skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is obviously more to it than that, but it was my thought way back when.

I interviewed with Mike and Scott when there didn't seem to be many other people involved. A few days later the company I worked for started the process of getting acquired.

I tossed up what I thought my share options might be worth against two guys who seemed to be just out of uni with a bug tracker.

I called them back and said I'd stay where I was. My options were worth nothing. Joke was on me big time!

Later on lots of my dev team ended up working for Atlassian and I thought it might be time to check it out again. I went for an interview and was told I wasn't smart enough, despite the fact I'd already mentored a bunch of their devs.

At least they gave me an interview. Most places don't 'cause I don't have the book learning to get past HR.
Yes I've seen it used in translations before, I think that's a perfect use-case.
This has been discussed couple of times already as pointed by another poster:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16067322

This kind of reporting is based on a big "if". We don't know yet "if" it was due to contractual obligation or something else.
Why not do like I do with English, Swedish and Portuguese: use the English keyboard and long press the letters you need to type that have a diacritic, like: é, à, á, ê, õ, ... in Portuguese or å, ö, ä in Swedish?

This saves me the hassle of switching keyboards all the time, I just learned what long presses I need to use in the US International keyboard and can type even in German :)
Afaik, the SoC that is used in this device is the only recent-ish such system on the market with fully open source/free radio firmware (but you need to make sure to get the correct revision, as D-Link changed its innards at least once without renaming the model). I can highly recommend it from my day-to-day experience with it, running Lede 17.01.
Why would you do that? If you're designing for systemd, go for "simple" (that is, don't fork), or if you need to signal when your service is truly ready rather than just monitor its lifetime, go for "notify" (or "dbus" if you're into that sort of thing).

Using "forking" as readiness protocol doesn't make sense. Unlike "notify", it doesn't signal readiness. It's only there to try to understand old services that always daemonize, which was only done because the old init systems required it. Daemonizing is pointless under systemd or other init systems that handle this themselves.
If you don't want to download the PDF view it as HTML:

https://cloudspace.idrsolutions.com:8181/HTML_Page_Extractio...
> The second, which looks more rigorous to me, is "taking source code written in one language and transforming into another language that has a similar level of abstraction" (found for example here: https://www.stevefenton.co.uk/2012/11/compiling-vs-transpili...).

> For example, “Transpile Java Bytecode to WebAssembly” adds exactly zero information to “Compile Java Bytecode to WebAssembly”

No, the point is that ‘transpile’ more narrowly defines the action being undertaken. While all transpiling is a form of compiling, the reverse is jot true. Specifically from the second definition you cited transpiling connotes that a similar level of abstraction is retained. Often this means that type level information is retained. It’s similar to the distinction of lossy vs lossless compression.

So yes, when I read “X is transpiled to Y” that infers that a certain level of abstraction is maintiained which is not necessarily the case. You can transpile say OCaml to JavaScript and use the garbage collection and native JS types or you can compile OCaml to a JavaScript using a subset of it such as ASM.js using byte arrays and loose type information in he target language. That’s different.
How Revolut Won 180K Users in 90 Days by Banking on Trustworthiness
AwesomeDairy App  – Buy Milk and Milk Products Online
I was given new hands for Christmas
Like the iPhone?
Wanna be billionaire buddies? Issue 1 billion teekertcoins, I'll buy one from you for $1 if you do the same.
>> R&D to make healthcare cheaper?

That would be a start. Public healthcare, in the European model, would be ideal. It's true that it's a huge money sink, but that can be managed somewhat- by cost/benefit calculations, which sounds harsh and inhumane but is I think is justifiable.
Extending class behavior using inheritance in OOP is harmful
Cryptocurrencies are very volatile because they are very new not because anything fundamentally worse compared to fiat.

If they some day will be accepted as a regular currency and you can buy everything you need with them then there is no reason to go back to local fiat. Then the prices on the shelves would indeed be denominated in units of XMR for example.

That is indeed a big if though.
Bitcoin cash's approach to scaling is just not sustainable and leads to centralization. You cant just increase the block size each time the mempool fills. In a couple of years no one would be capable to run a full node on consumer hardware. Also you open up all kinds of different ways for the network to be attacked. With a 1MB block size an attack block will take 40 seconds to validate with a 2MB size it will take 14 minutes. The correct solution to scaling is a Layer 2 protocol.

Bitcoin Cash's mantra is that they want people to treat 0-confirmation transactions as safe which is absolutely the opposite of what the whole protocol is about. Check this infographic that was tweeted a few hours ago https://twitter.com/Bitcoin/status/949019786704547842
IA64 would like to reaffirm that this indeed worthwhile.
Which article did you read? Napster is a footnote in this one.
Macaroons have many moving pieces, caveats being just one of them. Standardization would have to approach it from all edges. For example the binary format while simple is also "de facto" standard resembling protobuf but not exactly. Maybe CBOR would be a good idea (or a subset of it)?

