skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
To be fair, though, gas is dangerous. Gas leaks, ranges/ovens accidentally left turned on, objects being left near the gas range's open flame, etc. -- the number of failure scenarios vastly exceed that of electrical ones. Having multiple sources of energy also complicates your house.

Comparing a gas range to a gas-heated water heater isn't really appropriate, since the water heater is an enclosed unit where the user is never directly exposed to the gas or the flame.

Gas is clearly superior to plain old electric, but induction (which is very nearly as good as gas when it comes to cooking) has been here for a long time, is much safer, and isn't even particularly expensive.
Labeling this false narrative as "Republican" is counterproductive to the cause of Net Neutrality, even if that label is appropriate.

Putting about half of the US population in an adversarial position is not the most effective way to start a conversation that results in pro-Net-Neutrality sentiment.

This is Pai's narrative, and that of companies like Verizon and Comcast.

A more powerful pro-Net-Neutrality stance would be to frame the discussion as "we were duped by insiders and private interests," rather than "Republicans are wrong."
Historically speaking, the US has survived robber barons, but Venezuela qua Venezuela has not survived its party vanguard.

Likewise, I have a hard time taking anyone seriously advocating for socialism who is unwilling to grapple with the fact that, yes, Venezuela is a valid data point, as are the hundreds millions of deaths socialism is directly responsible for, and spending at least a few moments contemplating whether or not they'd be one of them if they did manage to get socialism going in their local polity. If you care enough about people to want to gift them with socialism, you ought to care enough about people to spend some time considering the possible dangers it carries with it.

The party faithful do well in socialism. The almost-just-barely-not-quite-faithful, the ever-so-slightly-not-quite-in-step, the ones who agree with their leadership in principle but differ ever so slightly on matters of how to implement or who should implement... their death rate is pretty rough. Guaranteeing you're in the first group is harder than it may first appear.
> Is the reason it hasn't caught on solely because the big ISPs are against the idea?

While I like the idea, it seems like it would be hard to get the same consistent QOS as you do with a network built using fixed infrastructure.
Even GUI based SQL tools show you a log of commands used... Git GUI clients don't even show you beforehand or after what the heck just happened... Sad.
No one considers criticizing Saudi Arabia to be Islamophobic, and no one considers criticizing Israel to be antisemitic.

There are Muslims and Jews who criticize respectively both of those countries policies. It's also somewhat difficult to compare Israel and Saudi Arabia in the same breath, since Saudi Arabia is actually a regime propped up by the US, while Israel is a very close US ally (for better or for worse) which has a mind of its own.
I didn't realize anyone would actually admit to driving such a public nuisance.
Not to mention relocatable kernel and kexec crash dump analysis.
That's not how it works... If you believe that "upward momentum" or "downtrend" mean something, why don't you go long now and sell at the first signs of weakness? Easy money, right? In reality, there are no simple and exploitable rules like this.
AWS OpsWorks Is Now Available in Nine Regions
Today BTC futures are gambling.

In China based on Bet365 data the most popular wager is direction of the market going i.e. up/down.
Wouldn't it make more sense to optinally add all dependencies?
I've seen similar arguments before (for example here -> https://thoughtinfection.com/2014/04/19/capitalism-is-a-pape... ) and I think it's a good analogy.

What I don't understand is how this gets presented as an argument against AI risk. If the "paperclip maximizers" we construct now out of humans, machines, institutional processes and legal codes already exist, are successful, exhibit runaway growth, are a danger and lack insight in Chiang's sense, isn't that actually evidence in favor of the viability of such entities? If they are already dangerous even with humans in the loop and relying on cumbersome institutional processes, isn't that all the more reason to think about how much more dangerous they can get as they become more autonomous and agile?
Max Levchin on how his personal loans startup is misunderstood
If an AI subscribes to the tribalism of its creators, then it could be the AI vs. everyone. That sounds (potentially) dangerous to me.
Making it illegal would have a huge impact on mainstream uptake. If it were made illegal across the US and Canada, Europe and SE Asia, that could effectively kill it for most people.
Its completely meaningless to compare the render time of a single frame of a AAA video game with the load time of web page over a network.
Right. XLWings looks like a cool tool.

But the point I'm making is that: It's still a good thing for Excel to be integrating more tightly with python. It'll help all of those non-developer normies get the magic of coding.
(note: the conclusion of the paper actually performs a similar calculation)

The brain uses ~300 kCal per day (roughly %20 of a human's resting metabolic rate of 1300 kCal per day)
= 0.35 kWattHours per day
= about 4.2 cents per day (assuming brain can be powered at average market rate of energy of 12 cents/hWattHours)
= about 6.3 cents per hash (at .67 hashes/day)
= about 12 sextillion days to mine one block (at current difficulty of 1,873,105,475,221)
= about half a septillion dollars to mine one block.

