skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is definitely a correlation, it's just not as strong as most people assume.

Saying that there's lots of great chess players with low IQ doesn't mean the two things are not correlated

For some actual numbers, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307874653_The_relat...
It can fetch jars from Maven.
>There was no Oralce v1, as Ellison, "knew no one would want to buy version 1"

Of the "bad Larry Ellison" anecdotes ITT, most of which do paint him in a very bad light, this one doesn't offend me at all; more like smart marketing advice you can use.
edit: The Reddit post is not mine. I only discovered it after finding out about this scam while searching for the credit card charged information.

I just want to share this with the HN community so some people may be on the look out for this similar charge. I myself just discovered (last night) this charge for the past 2 years and Amazon absolutely refuses to refund me for the prior year.

I never once received any email to ask for my consent nor any email notifying me that the subscription have been renewed. Amazon insists its all in the fine prints. It was all automatically charged on which ever credit card was on my account.

Would anyone know of a proper recourse to this?
There are many things that can go wrong with a protein. The simplest is misregulation, like a regulatoy motif being disrupted, gene architecture (TAD) being changed, splicing changes (somehow linked to missequence proteins but only via changed ration of different splice isoforms) or mRNA being degraded faster or slower (UTR mutations), all leading to different protein concentrations (if its a protein being affected, might as well be some RNA molecule).

There is not that much known about these diseases so its hard to give typical examples. Here is an example of a tool that tries to predict such variants via ML, they curated a few hundered variants via literature search: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27569544
Instead of burning things down, how about building things instead?
Can you provide a source for that?
This whole bitcoin bubble has taught me that people are much dumber than I had previously believed. Warren Buffett said it best, "Be fearful when others are greedy, be greedy when others are fearful."
Probably not.

But don't let him put you off Waugh! A genius of the first order.

Brideshead is a masterpiece.

But his other, lesser-known works are mostly gems of sparkling, devastating wit and a gimlet eye on the human condition.
I keep the business cards of a couple of lawyers in my wallet. One I've dealt with on business matters (but certainly isn't on retainer) and one I know socially who does criminal defense. As you say, I figure if they can't help me personally, they'll know someone who can.
I am seriously disliking the current debt-based economy now for this reason and more. There are other examples of its effects like Mozilla, Google, and VCs (I have several Twitter threads with @BrendanEich about that one). Sun and Oracle are probably worth mentioning here too, including Jonathan Schwartz.
Depends on your point of view. If you something is not knowable even in principle then maybe the question was wrong, like "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

A better answer is perhaps that there are things that we could in principle find out, but cannot because either:

1. We can't do the experiment in practice, such as building a particle accelerator much bigger than the LHC, or factoring a 100000 digit number.

2. It's too complicated and there's no simple description in terms of macroscopic variables, such as the earth's ecosystem.
Surely selective breading may bring harm. For example, tinkering with wheat to make it easy to process with machines resulted in kinds where gluten is less tolerant by humans [1].

What is important is speed and scale. I.e. making most plants less nutritional by 5-10% within 50 years is something very new.

[1] https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20664999
This sounds presumptuous to me. People sometimes think that their perspective is better/more mature/clever/correct, while it is just.. different. They divide people into levels/classes in order to put themselves into the highest class. Given the high complexity of the world, any model falls apart if you look at it hard enough.
You appear to be fishing for an answer you are expecting but are not getting. Please explain why you want the answer to be "no" or "the shooting was correct".
AAV5–Factor VIII Gene Transfer in Severe Hemophilia a – NEJM
> What it does is not just arbitration things, but establish global consensus and an unalterable log of that consensus.

That is nice. But can I, and everybody else in the USA successfully use Bitcoin on Black Friday? According to the National Retail Foundation, in 2016 over 101 million people went out on black friday to buy something. If Bitcoin could somehow 10x its transaction rate to even 40 transactions per second (which it can't and probably never will) it would take almost 30 days to process every order. At its current rate of 4tps, you are looking at about 292 days--during which, according to Wolfram Alpha, Venus will have made 1.3 trips around the sun.

