skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It was eye-opening to realize people buy stocks for 2 reasons:

1. Dividend payments

2. The expectation that someone else will want the stock more in the future. (Often for reason #1.)

Financially, there is no other logical reason to possess stocks. It was part of the larger lesson that companies often perform irrational actions because they are made primarily out of people.
I created a new project using @angular/cli 1.6 which the release says is tied to Angular 5.1: https://github.com/angular/angular-cli/releases/tag/v1.6.0

But all npm package.json dependencies are still anchored on the same ^5.0.0 dependencies that ng v1.5.0 had and still depends on typescript "~2.4.2", basically ignoring the 5.1 announcement.

How can we create a new Angular 5.1 App using ng? Are we meant to manually change all dependencies to ^5.1.0
When I saw this I got excited. I thought he was actually drawing with Excel expressions as people are known to do with Desmos (e.g. https://www.desmos.com/calculator/rn58coma0a). But AFAIKT the artist is just using the drawing tools of Excel to make his art. Impressive, but if with math really impressive.
Defining the determinant definitely does not require choosing a basis (though I don't know how you'd define it without at least knowing that a basis exists, for reasons you can see below).

Let's say you've got a linear transformation T:V->V, and suppose V is n-dimensional. Consider exterior powers of V, Λ^k(V); for each one we naturally get a linear transformation Λ^k(T):Λ^k(V)->Λ^k(V). In particular take k=n, so we get a linear transformation Λ^n(T):Λ^n(V)->Λ^n(V). But Λ^n(V) is one-dimensional, so Λ^n(T) must be multiplication by some constant factor. That factor is the determinant.

That's basically the most "natural" definition of the determinant (notice how multiplicativity immediately falls out of it, assuming of course you already know that Λ^k is a functor). You need the idea of a basis in order to (a) make sense of the statement "V is n-dimensional" and (b) prove that Λ^n(V) is 1-dimensional, but that's it, and you certainly never need to choose one in order to define the determinant.

Probably not a great definition for beginning students of linear algebra, but I do have to correct this idea that defining the determinant requires choosing a basis...
> Uber received an email last year from an anonymous person demanding money in exchange for user data ...

Doesn't sound like a typical bug bounty to me.
I mostly get downvoted for questioning the AI hype, but I never tried it here in HN.

The paper is... how I put it mildly... not in the realm of making sense.

They mention simple question answering (which still stumbles at more complex even if structured questions), then code generators that existed since 1980s (at least) and then pretend that it's the same.

Today's AI is about approximating human judgment from datasets. The knowledge representation part, which is essential for tasks like coding, did not advance much since a decade ago.

This statement, however, takes the cake:

> Some early results from Facebook this year suggest that machines are capable of developing their own more efficient methods of communications

It's about the hype created by technically illiterate journos. (My TechCrunch piece on that: https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/06/the-secret-language-of-cha...) Could the authors have done some minimal due diligence before making this kind of claims?

Re subject, if anything, coding today requires much higher level of abstract thinking. Of course, there are tools for coding oompah loompahs too, like WordPress, but there is a lot of human decisions to be made there, too.
I'm struggling to find anything I want to buy on the Australian website. I can't even get enough into the basket to get free shipping.

And their goods categorisation is abysmal - whatever department you're in you seem to get heaps of unrelated dross.

It's a terrible place right now.

When they pick their game up I don't think there will be much loyalty to existing retailers. Australians are well aware and sick of the Australia tax, and desperate to join the rest of the western world.
Everything is a currency, if you barter hard enough.
Yeah, the tool doesn't help much past this, it'll just tell you where the raw bytes are.

Basically, what is at that offset is (remnants of) a Berkeley DB file; you'll need manually do the forensic work to get the key out of it past that. Alternatively, there are services that will recover locked/corrupted wallet files I think, so you could extract a big blob around that byte offset and find someone that will do the forensic work for you.
> Punish the decision makers and the ones who knew about it.

