skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If a wealthy person earns their wealth, then they have benefitted from their contribution to society. If they are allowed to lock that wealth up multigenerationally, then they are incentivized to change the system to make it harder for others to do what they themselves have done, to the benefit of others who have also already taken advantage.

Society as a whole benefits much more when each generation has to earn the bulk of their wealth.
My first CPU was a Z80 running CP/M from two floppies. Monitor showed monochrome letters written in WordStar. Only survivor is moving the cursor usually word by word probably now hard coded in muscle memory. Writing this on a machine with no moving parts nor noise. Took 40 years to get from ASM to WASM, quite a ride.
If you ask them to reach out they might go down there and see them, set up a meeting, speak to a friend that works there, etc.

That's where you can use the more general and succinct term, "contact".
What Investors Should Look for Before Participating in an ICO
For example not being kicked out from a platform for no reason, because some MBA needs to fill their quarterly quota of kicked out 3rd party sellers? Not giving sales data on what is selling well to your competitor that in turn would start manufacturing their "essentials" line, copying your product, and undercutting you? Please read what is right now happening with Amazon and tell me you like what it is becoming. Amazon used to be very useful for sellers when it allowed rotating shopping cart so that everyone got some throughput on a single marketplace, paying them some 15% of revenue for this "marketing". This is no longer feasible for most 3rd party sellers; instead Amazon is becoming very restrictive, siding with big brands, more and more rejecting honest businesses and locking them out of their platform.
I don't think tech disruption is necessary to reduce costs, a multidisciplinary approach could do something similar.

Edit: apparently my comment never finished, lol. What I meant to say is that disruption could work, but I think that optimization and regulations with the tools we have today would also alleviate many problems we have.
Thank you for the reply!

Just to note the reason I was asking wasn't to catch you out or anything, I'm trying to encourage a remote work situation at the day job but it always comes down to "we need everyone in the office because communication". Always good to have a few ideas ready to roll in the pocket :)
It's a fascinating example of "near-programming", computing results declaratively, if I'm understanding the wiki. I'm actually surprised it works at all.
> e.g. if a block costs ~70k USD of electricity and you accept a tx for more than 210k USD after 6 conf then if the sender is a purely self interested actor in a perfect market their rational decision would be to spend a bit more than 210k USD in electricity to mine 7 blocks.

The math doesn't work that way.

If you take all the bitcoin mining operations in the whole world, China and every other country, put them together and somehow duplicated all that under your own control, so that you own as much as everyone else put together, you own 50% of the global hashrate... that only gives you a 50% chance that you will mine the next block, let alone 7 in a row.

The chances of mining 7 blocks in a row, even if you own as much as everyone else in the world put together, is less than 1%.

And it would cost billions of dollars worth of ASICs to get that 1% chance.
2017 Was the Year I Learned About My White Privilege
That is a much better comment than your previous one.

I would counter that right now, money is ridiculously cheap. Interest rates are breathtakingly low. There are enormous amounts of money running around begging to be borrowed. As such, if this system you posit was accurate, then the very wealthy would be seeing the smallest returns on their money for decades, as they effectively competed to be the lender/investor to the people creating wealth.

But that's not what we're seeing.

It's also not what we see with investing in the stock market; that provides nothing to a company beyond the first time a stock is sold (barring a secondary argument that there is value in demonstrating that people are trading shares in the company which makes everyone feel good about the company and there's a value in that), but the rich are seeing some fantastic returns on their money in the stock market, extracting a nice steady stream of dividends and capital value increases, without having given a penny to the company named on the stock.

As an aside and speaking purely from my own experiences, I draw more each year from the stock market than my country's median salary, and I'm generating no wealth whatsoever for that (although I expect some would argue that by not selling all my shares, I'm providing value and that's what I'm being rewarded for). I could retire and get by for the rest of my life, entirely on the backs of others. The rich do the same to a breathtaking degree.
Yes, it's true. I spoke about future pqc recommendations from NIST at a scheduled time. I never said there was nothing to worry about, but that NIST's future pqc recommendations don't need to be worried about today.

You are making a reference to something other than the pqc future recommendations from NIST. Of course, if the agility is low, requiring a large ramp up time, a company can turn to the CNSA values today.

As you point out, working scalability is the issue. Even when there is a computer than can run grover or schor over something, the number of qubits will be the issue.
Only if __STDC_IEC_559__ is defined, which implementations are not required to do (in C++, the equivalent is std::numeric_limits<float>::is_iec559).
In that case, then yes, it is a good strategy. Find a currency you like holding and have some of it on as many exchanges as you want. When the price gets out of whack, sell on one exchange and buy on the other. Square up when it's convenient.
Top Java Stories That Rocked Your Socks in 2017
It's not necessarily that people are calling for hard skills to be replaced with soft skills, however they are writing articles in which they imply that soft skills are more valuable than hard skills at Google [1].