So again, yeah, great job. Bitcoin solved some technical problem. Go team! But who gives a crap if some technical problem doesn't solve any real problem? Isn't that what we engineers exist to do? Solve real-world problems?
Why is it frightening for somebody to focus solely on accumulating lucre and not to care about other people or society at all? Because hurting people is bad.
Police can get you for process crimes. That's why you should have a lawyer, when you are 'remotely' connected to what is being investigated.
I stopped reading at "digital baby blanket." This writer can't be serious.
I strongly disagree with you. There is research in social psychology showing it is difficult for most people to reason from technical, statistical arguments. One thing I have noticed reading political essays recently is that the emotional impact of scientific, technical and statistical arguments can be bolstered with fitting specific anecdotal evidence. Logic is often not enough to change people's views or motivate them to change. This applies to the most logically minded of us as well.
Maybe it's time to start shorting Oracle stock. In the age of AWS and Azure, I don't see their 10 year prospects as being very good.
Crypto-neckbeards be like "Bitcoin is going to $500,000!"
I am by no means an apologist for Amazon or any other company, but from the comments on that reddit link, it seems like the customer service operation is empowered to easily fix this. It reminds me of the Jeff Bezos quote from way back when: "If you make customers unhappy in the physical world, they might each tell six friends. If you make customers unhappy on the Internet, they can each tell 6,000 friends."
I don’t like installing apps either. But some people, customers, do. And the native app UX is less clunky than a web app.

That said, I think there should be a standard way to click a link on a website that results in an icon for the site being placed in your app launcher. (After the OS confirms you granting permission for that)
Well, we are on HN: it is a good community because of both quality technical content and a engaged userbase.
How the Boeing jet no one wanted became the plane airlines scour the planet for
I wish we weren't confined to our local group. Imagine being able to go faster than light and explore all the planets with unique wonders like this. Even if we only found deadly flora, it would still be beautiful.

How many galaxies have the equivalent of fungus? All of them?

The most provocative answer is "one." But for us, it will always be true.
Dinosaur tail discovered trapped in amber (2016)
Wow, just wow. I really think a future payment system where you are in charge of how much money is spent. Maybe you designate up front recurring payments that are fixed, but by default require any new charges to be manually approved.
People try to shoot George Zimmerman in the head.
Realistically China is 10-20 years at minimum from being able to project power at scale to the ME. The only candidate for a war of attrition is India.
The rally is partly because it can’t scale and people are unable to get their bitcoin to an exchange to sell it. Instead it is stuck in the mempool... and there is an increasing amount of bitcoin that can’t be moved because fees surpass its value.

For a bitcoin that has scaled see Bitcoin Cash.
Because talking to them on even the smallest matter can land you in trouble, since lying to federal agents is a crime.

TurboTax has this audit defense insurance add-on when you submit your taxes. If you read the verbiage, it explicitly states DO NOT answer any questions under any circumstances, and defer them to the audit defense. Don't even answer "How is the weather over there?"

It's best to have some representation when dealing with the IRS or any federal agency. As the video continues on to show, Martha Stewart was convicted for lying because she decided to talk first and deny involvement before lawyering up.
OP saying that it was designed that way. We can disagree about whether or not the intended design is practical or not, but it's "technically" successful because it's operating exactly as it was designed.
You're not a weirdo, but you would be a weirdo for not having, say, insurance (health/car/home/whatever). Unfortunately, the world is such that we're coming to the point where this just needs to be another item on the checklist.

People find the resources to cover the things they need, and lawyers aren't all crazy unaffordable.
Spiders eat astronomical numbers of insects
From my perspective, I'd rather have someone spending the last 20 minutes of their life on a shooting spree than spending the last couple of days cooking up some AMFO, renting a truck from U-Haul, and causing some serious issues. A lot of people seem to assume that the fallback from a rifle (for the purposes of a killing spree) is a kitchen knife or something - I don't think this is universally accurate.
But the requirement for always having brackets is just plain inconvenient for many. Even C doesn't always require brackets.
Yes, I didn't accept that part of the logic. Neither do I believe that immutability is something good, nor do I believe that git is very immutable, nor that git gains from immutability.

I believe mutability is a trade off. You can make objects more immutable by being less efficient in terms of storage size, search time, source code simplicity. In exchange for these negative attributes you get source code you can proof more easily. It's good when that attribute is needed, but not most of the time.

Git is only immutable on that meta level where we talk about the object key-value store. The implementation uses mutable files though, and even steps away from that immutable key-value store when the size gets too big and needs to store more efficiently.

And on the user level you can amend, edit, squash and delete commits easily, which is actually a strength of git not a weakness. People love it for being more mutable than SVN.
Sorry, I man-read your first sentence then hit reply. Please accept my apology.
Thats what I thought at first but I only discovered this after the 2nd charge. (Which was also when I discovered the post.)

I was only able to get 1 of the 2 charges refunded. They insists that the system wouldn't let them refund it from 2016. So its not so "easily" done.
The second last para is more pertinent. He's saying Facebook et al contribute to the reverse of Capgras; we trust people we probably shouldn't:

> This withering of primate familiarity in the face of technology prompts us to mistake an acquaintance for a friend, just because the two of you have a Snapchat streak for the last umpteen days, or because you both like all the same Facebook pages. It allows us to become intimate with people whose familiarity then proves false. After all, we can now fall in love with people online whose hair we have never smelled.
Finite Field Arithmetic, Chapter 2: Logical and Bitwise Operations
I watched the video and read some background, basically my understanding is that the entire series of events went like this, at a high level:

The guy in the hotel room had been showing someone his pellet gun. Someone saw this through the hotel room window, thinking it was a real gun, and called the cops.

