.
This is interesting. Good time to be a researcher!
I am very genuinely curious how people bought bitcoin before coinbase? There was that vending machine. Or you could mine it. But how did regular folks do it?
Honestly, I don't think these exchanges can handle a lot of traffic. By a lot, I mean a few hundred trades a second. It is odd to me.
The Flights API they just killed? Custom searches, which many websites paid for, which they killed?

Google has a habit of killing things, no matter if you pay for it and your business relies on it, or not.
Something to note about the "we're on an exponential (or at least more-than-linear) increase in technology" arguments: They generally need to reach back quite a long time to sound convincing.

Yudkowsky makes two arguments about how fast technology or society is evolving: in one he chooses 500 years ago, 1517. In another, he talks about "the last 10,000 years."

In contrast, Chollet compares 1900-1950 with 1950-2000.

I agree, we've changed the world in big ways compared to 1517 or 8000 BC. But if we're on a more-than-linear increase, then we should be seeing more and more technological growth in very recent timeframes, not needing to reach back centuries or millennia.

In fact, if you consider a y = log(x) or y = sqrt(x) function, those more closely fit a narrative of "If you look back a long time, things seem almost crazily changed, but if you look into recent history, it looks slower" much better than a y = x^2 or y = e^x function.
"And as was the case with the second planet in the solar system, before its runaway greenhouse gas death, we expect to see the process repeat itself on the 4th as probes sent from the 3rd again contained micro-organisms which have managed to adapt to climate there and have begun replicating. This time the period should be considerably shorter then the previous 2 billion years as cells with a nucleus have successfully adapted to the 4th, whereas from the 2nd's probes to the 3rd only non-nucleus possessing cells managed to initiate a replication cascade until this terminating event."
Germany has not extradited Kim Dotcom.
Font Awesome 5 Released – new icons, styles, SVG, ligatures, and more
I would say the ILLIAC IV would be a better approximation, but the point is the same: massively parallel computers have been with us for a very long time before the first GPU.

What nobody anticipated is that we'd be using stuff that was originally designed for games.
>I had to get down to the graph to realize they're talking about SVM, not deep learning.

there's still a ton of usage for classical learning algorithms. I'd be a very happy camper if we could speed SVMs up by a magnitude
TL;DR. A lack of demand at the peak price causes the price to drop, potential buyers stay out hoping for a better "bargain"

This is basic economics
Remember: you don't have to do your transactions in whole bitcoins.

I, for instance, had .32btc sitting around on Coinbase and decided to sell it when the price broke 10k. That got me about $3k.
A) If your nation state fails and you have to flee the country, how are you going to take your gold with you? That's the real risk, not local vault security.

B) You can take your bitcoin, encrypt it, and put it anywhere on the Internet in plain sight, and then hold the encryption key in your pocket, or in your head. Totally safe, especially against the real threat, border security. Bitcoin is far easier to physically secure than gold is. What's difficult is securing it in a manner that also makes it easy to do business with it.
Fucking tendon ruptures. My girlfriend is a runner and she had a tendon rupture in her knee that was caused by cipro. Fucking nasty and immoral what the regulators and drug companies have done with this antibiotic.
Bitstamp.net was also unavailable for a while. Weird coincidence.
> Unless we destroy ourselves first, superhuman AI is going to happen... Perhaps the AI will feel the same way [that intelligence is singular] and note that differences between us and bonobos are barely worth discussing.

He's referring to a superhuman artificial intelligence, not merely an augmented human intelligence.
Well said. For example, with the hardware improvements of late (GPUs, TPUs, etc.), we are seeing lots of low hanging fruit as we haven't pushed in this direction before, but I imagine this diminishes soon.
Very much appreciated!
> That is still an EU payment system, which has improved a lot since the start of Bitcoin.

Which shows how pathetic the main development team behind Bitcoin is (the core team). The fact that they haven't managed to fix problems that are years old and steadily getting worse is inexcusable. It should be a walk in the park for them to out compete a massive, political entity like the EU and the traditional banking sector.

I hear you on the "strange places", that was where BTC was supposed to shine. It hasn't made any inroads into underserved markets that I'm aware of, e.g. less well-off countries and unbanked people. That is a pipe dream as long as the fees are so high to move funds around.
A Language with Only 1 Command and the Anti-Imperialist OS Built on It
The larger point being made isn't "you'd be happier now if you never existed" but "bringing kids into the current state of things is a net negative for them (they have to deal with the repercussions of an ecological catastrophe amid postmodernism and all its follies)."

