skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem is that the more you whittle down bigger arguments to "a thousand tiny factors", the less tangible and less useful arguments around gender inequality become. Your argument seems to be that girls are so suggestible that any discouragement easily bounces them back in line.

Frankly, there are far more reasons why a man would want to enter STEM than a woman. A man can put of devoting time to a family because he doesn't have the biological clock a woman has; STEM is a demanding set of fields that require a lot of thought and time, which becomes a challenge for an intelligent woman who also wants time to find a man she can not only relate to but is at least at the same class level as she is. Being in STEM also means being around a lot of unattractive, perhaps creepy men. STEM is competitive, and men and women compete in different ways, so a woman will likely always have to compete on the playing field of men.

If I was a woman, I probably wouldn't bother, not because someone told me I couldn't do it, but because it makes no sense from a perspective of happiness and reproduction. There's a slim chance the kind of man I would want would also be attracted to me as a person, and I might not even meet such a man if I'm spending most of my time in a lab or behind a computer.

As a man, there is a lot of incentive to go into STEM, probably more than ever. Actually, there's incentive to do just about anything so long as it provides a channel to move into the level of class one aspires to. Good luck attracting an intelligent woman who's going places if you're a cashier or a taxi driver. It's not to say that's impossible, but you put yourself at a huge disadvantage as a man when you don't work towards bigger things. Flip the sexes, and it's totally different; successful, intelligent men are far less likely to negatively judge a potential partner based on her career choice. Because of the tech revolution, working with technology can lead to greater levels of prestige than what used to be attainable. Men perceive prestige as a way of opening doors to the mating pool. For women, too much prestige can close doors because they appear more unattainable. (granted, both can experience levels of unattainableness, but it's all about perception at the end of the day)

I would love for society to expose more girls to science and technology, and encourage them to explore those ideas, but we also need to accept that men and women aren't the same and they are going to have different motivations and perceptions on aggregate. Believing that women can and should behave more like men is fundamentally sexist.
What is horrifying here is that people are actually forbidden to communicate securely (ByLock is a secure messenger AFAIK). IMHO the right for privacy is to be absolute, mo matter what. No kind of safety or anything is worth living under constant surveillance and being unable to chat and be sure no 3rd party can read that.
That's a good idea. The condition implicitly assumed to get the result mentioned ("A rotation in real-space is equivalent to one in reciprocal space") is that the original image is periodically tiled in all directions. Your suggestion mimics this condition.

Since your other comment mentioned limitations of optical apertures, maybe it's worth noting that the way the 45 degree rotation was done here (plunking the rotated image into a black background) mimics the action of an optical aperture -- that is, clipping the observed image along that rectangle.

This causes 45 degree spikes, similar to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction_spike#Diffraction_....
Send SMS Order Confirmations Using Moltin and Twilio
I think the idea of a (near) 50/50 split is that if there were absolutely no biases or differences then you would see approximately this distribution.

But we don't. We do know there are social biases, and thus these are being scrutinized much more. Certainly there can biological biases, but is is absurd to believe that is the only factor involved. My guess is that there is a whole complicated mess of problems and not an easy one (or even dozens) answer that accounts for these differences.
> If you can't move your money due to capital controls, you use bitcoin to bypass those controls

If I can't move $100K of my money due to capital controls, then I also can't move those $100K to buy the bitcoin I need to bypass those controls.
what are you saying? USA is worst?
Bank of America: No More Free Checking for Customers with Low Balances
My entire detached house in Redmond, WA is 1200 sq. ft. Though small for the U. S., I don’t know that I’d label it “tiny”, nor do I think your average 7-11 convenience store to be larger than that.
> Sony Xperia Z1 (sony-honami) (fourth below)

> Sony Xperia Z3 Compact (sony-aries)

looking forward to trying this one day on my Sony Z5 Compact (sony-suzuran)
> The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

I don't use Google much, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Can you elaborate on what makes switching to another search engine ridiculous?

I might be unaware of what I am missing. Web searches are a pretty low-frequency, low-importance action for me. Thinking now of what I use search engines for, I suspect many of my searches are simply to confirm the domain name of a site I am vaguely familiar with, and any search engine can do that. For me, Amazon's dominion in online sales (something I use routinely) is more ominous than Google's dominion over search and advertising (something that I use so rarely).

Google could disappear tomorrow and I would scarcely notice.

That said, the reason I rarely use Google services is because I don't trust them and don't like their business model. So while I agree conceptually with the notion that we need to encourage alternatives, I disagree with the method to reach that end. I don't think exercise of government power is correct; I feel exercise of consumer choice is more appropriate. As a Netscape/Mozilla user in the late 90s, I felt the same way about Microsoft, and ultimately feel the government's suppression of Microsoft hurt the industry in several ways that are difficult to quantify.
chisleu I've contemplated this as well. I don't really believe in big political unions. However there are major practical problems dissolving a union which needs to be addressed, which people who favor dissolving a union seldom address.

It is very hard to have open borders between states if there is no federal authority. It is also hard for a state to run their own economic policy without their own currency and central bank.

Already American states struggle with running different welfare policies. You see how red states e.g. a freeloading on blue state welfare programs, by dumping their poor people in blue states and enticing companies created in innovative states like Calefornia by luring them with low taxes.

I personally think it would be nice if we could have a wide selection of countries and states following completely different policies. It is good with experimentation and trying new things. In practice however this is difficult, as somebody can just freeload on everybody elses work by creating a tax paradise.
Apparently, regulation seems to be the reason the feature is being discontinued. I would have preferred they renamed the feature than removed it wholesale.