Of course might make more sense to use the full 1300 kCal, considering that a human calculator still needs to use hands for pencil manipulation and provide power to rest of organs to stay alive. Point being this is not efficient or profitable at current difficulty.

However, assuming a pre-computer world or post-apocalyptic world without computing machines, then difficulty will be adjusted to be much easier such that it conceivably would be profitable (maybe with a slave army of human computers). Transactions and blocks could easily be sent via carrier pigeon.
Right, but how? Wishing it away won't do much.

"Hey! We created this great, convenient new method of paying for things, you should sign up to process all your payments through it"

"Wow, looks fantastic. I'm signed up. One problem, though: you can't tip people through it like you used to be able to."

"Oh, goodness, yes, that's a problem alright. A real bug in the system. Someone should do something about that. Anyway, I've got to go, good luck getting that fixed!"
Secrets That Won’t Rest – Issue 6: Secret Codes – Nautilus
Tethers are used on exchanges that don't deal in dollars. Traders who want to sell Bitcoin for USD sell them instead for USDT (Tether). Theses are the people who are buying the newly issued Tether. New Tethers are issued so that USDT stays very close to $1. This works great as long as Bitcoin continues to go up relative to the dollar. If/when Bitcoin goes down significantly theses same exchanges would need to buy up Tether to keep the price near $1. But that means the issuers of Tether will have to give up the massive profits they are currently reaping. If they don't the house of cards comes crashing down.
Using it on GKE. Literally no tricky parts except figuring out how to keep my images on GCR in sync with my manifests. For that this tool is quite helpful: https://github.com/dminkovsky/kube-cloud-build.

Otherwise it's been such a pleasure. PVs and StatefulSets are a total game changer. Looking forward to 2018.

EDIT:
I should say RBAC has been a little frustrating. But obviously it's for the better.
> That can be argued to be an abstract utility for the US Dollar, but it is not an argument for the value (or "intrinsic value", whatever that means) of the US dollar in that the value of it is what determines the tax obligation. That is, if I own taxes on a non-USD transaction (say capital gains for BTC sales), the amount of those taxes is dependent on the value of USD. There's no forcing function -- if USD is valuable, I owe fewer dollars, if USD is cheap then I owe more dollars. There's no net demand.

In what sense is there no "net demand"? There is a fixed (at any given time) amount of USD in circulation. People will need that USD to pay taxes. That is the demand side. Where is the supply side to make it net zero?
Interstellar object ‘Oumuamua covered in 'thick crust of carbon-rich gunk'
I hope the paraphrased title is okay, since it conveys what the article is actually about much better than the real one.
Building a connection across a continent just by hopping from mesh node to mesh node is like trying to drive across a country by just using dirt paths. It is clearly not impossible, but there is a reason that most people choose to use highways for long distances. It is similar with a several-hundred-hop long path through a mesh network vs a single hop over a suboceanic fiber connection.

In particular, step 5 is untrue over large distances such as across the Sahara. Step 6 is true, but does not necessarily lead to mass adoption. Step 7 is feasible, but costs a LOT of money at scale. Also, it seems that economies of scale would rapidly push out all inefficient means of communication in step 9 (assuming that sailing ships across the oceans and/or launching satellites will continue to cost money) and we would end up back with suboceanic fibres.

Finally, while the "next billion" may not be attached to their unlimited netflix just yet, it seems highly unlikely that people in developed nations are willing to accept drastic slowdowns in their connections. Streaming video takes twice the bandwidth (both downloading and reuploading) as required for just watching on EVERY mesh node between the viewer and the producer. Caching might reduce this a bit, but is by definition not effective for "long tail" content. I'd be curious to see how long the meshes hold together when it turns out you can't see Game of Thrones because the next node over has no more bandwidth to spare.
What, serious about wanting to know why it is in their codebase? Yes, I'm 100% serious. If they're currently using it in production I'd assume there's a good reason for it. Plus, I'm pretty sure the folks over at LinkedIn engineering are definitely serious. In any case I'm very curious as to why (rightly or wrongly) it's in there.
Really cool site, material breaks it though. Can't find dependency "button" :)

Thanks for building!
Yes, consumption is paradise! :D
> we had an old carbon copier that we could use

You know, the kind where you slide the thing across and you don't have to plug it in?
For what it's worth, Microsoft has the same approach to debugging the kernel via WinDBG.
This is pure speculation.
You may like it here: http://reddit.com/r/iamverysmart
That answer doesn't make any sense. Bitfinex is buying bitcoins from itself?

Could you please explain in more detail?
> https://www.bitmex.com/app/insuranceFund

That isn't an insurance fund. It's BitMEX's reserves, re-branded. In the event of a crash the value of these assets would fall. If the price drop is large enough, it could burn through these reserves.