Arguments can be made that now is a better time than ever to be alive, but that doesn't mean it would be good for them or others if they are born.
Both are given and taken depending on your perspective.
Ashampoo Burning Studio 19.0.0.25 Crack Key Full Free
It is reminiscent of the tech stock boom in the late 90s
holy smokes, thats a ton. Are there any effects of too much?
I kind of think that we are already experiencing the fall-out from the value-alignment problem with corporations. Corporations (and the market in general) seem rather good at optimizing revenue/profit - the problem is that corporate profit doesn't always align with other human values - which ties into some other comments here about disrupting human attention-span being profitable.

Perhaps work on AI goal alignment can help us build a more humane market place, or vice versa, research into macro-economics can inspire some ideas in AI goal alignment.
Five percent is already ridiculous, this is just getting greedy.

You would think YouTube would finally eat their lunch here but then the CEO over there can't even update her own recently launched channel so fat chance.
1. Navigate to your profile folder [1].

2. cd chrome or create the directory if it isn't there

3. Inside chrome, open userChrome.css or create it if it isn't there

4. Paste the following:

@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul");

/* to hide the native tabs */
#TabsToolbar {
visibility: collapse;
}

/* to hide the sidebar header */
#sidebar-box[sidebarcommand="treestyletab_piro_sakura_ne_jp-sidebar-action"] #sidebar-header {
display: none;
}

5. Restart Firefox

---

1. http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_folder_-_Firefox#Navigatin...
I can take a guess. After the Buddha was enlightened, he went back to his old friends the ascetics, and they didn't believe he was enlightened. But they talked and after a while they were convinced. Later, doubters would visit the Buddha and they'd have something like debates in front of the other monks. So I think Horn is saying he wants to show through debate that Massaro's views are bad, i.e., not the dhamma (truth).
I'm really grateful for the "Learn to Code Craze," as I never would have gotten into programming were it not for the media campaigns daring me to do it. It's taken a lot longer than 3 months as the boot-camps would lead people to believe, but it's definitely been worth it.
http://theconversation.com/taking-a-second-look-at-the-learn...

The ACM link is an abstract which links to this link.
It makes sense to me in a divide-by-zero sort of way. I'm not saying the market confidently believes bitcoin has no value. But such wild fluctuations might suggest that even after five years, the price discovery function still has no idea what bitcoin is worth. Now what does that mean? We can only speculate, of course. But to me I wonder if 1) there is no identified fundamental value today and 2) no one knows what the fundamental value will turn out to be
I've been using the following in Win 8.1:

/* to hide the native top tabs */
#TabsToolbar * {
visibility: collapse;
}
/* to give the top toolbar a bit of height so the window controls don't dangle off to the right */
#TabsToolbar:before {
content: '';
display: block;
width: 100%;
height: 20px;
}

/* to hide the sidebar header */
#sidebar-header {
visibility: collapse;
}
Tangent: it would be cool to have a browser extension that could notice that this data could be presented visually and offer to show you e.g. the scatter plot.
This is pretty crazy of Patreon. I mean - they can easily bundle pledges on charge. I don't understand why they'd drop a separate charge for each one, except for "fuck it, they won't care, right?".
I think the clearest explanation of the change is in this tweet:
https://twitter.com/TPRJones/status/938646263800705024

"The extra cost isn't tiny if you pledge small amounts to many creators. Pledging $100 to 1 creator will now cost $103.25 which is reasonable. Pledging $1 each to 100 creators will now cost $138 which is not reasonable"
I think you know that’s a cliche in some circles and my intention is not to try call you on that without reason, but to ask about it practically speaking.

Would you agree that it seems for many disciplines, whether its cs or physics, the power of the statement “it’s solved theoretically” relates to the scope of the problem?

For example, if someone came up with a strong argument or proof that raises the upper bound of performance for a specific algorithm, I could be convinced to start celebrating right away, and would think nothing of the implementation being passed off to a student as a mere formality.

However, the scope doesn’t have to increase much before a formal proof, or even a conclusive argument, become impossible to make in a way that’s completely convincing.

It’s not a knock against either theory or engineering, it’s a simple matter of our inability to model or predict things accurately beyond a certain complexity.

I only wish I could explain this well to lay people, like if a friend asks me, “after over half a century of writing code why cant even the greatest software companies in the world reliably predict how long it takes to ship software?”

Maybe next time I’ll tell them, “it’s the same reason we need database reference implementations”. It will just add more confusion, but at least I can spit out some kind of answer.
Ghostery deploys AI in the fight against ad trackers
Sorry if this is more negative than HN permits, but am I the only one who gets the feeling that the style of this post sounds kind of smug? Ending a paragraph with "And gradual processes are hard to notice" and an invisible smirk kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Coinbase has an error message stating "Bitcoin sales currently disabled." This is straight out of pre-Exchange Act history.
Do you have a link to your templates?