The cops arrived, expecting someone armed and dangerous. They seem really amped up on adrenaline.

A woman and the man come out of the hotel room, and the cop with the assault rifle screams at them to get down on the ground. They comply, but seem scared and confused. The cop asks if they are drunk, which they deny. He asks if they'll be able to understand all his commands, and they say yes. He keeps screaming at them and cutting them off when they try to talk.

The woman follows instructions and is successfully cuffed and taken away. The man tries to comply, but is sobbing and appears drunk. The cop gives him some (what seemed to me) not entirely clear instructions, and then tells the man to crawl toward him. After about 5 feet the man seems to lose his balance and try to pull up his pants, at which point the cop repeatly shoots him.

At the end the two cops try to get in to the hotel room, but the key cards they are given don't work. The second cop drops a key card after trying it a handful of times, picks it up, and keeps trying, seemingly extremely agitated. The video then cuts out.
Then they'll just sue for libel instead
> Overall growth in knowledge isn't at least directly proportional to population growth, if the proportion of knowledge already known and shared grows with population growth.

I don't see why.

> But even if it did, we don't have another doubling of human population ahead of us, so you better hope we're already there

Right, but we have plenty of doublings of intelligent non-human agents ahead of us. Until then, we increase our effective intelligence using semi-intelligent machines, like we've been augmenting our physical strength with mechanical devices for millennia.

> As you point out, Moore's Law doesn't have a ton more power available to it either.

I disagree. Frequency scaling won't yield too much more improvement. There are other scaling modes available though, as I described. Moore's law is about information density, not performance.

> Lots of problems don't parallelize well

Often repeated, but frequently overstated. Our knowledge of parallelism is still in its infancy.

> quantum computing has never demonstrated more power than classical computing,

Any other option would require rewriting a lot of physics.

> hardware growth doesn't in fact guarantee an intelligence explosion.

Increased information density beyond that available in the human brain means simulating said brain is feasible. That's as close to a guarantee as you can get.

> Look, every futurist in the world in 1975 thought that by 2017, we'd all be routinely traveling faster than sound, that we'd have colonies on the moon if not mars, and that probably we'd have AGI or something pretty close to it by 2017

Except I'm not giving a timeline, I'm saying it's inevitable. Low exponent exponential growth is still exponential. The intelligence explosion is about a trend, not a fixed milestone.
Larry Ellison long ago was an engineer, he turned to the dark side a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

There are reasons for companies not wanting benchmarks public i.e. unequal or fixed results. But ultimately one can no longer be an engineer if you are excluding metrics from software for business/legal reasons.

I have had to run many systems on Oracle and the developer is not their customer, it is a painful experience in Oracle enterprise. The extent of it is they have Ask Tom fill in the gaps. Luckily most of the Oracle work was moving systems from massive Oracle setups to swifter (and hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper) architecture on MSSQL, PostgreSQL and MySQL (until Oracle bought them) now MariaDB.

I like platforms that put the developer and their workflow as a top priority, not how many rounds of golf you play with the C level execs. Oracle would be the latter type of "enterprise" company.
Standard "enterprise software" company operating procedure. I think VMware is equally jealous of their benchmarks.

It could be worse though. Cisco pressed criminal charges against this guy[0] for wanting to 3rd-party-service their equipment.

Happy 2017, peasants!

[0-0] http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Cisco+deceived+Canadian+cou...

[0-1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2507735/cybercrime-hac...
Ask HN: Any recommendations on a safe?
Hello HN! I've done a bit of my own research but haven't found anything great. I am looking for a small home safe. About the same size as what you'd normally see in a hotel room.

Amazon has many options but all of them seem to be defeated by a BIC pen. That's no good. What's a reasonably priced safe that can fit on a closet shelf and actually keep my passport safe?

Thanks in advance!
This is why you got to be careful when properly distributing your points. I mean look at Raistlin, he is super powerful and intelligent, but at the cost of his horrible ailments, while his brother is a beast and super strong, but at the cost of being far more simple...

An even distribution is what’s needed.
Not if they're using Skylake or later CPUs
Bitcoin and The Blockchain are only useful when you absolutely can't trust anybody but yourself. Why would financial institutions need Bitcoin and its immense overhead when they all can use the law as a tool to ensure adequate trust? If they can trust each other at that level, all they need is a simple database.

In other words, "financial institutions" have no need for the blockchain.