I agree. Though I think there is also a case to be made for punishing further up the 'chain of responsibility' - ultimately including the shareholders (who were punished by the market - and rightly so).
Have a look at NVDA and AMD -- crypto mining is most of the reason why they went up so much.
The Internet of Things-We-Don’t-Talk-About: Yes, smart toilets to smart tampons
Not really a loss unless they had to sell in that timeframe. Earnings and dividends are a more appropriate metric for impact to shareholders.
There are several projects on track to improve blockchain speeds by several orders of magnitude. So, in other words, it's a solved problem. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network
If you were selling, you would be obliged to do this, under enforcable contract terms which penalize theft of the IPR.

I think the onus would be similar for the single customer model. In effect, if you are coding to deliver to them, and they are bankrolling your deployment, they're buying you in all but name. So, the conditionality on their checking of your IPR, should be the same as selling your IPR.
Why have a compiler at all if you want to defer all error-checking to runtime?
And we also have to note that competitors may have been between the allowed bounds, but still
polluting. Everyone is guilty of pollution, VW is only guilty of cheating.
We're going to get to a point where no one is willing to invest any time or money (as a consumer) into products sold by a startup, because they all vanish quickly and with short or no notice. I'm already at that point.

It'd suck to be a stable startup with plenty of funds/cashflow in a similar niche to a company closing like this, and have people not willing to try your product because they're now too timid.
Real agricultural land prices have been on a relatively steady increase since the mid-80's (which further suggests the issues with family farms are due to economies of scale crowding out family farmers, rather than farming itself being unprofitable). So I'm skeptical they're that difficult to unload, especially given that inheriting a farm probably isn't something that catches many people by surprise.
People used to leave their empty milk bottles for the milkman to pick up. Could do the same with detergent bottlecaps.
Should someone tell him?
Your wrong about their being no traditional American. A traditional United States surname is generally English, Scottish, or Welsh as those were the primary people living in the United States from 1550-1850.

For instance, I remember from History class that there were atleast 3 famous guys from the 1700s named "John Smith"
Still seeing the errors an hour later here. The AWS Status dashboard has finally been updated to show the issue, so it sounds like they're looking into it now.

Edit: Resolved now
See https://github.com/angular/angular-cli/pull/8766
The run up is a result of the futures. It legitimizes bitcoin.

No one in their right mind is going to short bitcoin unless they want to risk losing their shirts.
Not my area of expertise, so I want to ask this question: Do compiler optimizations exist to automatically parallelize a for loop, which can be parallelized, no matter how to programmer wrote their for loop?

If not, then map / reduce offers non-trivial performance benefits over a for loop. Mapping, as far as I'm aware, is "embarrassingly parallel", assuming the function that's mapped is pure? I think?
I've worked with Angular 2-5 and it's nice; IMO a lot nicer than Angular 1.x, which I still do have to work with (supporting a customer-facing 1.6.5 app). I haven't done a big app with it yet, but from the small ones I've done I am highly confident that "modern Angular" is now better than Angular 1.x in all important ways (breadth of capabilities, reliability, tooling, etc).

So I don't think there will be horror stories with Angular 5 for new projects, unless you just don't like Angular/TypeScript. It's definitely not like "going the wrong direction" from Angular 1.x, although I don't personally have any read on how it compares to Vue, or React, or Aurelia or what have you.

I also haven't gone through a 1.x→modern transition (yet), so I can't really speak to that, but in preparation for doing it I've read everything I can, on this forum, various blogs, etc.

I'm not looking forward to it, but on the other hand part of me thinks of course it's easier, or at least more fun, to move to something like Vue, because it's like a rewrite, or half-greenfield project.

It's almost always more fun to rewrite something, although usually not advisable from any other business perspective.