It's basic self-interest. If you believe that you're unable to sell your hard skills to an employer, it's in your interest to try to convince people that what you offer (superior generosity, motivational speaking, equality and empathy) will be more likely to bring success to an employer.

People don't need to literally call for hard skills to be replaced because that's not the end-goal. The goal here is that employer's realise that soft skills are more important so that the status of these careers is higher than that of software engineers.

[1] https://twitter.com/joelgrus/status/945114254922825730
They also take significantly longer to dry your clothes.
>As a Jewish Kekistani

What the actual hell is happening to this country
> People seem to think this place is better than Facebook, Reddit or all the other vote-based, algorithm-driven discussion forums...

Reddit and FB are largely algorithm-driven; in this joint, things get personal.
"Get in touch" could be an alternative. Careful though, don't turn it into a "touch base!"
>As a Jewish Kekistani, it infuriates me. I don't like identitarians,

I can't tell if you're deliberately trolling or not, which I guess is the point you're trying to make.
Quoting from the abstract:

> ... a non-combinatorial approach
> to hard optimization problems that
> ... finds better approximations than
> the current state-of-the-art.

So it appears that they're finding approximate solutions, so already it's rather less significant than the title suggests.

Then:

> We show empirical evidence that
> our solver scales linearly with
> the size of the problem, ...

We know that for most NP-Complete problems, most instances are easy. The question then is whether they are testing their algorithms on instances that are known to be hard. There's a chance they're doing something like finding factors of random integers, which we know is easy in almost every instance.

I'm deeply pessimistic.
"Ask" as a noun.
I guarantee you the abuse the author receives is not from Muslims.
Ans. 777X
I thought he faded away... (?)
I hadn't heard of this show before reading the article and aim to watch it. Thanks
Similarly, the moral values of the left (especially the social justice movement) aligns deeply with the teachings of Jesus.
Did you select set up as a new phone or restore from a backup

I had all kinds of problems like this until i just bit the bullet and did it clean slate, and i haven't had a single performance issue since. Not a single reboot, nothing. The regular iOS11 gripes are still there but nothing truly awful like this

It's a bit like doing a clean install when you order a new laptop right after you take it out of the box. It's usually a good call, even if it's a bit of a hassle
It's the "fail closed" principle in action: if I don't understand it, it must be malicious, so the connection should be rejected as swiftly as possible.

Also seen in firewalls which drop all ICMP packets ("the only real-world use of ICMP is ping floods, right?"), breaking PMTUD.
Another Wattup company with tech specs in the faq http://energous.com
This is an interesting theoretical implication of cryptocurrencies' decrentralised mining process. The welfare of monopoly vs. competitive markets are the opposite to traditional micoroeconomics, because a currency's social value does not increase with mining effort.

Any central bank can use their monopoly over the creation of currency to increase reserves whilst incurring a cost less than those reserves. For example, suppose the US economy grows by 50% over 30 years, but that the country's payment infrastructure doesn't change otherwise, and so the typical American wishes to have a higher real value of cash in their wallet, to buy more luxurious office lunches, or spend the cash in other circumstances.

In a situation where everyone uses a traditional fiat currency, minted by a central bank, the central banks monopoly over the production of these additional currency reserves will allow them to spend significantly less than the value of the currency in making it. Today, a $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to make, plus some additional transport and monitoring costs [1].

However, with the decentralised nature of a crypo-currency, a competitive market dictates that in order for it to be created, miners must spend the entire value of the cryptocurrency in energy costs, otherwise they would be forgoing risk-free profits. Suppose the economy uses cryptocurrency. If the market allows for miners to spend only $90 of energy, hardware and labour to mine $100 of currency, then a less efficient entrant can come in with costs between $90-$100 and make a positive expected profit. This means that even if there are not technical difficulties preventing a crypocurrency from replacing a traditional fiat currency, it's adoption reduces the social surplus generated from the minting of new currency.

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-100-bill-costs-60-more...
> This has more to do with advancements in medicine and technology than people becoming richer.

It's impossible to separate people becoming richer from advancements in technology. We didn't grow GDP by 77 times, because we work 77 times harder.

Improvements in underlying technology are what help us create more wealth. The problem is that the new wealth being created and benefits of that new technology is being shared so proportionally.
Check out https://home-assistant.io/ and consider a Plex / Kodi / Emby server.