It is prudent that BitMEX seems to be holding reserves. This is what good exchanges do! But consider why Goldman Sachs is requiring 100% margin while Bitfinex is doing the same at 30% [1]. The additional risk is borne by the exchange's (or in GS's case, broker's) equity. When that runs out, the exchange (or broker, as applicable) busts. We separated broker-dealers, who can lend on margin, from the exchanges in the equity markets for a reason.

> it seems like all exchanges except for gdax/coinbase have a strategy to handle it

Based on what?

[1] https://support.bitfinex.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004555165-...
I think if you were on the receiving end of one of the Gates Foundation projects you would feel very different.

"Preventing technological progress" -- so because of M$ shenanigangs perhaps rich kids got their toys a year or two later? (Big perhaps.) Still think the world as a whole was better off with Bill Gates in it.

You have to be rich to give the same moral weight to providing tech toys and providing medicines.
Q: do you believe the govt-published inflation stats are accurate? Or is inflation under-reported by the US government?
Tribalism is not a bad thing, neither is nationalism, it is only a problem when it turns sour. Just like everything else. It's horribly limiting to think in only black and white.
Capitalism is danger for civilization? Writes who? A buzzfeed. A very, very leftist media site.

How we end up in situation when huge portion (if not majority) of hacker community turned out to be die hard socialists? (nowadays they call themselves social-democrats)

I remember when I lived in Uzbekistan and I didn't have access to internet, I got floppy disk with saved copies of Eric Raymond articles. Once I've read "How To Become A Hacker", it influenced me a lot. I would say it was the most influential article I've ever read in my life.

I imagined "a hacker", an individualist person, who likes to find non-standard solutions to problems, who thinks out of box, who don't blindly follow authority, who likes decentralisation as opposed to centralisation. "A hacker" is a person who almost by definition right-libertarian.

Latter I found this article of Eric Raymond:

http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/libgates.html

Years later, I found articles of Paul Graham. It was amazing to read him. And he also turned out to be on free-market side:

http://paulgraham.com/wealth.html

I like his quote:

> This is why so many of the best programmers are libertarians.

Now, what I've see is disappointing, I don't like this and it shouldn't be like this at least on Hacker News. We have more than enough people in the world who wants more government, more authority, more religion.
well that's what I tried. and basically I get:

> gcloud container clusters get-credentials cluster-1 ...trimmed

> Fetching cluster endpoint and auth data.

> ERROR: (gcloud.container.clusters.get-credentials)
ResponseError: code=404, message=The resource "projects/infinite-alcove-164114/zones/europe-west3-c/clusters/cluster-1" was not found.

> Could not find [cluster-1] in [europe-west3-c].

> Did you mean [cluster-1] in [europe-west3]?

note that neither gcloud alpha, nor glcoud beta nor europe-west3-(a|b|c) worked.

prolly a bug when using `Regional (Beta)`.
An exquisitely fine balance of gnawing dissatisfaction held at bay by suffering
Or higher taxes, effectively retiring money from the economy.
So, you learned JavaScript – now what? – Christian Heilmann – Medium
Can you fix this?

MissingDependencyError
This package (or this version) uses `./lib-cov/http`, but does not specify them
either as a dependency or a peer dependency

For input chai-http
This makes sense to me, that's something I hadn't thought of so thanks for sharing.

But I still don't see how it differentiates BTC from USD. Because issuing any debt in the first place would inflate the value. So then when you stop issuing debt, the value would get deflated to what it would have been originally. I think this is how the Fed tries to control deflation as well. They print more money, not to distribute it but just so that they can hold it and burn it when they need to control inflation. Either way, both of these scenarios seems like a wash to me. You're just making money so that you can destroy it later.

The only argument I can see here is the idea of having 'wiggle room' within the money supply. In essence a way to control the irrational volatility of the market. If everyone is screaming sell sell sell!, the Fed has a limited amount of room to destroy some money and calm people down before panic takes over. BTC doesn't have that. But even this seems to me like a much weaker 'check' than the author suggests.
Heretics welcome: Economics needs a new Reformation
“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” ― Henry Ford

I think this is quite on the money. The problem is that many of us don't manage to think "you can".
For one thing, many hold kind of fatalistic beliefs and feel powerless. Others suffer from over-confidence. That's not really thinking "you can" but delusion. I could imagine that this is a nature & nurture thing and that nurture would be enough for most people if only they could find them-selves in an environment that's right for them. The problem is, however, that we still kinda suck at bringing the right people together.
There are an infinite number of alternatives between communism and unregulated corporate capitalism.
How did you measure your last claim?
Because UML cannot interact with most hardware and that is where bugs happen. Even VMs do not provide real hardware or allow you to bring down the machine with it.

Instead you can debug a crash using a trace and kexec dump. And also use quite fast ftrace infrastructure which is much better than plain old printf.