We don't see as many people talking/blogging about Angular anymore, but I think that's mostly because it's gotten boring. Which can be a good thing.
It looks like you were cut off there…
Depending on what they're reason is, it may be satisfactory to have the code looked at by a qualified 3rd party (with proper NDAs all-ways).
I believe the coordinator is slated to be removed sometime next year.
I didn't know there had been regulations. It sounds like there might still be some in place but maybe they aren't adequate enough or as enforceable (or politically chosen not to enforce):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#United_States

In the following country analysis, I was surprised to see Canada set a limit of 60%/yr, which seems incredibly high. Japan seems to have a decent policy.
I tried a few times to read about the Lightning Network and it seems complicated to understand and implement. I'm not an expert at all but it seems like a flaw in the Bitcoin protocol that you have to build something like this on top.

Are there other cryptocoins that are built on protocols that avoid having to have this extra layer on top to make them scalable? I imagine the more complexity that is added, the more scope there is for security, implementation and scalability issues so you want to keep things simple.
To understand what's happening, you have to observe how things have evolved. Bitcoin was advertised as digital cash. Tons of nerds envisioned a future of the whole world buying coffee with Bitcoin. As it became clear that the current network could never fulfill that vision, the whole community evolved its belief system to support the value of the currency, and they did so without any leader to coordinate their actions. They were just led by incentivized memes—the more convincing the justification for high valuations, the better the ideas spread. Now, people don't pitch Bitcoin's value as a digital cash. They tell people it's digital gold and the transaction fees don't matter.

The beliefs of the community will continue to evolve as needed to support the value of their claims on our society's productive capacity.
A lot of salt in this thread.

So let me take the opposite side and say congrats to everyone who's hodling bitcoin!
And those are exceptions to the norm.

Look at the census of the 100 most common American names, they're either traditional American names or Spanish names from those who immigrated here over the last 50 years.
https://www.thoughtco.com/most-common-us-surnames-1422656
Life is a zero sum game?
Why does a programmer need to know an index counter exists if the index counter isn't used inside the for loop?
It’s encouraging that it’s the second exec jailed, with significant duration (=not probation, not a few months, real years).
Self-Driving Car Milestones
Alt-coins almost all dropping. BTC rising.
You are describing coinbase.
Seems like a weird time he get hung up on semantic.

"No, he's not a pedaphile, he's a just sex offender"
The blog post barely gets into the idea of what simplicity means in programming.

If you have any interest in the topic, I recommend Rich Hickey talk "Simplicity matters" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI8tNMsozo0

My personal favorite is: Living with complexity 2010 by Don Norman (Author of Design of everyday things)

https://www.amazon.ca/Living-Complexity-Donald-Norman/dp/026...
Not to mention losses due to counterfeiting and outright destruction.
Discarding previous knowledge where it is applicable and simpler is obviously unwarranted. Similarly to how we utilize Newtons laws within a lower energy and mass range, we should prefer the simpler equations where they make sense. However, I'm not sure that a for loop is actually simpler than map reduce as it depends on the context. Who is reading your code? How complex is the code inside the for loop? What kind of problem are you solving? The vocabulary associated with functional programming is better equipped to handle mathematical expressions than imperative code and in this case, simpler.

In essence; adding complexity for the sake of complexity or to come of as intelligent is bad...
The choice of CRC32 together with a secret seems odd, it seems to be relying on a security property which CRC32 doesn't have.

This looks like the kind of application that SipHash is designed for.
Dapper, Prepared Statements, and Car Tyres
IG will do it sometimes. (https://www.ig.com/au/forex/markets-forex/bitcoin-1)
For the first time in 7 years, there are more homeless in US
For those who want to sell but not cash out in fiat (because on exchanges such paperwork can take over a week), what's the easiest stable thing to exchange your BTC for?
True. But it does tell you that the ice is melting. Which indicates heat input.
I think people buying in now know the risk too. I don't think the general, general population is buying yet. Anyone I know coming in during the last few months has been reasonably savvy. Taking a risk, but they're aware of it.