As for caveats there are two forces at place: some want simple format ("X op Y") but there is another way that I've explored in a PoC - use simple stack-based script system (similar to Bitcoin Script [0]), then you can encode some really interesting properties inside your tokens (like requiring hashes of different properties, or signatures) so it would be kind of a meta-authorization scheme where you can delay the decision (e.g. require EC signatures for some sensitive operations). Of course this brings additional complexity but on the other hand using caveats in "X op Y" form doesn't bring any benefits over JWT claims.

[0]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script

The ultimate reason why I abandoned Macaroons (after working for some prototypes and creating a JS library for them) is just the amount of complexity needed to work with them. And remember - code working with Macaroons is being executed before the request is authorized (that's what they are for) so this code need to be carefully audited and any bug can have severe consequences.

Compare that with JWT, you can write a verifier in simple code (JSON and base64 are built-in in any language) and simple is easier to audit. In Macaroons you first need to decode base64, parse custom binary format, check consistency (no cycles in third-party caveats), decrypt third-party keys. Moreover there can be multiple Macaroons for given ID, you need to check if at least one satisfies the request. Better - check all of them and then see if at least one works (to protect against side-channel attacks). So there is some inherent complexity in the entire stack. Removing it would require some substantial work. IMHO that's why they are not widely used. Oh, did I mention the existing libraries have some rather significant issues [1]?

[1]: https://github.com/nitram509/macaroons.js/blob/master/src/ma...

So to answer your question: I would gladly see some standarization effort, but it needs to be really thorough to have good effect. Unfortunately Macaroons are already plagued by old cruft (e.g. third-party caveats ID are called "cid" and first party caveats are also called "cid" but they are completely different) that no-one wants to touch not to break existing code.

If you don't mind we can keep the discussion here, it's good for others to see (I got into Macaroons because of one of these threads) and it's google-able :)
I see your point, you're tying "fiat" to the act of spontaneous creation at will rather than the lack of a backing commodity, but I don't agree that definition, and even if I did I'm not sure it's as cast-iron a distinction as you're implying.

You absolutely do have to worry about price manipulation... the only difference is that it's not specifically governments it's just the disproportionately wealthy. I don't see that as a worthwhile distinction.

https://venturebeat.com/2017/12/14/how-bots-are-manipulating...

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-06/mysterious-trader-...

https://cointelegraph.com/news/single-trader-with-enormous-b...

Similarly you can destroy cryptocurrency (some at least), and it can be created. The fact that the creation rate is constrained by the prudence of an algorithm designer rather than constrained by the prudence of a central banker seems like another arbitrary distinction.

To me it feels like crypto proponents want a fancy economics term for othering conventional currencies, so the definition is being bent to fit.
To be fair, the copyrights claims are from other videos containing white noise. An algorithm that matches two white noise audio by claiming they contain the same information is doing its job pretty well.
The HN link doesn't explain why public key JWTs are bad; it's just more "don't use JWTs" (with the exceptionally unhelpful "as engineers, you need to understand first and foremost that JWT is bad". How can we understand if all we get is "JWT is bad because I say it is"?)

The Storify link is slightly more useful but again doesn't really explain anything - it's just bullet points of "I think these things are bad in a standard" which is great if you already have the knowledge of those things. Utterly useless otherwise.

And if "implementation errors should lower your opinion of a specification" means we shouldn't use JWT, where does that leave us on WIFI, SSL, HTTP, speculative execution in pipelines, ...?
I have a video of my own noise generator audio plugin. It's repeatedly been copyright struck by somebody who's put white noise into YouTube's ContentID. Every time I notice this pop up again I dispute the claim and they give up.

They're not in the US. I think they were East German? This is not new, I'm sure it's literally the same people.
Yes, because as we all know, university teams don't have access to hardware, but are swimming in money. (obviously the whole point of doing cloud for the cloud providers is that owning the hardware is cheaper)

Whilst I would agree that university teams probably should use the resources the cloud providers make available freely, they should probably stay away from actually using capacity on the cloud and instead have their own hardware.

Besides, what I keep hearing from machine learning researchers is that no matter where you work, developing on your own machine ... there's no beating that, time and productivity wise.
No, that would be bad design any day of the year. You would limit the attack surface of the hypervisor as much as possible, which means near to zero network access from the internet or customer networks.

But that is just not enough. As their advisory states this might allow reading memory of other guests, and who knows what that guest is doing and what next attack that might lead to. Anything you can imagine, really. The attacker might find keys that allow access to systems not even running on that platform. Maybe user passwords. Maybe private mails or documents. Any data the other guest ever processes is at risk.