I based my home server setup around docker images, sort of like this arrangement:

https://www.linuxserver.io/2017/06/24/the-perfect-media-serv...
One thought that I have it to refuse to use any neologism that substitutes for an already-existing word or phrase. The problem I have is that business BS has been going on for longer than I've been alive, so I don't have a good sense for old BS neologisms.
I haven't heard "reaching out" all that often, but the one that makes me cringe is "moving/going/looking forward." I once heard my boss use it 3 times in one sentence (it was something like "going forward, we'll ... and going forward, ... to set expectations going forward.") The surreal experience was further enhanced by the fact that none of the 6 others in the same meeting even seemed to notice or find it unusual.
Many of us have strong reactions to some kinds of business jargon. But use a programming term metaphorically and we have no trouble with it, even though people who don't have the background won't get it.

Perhaps this cringing at certain terms is not entirely rational?
The people who the bot targeted were impersonating Jews and spreading anti Semitic. That’s not a position, that’s abuse. Is the relevance clear now?
I’m curious about this too. I can’t imagine a procurement office not permitting Amazon! It’s a crazy world.
Measuring Ad Weight
Scaling a Software Business by Brian Fitzgerald – Free EBook
The true face-palmer here is the new screenshot shortcut on the X, wherein you press volume up + side button to take a screenshot

i seriously take probably 5-10 screenshots a day just trying to lock my damn phone. I've taken to crooking my finger on the other side so it's far from the volume buttons just to avoid this.

Seriously my only major UI complaint
No it can't do that
Your comment is a great example of the disconnect between people in this space and people not in this space. Do you actually think anyone in this space would believe that weight spikes are tied to CHF in all cases? You don't diagnose CHF by weight. It's something you trend in known patients.

Comments like this are one reason why doctors give zero shits about the potential of computing. Explaining even the basics of a narrow area of human physiology to some overly arrogant IT guy is maddening (arrogant is fine, for Pete's sake, it's not like doctors aren't arrogant). Yes, the doctors can be blamed for conflating computer scientists with the IT guy who came to replace their mouse. But the IT guy and the CS guy (always a guy) can both equally be blamed for their unholy arrogance. How many lives did you save today? Zero? Ok, at least I didn't spill any data (that I know of).

This can go round, and round, and round.

You have no idea how far down the problem goes. I know this because no one knows how far the problem goes. We sequence hundreds of thousands if not millions of genomes, and still we don't know. Do you really think we spend a decade in training and come out thinking everything is simple?!

Now, on the flip side, doctors also don't even know how to frame their problems, in no small part because they're only required to take 2 semesters of calculus. And then most of them punch out of math as fast as possible.

Computer scientists should be going to biology conferences. Go to ASCO. Pick a medical specialty, they have multiple conferences a year, I garauntee it. There's one or 10 in your city. If you want middle ground, look at microbiology, immunology, molecular biology. They use a fair number of quantitative methods (sequencing, mass spec, flow cytometry, etc).
Ah! MVP has lost any meaning. Better use PoC (proof of concept) because an MVP is just a finished product with all the bells and whistles because "product management" wants it all
I need more cow bell?
That's all true but I don't see how it refutes what I said.

The 787's been in production and delivering aircraft for 4 years longer than the A350 XWB, which is still ramping up [1]. If that's not a head start when we're comparing delivered aircraft between the two then I don't know what is; the fact that Airbus let Boeing have that lead by wasting their time trying to hawk an A330 with revised wings and engines is neither here nor there.

> Airbus plans to increase its production rate from 10 monthly in 2018 to 13 monthly from 2019, while the Boeing 787 production will increase from 12 to 14 per month in 2019, and six A330 are produced monthly.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A350_XWB#Production
OT: A friend of mine is trying to enter into crypto-market with slightly different idea/project but related to blockchain. I'm not a crypto expert; if anyone feels like helping with reviewing his basic idea, please feel free to reach out via email in my profile. This could be somewhat paid small (few-times) gig. /OT
Weird, on both my phone and one i gifted to my mother for the first week or so it greyed out the screen(like, windows UAC style) and had big bold text at the bottom saying "double press to purchase" while showing the side button animation. It doesn't show up on mine now, but the little tutorial showed the first few times
As long as the AES key size is 256 and not one of the 128 versions.
Because many new accounts are dead. Some are so dead, you can't even vouch for them.
That "soft skills are more valuable than hard" is not what I read in that article. It sounds more to me like degrees in STEM correlate less well with success at Google than people expected. Not "negatively" — "less positively", and merely less positively than people anticipated. So what was the "wrong" here? People's assumptions. This is my surprised face.

But I'm probably biased to read it more generously than someone else might be; I was a philosophy major in undergrad, and actively repudiate the ludicrous notion that a broader, more liberal education is somehow wasteful. So YMMV.

EDIT: Look at it this way: you can be the most brilliant technologist in the history of ever. If you're impossible to work with, you're a liability, not an asset. You drive away anyone who tries to work with you, and/or your bus factor is, give or take, ∞.