Two people asked me the other week, "Are we too late?" I said that I didn't think so, but to only risk what they could afford to lose. They bought in around $8k. It's now approaching $15k, two weeks later.
> Meanwhile, two-stroke engines, older diesel engines, airplanes using leaded avgas may be as bad as the ten million slightly off tune VWs.

But these aren't illegal.

The point about the deaths is "it was specifically illegal and they did it anyway, with these quantifiable consequences".
As someone involved in bug bounties, this was completely different from a traditional bug bounty reward. Uber disguised this payment as a "bug bounty" to hide what it actually was -- a ransom payment to get the hacker to destroy the data. If this were truly under the realm of bug bounties, the hacker would have violated Uber's policies for exploiting the flaw and extracting information (the reward also exceeded Uber's top payout tenfold).

In short, the issue people are taking with Uber is that they tried to pass off a security breach as having taken proactive measures, while this was a case of ransom.
Libertarians are against net neutrality
From the article:

> In this case, the antenna is contained in a 3-D printed object made of conductive printing filament that mixes plastic with copper.

So this appears to be some sort of copper-plastic alloy that prints well and is conductive after printing. This part seems more revolutionary than the commercial aspect.
Always getting up to trouble, that rascal.
I dunno, I find the second one harder. Because now you have to know about array indices and things like that. The for loop forces you to deal with petty details. The map reduce lets someone else deal with that.

I tend to think there's some additional overhead from Javascript's particular object oriented implementation of mapping and reducing when compared with haskell's i.e.

f xs = foldr + 0 (map (\x -> x * x) xs)

seems a bit easier to me.

Is it habit? Probably. But I really find it hard to understand why maps and folds are simpler than manual iterative loops.
Wadler's criticisms of jets are pretty common and not super hard to respond to.

Nothing at all stops any jet-based interpreter from using normal standards practices to specify a standard jet profile. We can even expect aggressive vendors to "embrace and extend" that profile.

But, in practice as well as theory, this isn't going to cause incompatibilities, monopolies, etc. Your semantic compatibility is perfect.

In fact, jet competition should have excellent effects on performance across a healthy market. If Google hosts a jet-propelled interpreter, it's natural for it to both offer a tensor processing library, and hook that library up to a jet that talks to a hardware TPU. Your code will work the same if you move off Google -- you're not physically locked in.

What we just got rid of: the bureaucratic overhead of standardizing a TPU opcode. Look at all the crypto algorithms you have to run in JS on the browser, when half the time there's a hardware instruction on the chip. It's technically trivial to connect these two things -- but not politically. Politically, you need a committee to standardize the builtin.

It's true that performance disparities are absurd if you don't jet-propel basic arithmetic. But no one would do that. If a system works both in theory and in practice, it works. You can't really say that in theory, it doesn't work in practice.

(Disclaimer: jet inventor here. But Simplicity's jets are much more badass because of the Coq equivalency proofs.)
I manually updated the typescript dependency which breaks the build, even when manually upgrading the compiler-cli to ^5.1.0, so basically 5.1 doesn't work with typescript 2.5.3 as indicated in the announcement.

I also don't get the point of upgrading to the latest angular-cli v1.6 and using it to create the same 5.0.0 app that v1.5 did.

Is the way to create a v5.1 ng app is for everyone to manually update all dependencies to ^5.1.0?
"The thing I've always hated about Obamacare was how healthy self employed folks are subsiding the unhealthy people"

So do you just hate health insurance in general then? Because all health insurance works like this.
It depends on your goals, but maybe... we'll see if I was too late in the game to make a quick profit.
I'm gonna do the same but sell when it gets to 10x. Have fun being half as rich as me!
There's a hidden layer to this that's really bad.

Patreon charges once per month. But they are not charging the 2.9% + $0.35 fee per month. They are promising to charge that 35 cents per pledge, per month.

$10 in pledges going to one creator will have $.64 in fees. That's fine.