It's not a guaranteed win and very limited possibilities to automate. But the potential harm could be unbelievable.
I understand that. I think the solution to that is to make sure people can afford the care they need, so nobody has to steal. Like I say in another comment, public healthcare in the European model, seems to work. I'm from an EU country and my medical bills have always been paid for by public money. I had to contribute a few times, for drugs etc, but nothing major- and people in dire economic straits don't have to pay anything at all.
How many slices can you get from one pie?
You are taking his definition of "empty" quite literally while in the article, his definition of "empty" clearly states:

> sugars cause dental caries and are a source of excess calories, “empty” of vitamins, minerals, protein, and fibre

On proteins having an insulin response, when you intake too much protein, glucose is formed from a metabolic process known as gluconeogenesis which can definitely cause an insulin response.

Interested to hear why you "think that sugar has a special place in our body". Is this from empirical or anecdotal evidence?
About AlexandrL1 – Constant Contact Community
I got an XPS 15 at about the same time. I've always had similar issues, especially with heat. Let me add 2 more:

* Upgrading from win 8.1 to win 10 causes frequent bluescreens unless speedstep is disabled, which leads to massive heat issues. There havn't been any driver updates since, so Dell seem to have no interest in fixing this.

* Random electric shocks where my arms touch the front of the unit while typing. Happens whether plugged in or not. Super annoying.

Overall I honestly can't recommend these. Reasonably good specs and sleek design but flaky construction and too many issues to be worth it. I'll probably get an HP next.
You gave someone else $40 for free.
> there have been only cca 3 previous generations of similar stars

That assumes they're consecutive, not overlapping. Assume it takes 4-old, space them out by 0.1-old, and you could have 100+ generations between the first and us.
Cloud is extremely expensive compared to your own hardware, especially for things like modelling (because even this price essentially is a great machine for every 4 months of compute, ignoring power). Plus the experience of doing modelling on a machine sitting under your desk is far superior to doing it remotely.

Once you have a good pipeline and need to deploy it, sure. Then we can talk.
This is as useful as plotting traffic data from NY into a map of SF.
Do you think just “any kind of FS” running things on their own is patched or firmware updated before embargo lifted, etc? Or is even informed pre-disclosure?
Sharabi Shayari
This seems to be missing WebGL and WASM as branches further down the frontend tree.
If that's true, then why are they still running the K80s ?
Or, far more likely, and more importantly _actually the case here_, the performance impact for most common macOS workloads is likely to be negligible.

Not everything is a conspiracy theory.
This is the big problem. Laws say yes, banks say no. This also applies to perfectly legal e.g. adult or bitcoin businesses.

There is a huge opportunity for new fintech banks to address this problems.
> If that aggregation vehicle is through a privacy-focused coin like Monero or Zcash, or anything onion routed (e.g. Lightning network), how exactly do you demonstrate laundering?

You should be more concerned about how you demonstrate it's not laundering, because in more and more jurisdictions KYC (Known Your Customer) regulations in banking means you will in more and more circumstances get questions about where your money came from and potentially be asked to prove it.

This may or may not affect your jurisdiction now, but these will likely get more common as crypto spreads.

E.g. my ex bought a house recently, and part of the funds she paid the deposit with were transferred from her sister as part of her inheritance from her dad. Which created a whole circus with her lawyer, who was obligated to be certain they were not dealing with laundering, of digging up not just her statements, but dealing with requests for her sisters bank statements, and documentation of the source.

If one of those steps is effectively a tumbler, the answer may very well be "you can't prove the money is clean; we can't deal with you, and we have to report this"

No need to make any specific approach illegal even - just require that anyone you make large payments to are sufficiently satisfied the source is clean, which will be exceedingly hard for users of methods that obscure where it's from.
Spectre is more difficult to exploit. Plus, as the top commenter said, it's more difficult/less effective to exploit it on AMD still.

The "worse" part of Spectre is mainly about the fact that it affects everyone (but not to the same degree). But on a per chip-maker basis, Intel is still getting the shortest end of the stick here.
That is a really cool idea. thank you!
I understand what you were saying, but my point is that it doesn't make a lot of sense.

What I'm saying is that you can have a system that is great for probably close to 95% of all health care needs, at lower cost and for all of your population. This is what the WHO data shows. For the remaining health care needs there may be differences between countries, but I don't see any evidence the US is leading in all forms of advanced treatments (obviously they are in some, but not all). For example, survival rates for the most common forms of cancer are not all that different between US and Europe or Asia, and not highest in the US for all of them [1].