Once again, "if you're arguing against that, then you're part of the problem."
The cost of electricity is artificially low because it doesn't include the cost of the associated pollution.
> If you provide value, people (myself included) will happily pay for it. People who go out of their way to optimize their websites for ad revenue are not among those "providing value" to anyone.

I disagree at multiple levels.

While ethically attractive, most people don't pay. This has been proven multiple times across multiple mediums. Look at free-to-play gaming, for example. Worse, go see the badgering and feature locking which goes on as they attempt to extort you into forking over some cash. Is that really the web you want to live in?

From a creator perspective, this sucks even harder. Now I have to manage a bunch of paying customers, many of whom want "support" since I accepted their cash. Some of them even will attempt to bother me in the offline world over any disagreements between their expectations and my own. You would be disturbed by some of the emails I get from patrons of "free sites" - god forbid I should take money from these people and be morally obliged to serve them. My favorite part about being an ad supported publisher is having the moral freedom to tell a jerk to hit the road. Or call the cops if they attempt to contact me offline. I really don't need another boss in my life....

A good ad optimization process can provide a ton of value to the user experience... because keeping users happy is directly related to making more money. Higher bounce rate is lost revenue. Less pages per visit is lost revenue. Slower loads hit you in wallet too (higher bounce rate, shorter time on screen for the advertisement). Oh - and Big Daddy Google turns off your organic search traffic if you deliver a really lousy user experience. Game over.

Now... most of the ads that annoy customers are actually very low paying placements. Those click-bait sites? That wasn't high paying ad space, for either the click which sent you there or the clicks you did while you browsed. Browser redirects? Also cheap, throwaway traffic.

Most websites would be better if they eliminated their lowest advertising placements. The quality usually sucks.
Mods, can you look into why this and the Obama articles were flagged?
Everyone has a different definition of "agile." Its always going to be different and one of the key points of _agile_ is that you bend it to fit your own needs.

That said, there are certainly pitfalls to taking some aspects of one methodology without understanding why those methods are the way they are and perhaps whether they rely on some other aspect of the methodology that is skimmed over.

For example, story points. The reason they're made up is because people fixate on man-hours being a literal hour worth of work no matter the man. Instead you use a fuzzy point system that at first is impossible to use as a prediction but is supposed to become more accurate over time. Everyone estimates points differently? Fine. that's why its points and not hours. You make burn down charts and measure your velocity in points as well so as long as the point estimation doesn't fluctuate wildly you can start to get something. Plus, it doesn't even matter if you can predict things. Points are are also just an abstract concept to get people talking about task difficulty in general. "300 points?! Why do you say that? What don't I understand about this task." The main goal is to get relative values, not absolute hours.

That said, a lot of these methods are taken as religion and used as a cudgel every two weeks.
Why doesn't' it work for software?
At minimum, a wealthy person should at least buy stuff -- that would actually be a contribution to society. But the super-wealthy have more money than they can possibly spend!
Love and Faith
I am also really glad someone has glued toghether major aspects of template/html std library. It is definetely a place where are some 'taboos', tricks or gotchas, i.e. re-usability of tmpl static variable to add multiple named templates and call them by name (re: question on disqus below article) or sharing parent scope to children variable when using range loop (stackoverflow popular question). I am bit sad I haven't found some free time to collect all known 'tricks' to me and try to list them somehow or send CR yet.
“Then we would really show the boss what good software looks like.”
How the EFF fought for your rights in 2017
John McAfee's Twitter gets hacked, sets off cryptomarket trader bots
In most platforms impersonating a living person is against the TOS. If twitter were doing their job, they would ban them.
Of course you could always do better, but the specific feature mentioned in the parent comment (completing flags for "tar" instead of checking the man page) has been around for ages.

Regarding contextual analysis, the fundamental problem is that command execution relies on a list of strings (argv) with no types or meaning. Each command is responsible for parsing its own arguments, either manually or using a shared library (e.g. getopt). This provides loose coupling and flexibility, but makes introspection really difficult, and features like completions become an afterthought reimplemented in every shell either by special cases for each command or hacks like parsing help messages.
Best practices for writing high-performance Go code
Terry Gilliam's Lost Animations from Monty Python and the Holy Grail (2015)
Creating, selling, transporting and buying consumer goods such as casual footwear now requires just one significant human—the consumer—plus an individual here and there to oversee assembly and repair robots. Many of the basics we buy are now constructed, bought, and shipped with no one besides the customer ever laying eyes on them.

Just to complete the story, there is no consumer because nobody has a job, so there's no reason to create consumer goods in the first place.
SimpleMail: new version for Amiga OS 3/4
Since you wouldn't have access to cookies I don't think it would be the end of the world. However you would have access to the users LAN which would likely make many local devices' vulnerabilities exploitable. All in all it is probably a bad idea with the current state of IoT, home routers, printers...