$10 in pledges split across ten creators will have $3.79 in fees. That extra three dollars is just profit for patreon, plucked right out of the user's pocket.
And transportation.
I agree, but I think it depends a lot on your background as well as the background of the people who are likely to be looking at and modifying the code. Virtually any programmer is going to be able to eventually read and understand the second version while requiring little extra research, but for a lot of programmers they will have no idea how to reason about the first and no idea how to use/modify/extend it, so it is just some weird black-box.

Yes, obviously they can learn, and I don't think learning a bad thing (It's absolutely a necessary skill for a programmer, or anybody), but if the only place in the code that ever uses map/reduce is that one location, then programmers that come by it are likely not going to get a lot out of the time they're going to sink trying to figure it out. If it was just a basic loop, then overall people will likely spend less time figuring it out. For one piece of code it's not that big of a deal, but if your code-base is just full of fun little one-liners everywhere, it quickly becomes a mess to understand.

But with that, if your code is already full of stuff like map/reduce, then I think using map/reduce instead of the basic loop may very-well be preferred for readability (Though of course, your citation brings up performance concerns, which should also be taken into consideration). I think most important is just keeping the code-base consistent.
I never used Final but from a quick skim it seems like Revolut cover a lot of what they did (and more).
The Chukchi Sea is directly north of the Bering Strait. Choice excerpt, spacing added:

>We also suggested a possible role of a strong oceanic heat inflow to the Chukchi Sea via Bering Strait.

>In support of this view, in the summer of 2017, Rebecca Woodgate of the University of Washington, Seattle, sailing on the research vessel Norseman II, recovered mooring data that indicated an early arrival of warm ocean water in the strait, about a month earlier than the average. This resulted in June ocean temperatures that were 3 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) above average.

>Higher ocean temperatures in summer plays a large role in the timing of when the ice will form again in winter. There is likely a considerable amount of heat remaining in the top layer of the ocean, which will need to be lost to the atmosphere and outer space before the region becomes fully ice covered.
> Just saying "well those programmers should write more tests" is silly when you could say, well why not tests and write code that is naturally hardened against foot guns.

I don't think off-by-1 errors are that big of a foot gun, compared to, like, having a null as part of the language, or pointers, or about a million other things.

> I was referring to mental overhead

Gotcha. I still think that "linear step-by-step" thinking like "you take stuff out of a bucket, and then do stuff to it" is easier to parse than map-reduce, which requires you to have a "big picture" view of the whole process.
Imagine a WiFi prism, where "light" (RF) waves are refracted into a specific pattern, separating channels into bands across a room.
I really liked this, because it resonates with my approach.

I think I first realized the basics of this some time in college. As a teenager around '96 I discovered IRC, and hung around chatrooms being, well, a teenager. I discovered smileys, & how 2 use abbrevs to pack more in < chars. Also 1337speek... Only a few years later did I realize that what was more impressive was being able to (just as quickly) form clear complete sentences.

Also related, Pascal's comment in a quickly-written letter to a friend: "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

Also related, Kernighan's quote on debugging: "Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?"

Ultimately, I must admit that I still try to show off in my work and presentation, but I have learned that a work that is beautiful by its simplicity and humility has way more staying power than a complicated and sophisticated one ;)
Free PDF Printable Christmas Tangram Puzzle
It’s amazing that murder gets someone 2 years only, don’t you think? I bet the worldwide average must be around 15 years discounted to 7. (Note that if he’s innoculated with AIDS in prison, 2 years is already gruesome).
> this company did not want to play fair and it was clear that they wanted to copy

Were there other signs they wanted to copy besides "asked for the source code and they wanted it all the time they needed to study it by themselves"? I'm curious about the red flags to look out for when negotiating such deals
the caret ('^') will update a minor version[1]. So ^5.0.0 will install 5.1.0.

[1] https://bytearcher.com/articles/semver-explained-why-theres-...
I agree: one of these things is not like the other. Map / filter / collect is not better because it is "fancy" but because those operations match the semantic intent of most operations on collections while being constrained to do a single thing. Conversely, for loops are unconstrained and reflect no intent in particular.