Want proof? You think the NASDAQ uses anything more than a (fancy, probably very high priced, extremely robust) database to store its stuff? They deal with all kinds of people who are actively trying to fuck them over every day and every second. They have no need for the blockchain. Neither does any other "financial institution".
> The cumulative effect of rebase followed by gc is to delete commits that have a branch pointing to them.

This is both false and irrelevant.

It's false because after the rebase, the branch you just rebased won't point to the old commits. Unless you had other branches there, they would be orphaned. Also, according to the "Notes" section of the git-gc documentation [0]:

> git gc tries very hard not to delete objects that are referenced anywhere in your repository. In particular, it will keep not only objects referenced by your current set of branches and tags, but also objects referenced by the index, remote-tracking branches, refs saved by git filter-branch in refs/original/, or reflogs (which may reference commits in branches that were later amended or rewound).

Since the commit you were on before making the rebase is in the reflog, it will actually not be GCed (yet) even though there are no branches pointing to them.

It's irrelevant because, even if it was true, as long as there are no more objects referencing that commit, it's perfectly eligible for gc. I don't understand your argument that "you can't have it both ways".

[0] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-gc
Sorry, I did not seen that.
I think that by the time you could muster the political will to put a large fraction of the budget into countering this threat, it’d be far too late. And I could see other governments not wanting the US to own / destroy the network and countering with their own investments.

Actually, I wonder if in the long run governments will be the miners.
Oracle Cloud!

It's not in the Azure/GCP tier, but they're investing a ton in it (seven figure offers) to pull in engineering talent from AWS/Azure/GCP. And Oracle does have
some definite ... "structural" advantages.
Noise is ephemeral and therefore harder to prove.
They don't want MS to pay an "independent" 3rd party to poorly configure their database then publish benchmarks that show them in a negative light. Therefor if you want to publish benchmarks you have to (pay to) keep Oracle in the loop so that they make sure you don't screw it up.

You see this all the time with Mysql and Postgresql benchmarks. Typically when I see the two compared it is by someone with a decade of experience with one of the systems, and none with the other one. They use a workload that is optimized for their usual system. They also don't have a clue how to create a high performance version for the competitor, nor do they know how to configure it.
Good to know. So does the same principle apply in the UK?
It's not only vaporware, it's uneconomical. That demo doesn't withdraw Bitcoin - it locks it up. Two transactions for every channel. Lightning Network is just another bank, a third party with fees.
There were problems with printing APL programs - those strange symbols. Or unclosed brackets and quotes. J tried to address these issues, it's ASCII-only - yet J code still looks rather unstructured.

This argument may sound like admission of imperfectness of printing process.
Is that a fact or assumption? Do you have a source?

That's not a jab at you I am legitimately interested in reading it if you have a source.

I have literally not found one I cared about doing a MitM exploit on that actually did it. Granted I haven't tried social networks because my interest lies mostly in apps that don't have public APIs and most social Networks have APIs.

I won't say who they are because this is not the right venue but I can say for certain that neither my bank or my alarm company uses pinning.
The link doesn't explain anything about his argument except that it's in his book. What does "say little" entail and why does he recommend that?

Also, from the context it seems to be about what to do after a self-defense shooting - is his advice specific to that context, or a general argument?
Law professor here again.

For those who are interested in the legal and policy aspects of this, I highly recommend a book called Boilerplate by Margaret Radin. This is just one of many examples of comically abusive and bizarre contract terms that companies impose by imaginary consent.
Most asset classes look like that, though. Gold has some intrinsic value as a good conductor/reflector of heat. But it's not really so very much superior to aluminium or copper or whatever to make it worth what it is worth. It is expensive because it is scarce. That's it. Bitcoin is the same. (They are obviously very different in other ways, but you get the point.)
Things don't need to have intrinsic value to be valuable. They simply need to be desired by the market.
It's not as simple as he makes it out to be. He breaks the problem down into an issue of protecting or violating your innocence.

It would be a real shame (and possibly illegal) if your friend just got shot in the head, and police asked you "which way did the shooter flee?" and you reply that you need to confer with your lawyer before answering any questions.
But as Bitcoin becomes more and more valuable, isn’t it actually eroding the value of other currencies? So someone still has your $100 but it’s worth a little less.
Bitcoin could become a payment system for the rich but it will never be an all-purpose decentralized payment system.

There are hard physical transaction limits which cannot be surpassed without seriously compromising decentralization... To the point that what would be left of the network would essentially no longer be 'Bitcoin'. Any attempt to abstract away from the blockchain through some kind of batching or delayed settlement would completely undermine the trustless nature of Bitcoin... What would be left would be no better than the current banking system.

The whole point of a cryptocurrency is that you can have your own wallet from which you can spend without going through any intermediaries... All potential Bitcoin scalability solutions that I've heard of rely on exchanges being given more power/trust in order to abstract away from the Blockchain.