What I don't understand is what you mean by 'half the people do great' in the US system, and in which way it is 'better' than other countries? Do you assume they fix a broken leg better in the US than in say Canada? That better medicines for common illness are only available in the US? Is the hospital staff more friendly, or do the ambulances drive faster because you paid more for your insurance? I'm not trolling, I'm sincerely curious what you mean.

Whether it is rational to prefer a system where you pay (a lot) more for probably all the health care you will ever need in your whole life, under the premise that there is a very small chance you would attract a condition that requires treatment that may not be 'best in the world' in your country and health care system, that's a different question. It does not seem rational to me, for lack of evidence the quality of care would go down if the system were built on solidarity instead of egoism. Anyway, I don't think it actually matters when comparing health care systems. In the end only survival rates and available treatments are relevant, and I don't see any signs the rest of the developed world is severely trailing the US in that regard.

By the way, I cannot speak for other countries, but e.g. in the Dutch health care system you are also insured for treatments that are only available overseas. For example rare forms of cancer or genetic diseases. So even under the assumption such treatments are always exclusively available in the US, this does not mean you are left hung to dry if you are unfortunate enough to suffer from them.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2....
I read some parts of the spec of WebAssembly recently, and there were several things that disappointed me. To name a few:

1) There is no way to allocate in a function's variable stack continuous memory space that spans more than 8 bytes. This implies that if a function has as a local variable compound data structure such as an array or a struct, you have to a) have a global virtual stack pointer, b) manipulate the stack pointer to allocate space for the data structure in the virtual stack on the memory, c) read from or write to the allocated memory space, and finally d) restore the stack pointer before the function exits. This is exactly like what resulting assembly code of C compiler does. Why do we have function locals as a WASM primitive, then, if we have to end up with manipulating the stack pointer?

2) Currently a function can only return one value even though it is trivial to add support to mutiple return values taking advantage of the fact that WASM is stack-based. And what puzzles me is that mutiple return values is actually mentioned as a possible feature in the future, in several places in the spec. WASM reached the MVP before adding it, which means that we will have to stick with one-return-value functions for quite a long time even if it is added in the future.
I used Frontpage for a good while (I made a nice chunk of change off of that app), but switched to Dreamweaver as I started doing more and more PHP.

But either way, I always loved those programs (and was really irritated by the elitists who said you couldn't make decent sites unless you used only notepad; those training wheels helped me become good at something that all of my "notepad-only" friends have all given up on).

But I agree, as fun as it was, I really have no desire to go back to that world.
Microsoft reveals pre-order details for its beautiful, pricey Cortana thermostat
For everyone using Ubiquiti in a home setting how do you place your access points?

From what I understand they're supposed to be ceiling mounted so the domed side is broadcasting 'down' into the room. I'd imagine most domestic users aren't wiring them into the ceiling so are you just placing them on sideboards and tables sub-optimally?
I did look into that, but it's not as widely supported as the UTF8 half-block.
Mathematical Tours
North Korea accepts offer from South to meet for peace talks
Oh, this is marvellous, Flash is dead, long live AS3!

Although it's not quite that, it's providing a C++ Flash API and a slow AS3->wasm workflow, but it shows how respected and mature an eleven-year-old API and language are in some quarters. And I agree.
Ask HN: What Are the Strengths and Weaknesses of ROS (Robot Operating System)?
Can it be the worldwide standard for robotics?
Of course it's a source-to-source compiler. Thanks for not using that moronic word.
Lattices and sphere packings (2016)
You(Indian Citizens) Are at the Risk of Being Framed
They're scared of the feds because the money was the result of a violation of federal law. It's dirty money to anyone that has to deal with the feds.
which socket is it?
This quote - "facilitating intuitive interpretation of complex phenomena" - makes me very suspicious. Inference in neuroimaging is complex and you need to take a great deal of care when interpreting data. There isn't really such a thing as a good outcome from "intuitive" interpretation of neuroimaging data.

For example, there was a story in 2011 about some research that said the brain's "love centre" was being activated by a video of a vibrating and ringing iPhone. They were talking about the insular cortex, but the insular cortex is also involved in vomiting.
What you describe is the difficulty to be creative. You need to try a lot of things and it takes time.

It's the same now than it was then.

What's changed is that, with the same creative power, as an individual, you could do more then.

You can carve a wheel alone in the wood. It's hard, but as a single individual with only natural resources, you can.

A kid in china, or a grandpa in west africa can do it.

To code a revolutionary AI today, you need a lot of per-requisites: electricity, computer, internet, access to knowledge, education and a looooooot of time to practice.

Even if you are the most creative person in the world, from all centuries included. You can't do it in the wood. You will not see somebody in Mali do it. A kid is unlikely to be able to do it.

Because being capable of creative the concept in your head is not enough. The stuff you could do with what anybody had at hand is gone.