There are also kprobes, gcov and oprofile.
If amoral profit maximizers

Such as websites run on ad clicks? Buzzfeed itself is the problem, and things like it. Not tech, not capitalism.
Ya, you're right. I wish there was a word that meant the thing i'm trying to articulate. Intrinsic is closest, but you're right, it's imperfect. I think intrinsic is actually more appropriate for btc than for usd, though, since Bitcoin's use for transaction fees is actually intrinsic to its nature.
Yes, NJ did illegal actions and they were charged with fraud... Not sure what you are saying here? You are supporting my case.
An async map function in PHP
I don't think any of these are salient.

In the first place, politics is more often the driver of economics than the other way around. No way would American political leaders sacrifice the good of the nation for the good of individual corporations. To allow China to do this literally means they're sleeping at the wheel. Americans have always been fiercely America-first, up to and well beyond the point of being willing to go to war over it.

This is, quite literally, the one job that a lot of people in government have, to come up with foreign policy strategies and assess the situation and recommend policy to political leadership. Those people are still there, doing their jobs, assessing and recommending. Yet we still have not started pursuing an effective strategy for containing China. Why?

Your other theme, that Americans just somehow like China, doesn't really hold water either. Americans had a similar like for Russians, but that didn't stop us from fighting a decades-long proxy war with them.

American leaders just seem legitimately confused over the direction the nation should be going, allowing China to fill a leadership void. It almost seems like we're just tired of global hegemony.
Look at the vote.

It is an absolutely fact based statement. Sometimes being factual will rally the side required to win the war.
Anything is possible, but an accusation of bad faith requires more than the off chance that the accuser is correct. Some argumentative support for the accusation, for example.
What about all the other enormously rich families that don't have the spotlight shined on them to hold them to a higher standard?
A new technology can have many impacts on society. Are tech companies supposed to hold back on new ideas until every possible stakeholder has had a chance to weigh in? Is every negatively impacted stakeholder entitled to some kind of solution before new technologies are deployed?

The reason the tech industry will almost certainly not wind up with the negative image that financial companies suffer with is that people actually like the things new technologies do. People prefer Orbitz to dealing with travel agents. People prefer email to postal mail. People prefer downloading to buying CDs, and they prefered CDs to vinyl, and they preferred recorded music to buying sheet music and learning how to play an instrument. Despite decades of complaints by all these various affected stakeholders, people still have a positive opinion of the tech industry, because at the end of the day they see tangible improvements in their lives.
He totally misunderstands the danger of runaway AI's. Even perfectly intentioned AI researchers living in his imagined utopia would be at risk of accidentally creating one. Aligning AI's with human values is a non-trivial technical problem, and there's no guarantee we'll find a solution before someone creates a super intelligent AI, regardless of how well we structure society.
Great post. Could you describe further what you mean by data pipelining? Is this something that you could also use Spark, Kafka for? I'd be interested to know if Kubernetes would work for me as well.
Big Data Set for Crypto Backtesting
Hi guys,

I have a huge data set from the past couple of months with the price of cryptocurrencies off of CoinMarketCap. The CoinMarketCap data is every five minutes. I collected data between August and November. The data is in csv format. Let me know if you are interested in the data in another format. https://github.com/iamrobinhood12345/coinmarketcap_data
Sorry, but what? What exchange is printing billions of $ of unbacked Bitcoins?
At some point you can consciously reflect on what those personality traits actually are, but you can't be sure what they are exactly. Personality traits are not directly observable, whereas behavior can lead to observation of trends, from which a personality trait can be deducted. So, the first and most difficult part of changing a certain trait is to identify it thoroughly. Also, it depends on who is observing whether a personality trait is actually likable or not. Extreme expressions of such traits are the most obvious. But aren't all traits to be taken into account, because the extreme ones always stem from myriads of nuanced trends in behavior? See, it's not at all that easy to identify a certain trait, not to speak of consciously changing a certain behavior over a long period of time.

Why are some traits more likable than others? Which ones are real and which ones are faked or biased (actors, salespeople, etc)? This paper goes far deeper into those questions than I intended to do. My point was, that there are people out there (and also here) who will take this paper, read the abstract, assume that changing one's personality traits is as easy as drinking a beer and go tooting that misinterpretation of actual facts as alternate facts. It's not a yes or no choice. It's not as quantifiable as a beer. It's an expression of behavioral trends.
Lending rates on bitfinex imply a huge counterparty risk. Somehow I believe what that tells me more.
You're hearing the flyback transformer vibrate. I could hear CRT TVs like that, but I haven't been around one in years.

In television sets, this high frequency is about 15 kilohertz (15.625 kHz for PAL, 15.734 kHz for NTSC), and vibrations from the transformer core caused by magnetostriction can often be heard as a high-pitched whine. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyback_transformer