Perhaps, this is a warning sign about the life expectancy of cloud-based devices. For example, I cannot imagine buying a washing machine or refrigerator connected to the internet.
Tangentially related: I keep wondering what to do with old Apple devices. I have an old 3rd gen iPad that is intolerably slow, but has such a nice form factor and screen that I hate to get rid of it.

If someone made a swap-out logic board to Android-ify these things, I suspect there’s still got to be tons of them laying around.
> To provide more consistent performance, i.e. less slowdown in the worst case?

AFAICT, this is the reason for the decline of trace-based JIT compilers. When Mozilla introduced JaegerMonkey, their first method-based JIT (which went on to make TraceMonkey obsolete), their reasoning was "tracing tends to interact poorly with certain styles of code" - specifically "the downside of the tracing JIT is that we have to switch back and forth between the [slow] interpreter and the machine code [...] a lot" [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/03/improving-javascript-perfo...].

For an example of a situation in which tracing performs poorly, consider a hot trace through an if-else statement. The trace will only contain one of the statement's two branches - leading to reduced performance if the "off-trace" branch is frequently taken.

> Faster in the best/average case?

The issue with tracing isn't best-case performance - again, from Mozilla: "when we’re able to “stay on trace” TraceMonkey wins against every other engine" [ibid]. Also, it seems tracing can compete in the average case against somewhat-advanced method-based JITs: "type inference was added to JaegerMonkey, which made it faster on average" [https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2011/11/23/memshrink-pr...].

> Less complex to develop and maintain?

In fact, I believe a good method-based JIT is probably more complex than a trace-based one. When compiling at method-granularity, with incomplete information about types, complex features are required e.g. On-Stack Replacement (if the current method becomes "hot", it needs to be replaced by a compiled version), Inline Caches, Hidden Classes and Deoptimization.

In a trace-based JIT, all these features can be replaced by "just compile another trace".
It doesn't sound like a lot even now...

https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage/wd-purple-surv...
Does this do anything more than just chart some KPIs and extend a trendline from your revenue?
> Does tracing have any advantages?

In summary, I think the advantage of tracing is its ability to give very good best- and average-case performance (albeit with poor worst-case performance), with less complexity than method-based compilation. This is a good trade-off for LuaJIT (a few people supporting ~50kLoC and specifically targeting a small footprint), but not for the leading JavaScript engines (who can afford large teams and millions of LoC).
CodePan: the online JS/CSS/HTML playground that works offline
> just like the internet wasn't all that exciting in the early 90s.

Anyone who believes this probably wasn’t alive then.

Everything we take for granted is built on open and free (as in beer) protocols. The people who created and supported TCP/IP, HTTP, XMPP, etc. figured out ways to have successful careers without a micropayment scheme for basic participation.
if you imprison 1 person for no reason at all, that would be pretty horrible... but if you imprison thousands for barely nothing, that is ok?
That's like saying that because the top 5% own most of the world's wealth you should stay away.

Can't you see how wrong that claim is?
It's the exact same story with Windows and Linux. Many old PCs running Windows XP that cannot handle Windows 7's minimum requirements are being wiped by geeks and are installing Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Xubuntu, or some other distro onto these devices.

As long as Linux, postmarketOS or LineageOS are the "weird apps" geeks install for their friends' devices, I highly doubt they'll ever gain any real exposure outside of tech circles.
If the protocol is open, why do you need to use a certain coin to use it? Isn't that just the definition of another type of 'closed'?
Improving the Basic Random Forest in Python
s/investors/speculators/g
Yes, any other international electronic payment system (Fedwire, SEPA, SWIFT, Visa, Mastercard, etc) requires much, much less (Thousandfold? more? It's tricky to estimate) energy resources per transaction. Bitcoin consumes more electricity than whole small nations, and in each of those small nations that electricity is sufficient to run a financial industry that processes much more transactions than Bitcoin, and leaves enough energy for other industries as well. Bitcoin proof-of-work principle means that the power wasted (intentionally, to prove that work has been done) on a single transaction is absolutely ridiculous.

Clearing transactions, the (comparably small) part of a financial transfer that Bitcoin does, is comparably simple and easy and constitutes a minority of both the effort and cost of financial transactions. Things like dispute resolution, fraud control, client-side tools, customer service and acquisition, etc take more than that, but that's not included in the standard Bitcoin transaction fee / miner's expense.
I have been trying unsuccessfully to articulate this. You do have to find the right boundaries(therefore the right size). But the "micro-services" term doesn't help since it implies the size is really small.
> Since there is no central authority in bitcoin, there isn't a process where one can screen out "spam" and legitimate uses.

That's exactly what fees are

> blockspace that everyone has to store

Only people who sync with the chain have to store the blocks, not everyone who uses it. The vast majority of people don't sync with the chain and still reap all the benefits.

> Are those spam transactions? I'll let you decide

The miners decide
Ask HN: How do you manage your bookmarks?
Hey,
I'm curious how the HN crowd manages their bookmarks. I'm thinking of links to great articles, that you find for example on HN. Articles that you are potentially interested to reread in the future.
The reasonable expectation would be that Intel fixes one (or both) of the bugs

- In newer CPU's. There should be mitigations against these attacks. That would probably seriously hurt intel by delaying their future processor launches

- In Older/existing CPU's through microcode updates. Bar literally making "fixed" versions of every Intel CPU in the last 10~ years. This is the only way to resolve the issue on existing hardware

Instead of doing that. Intel wants to avoid the much-reported "30% performance hit" by simply saying "Well if you want this FEATURE, you can enable it in your OS!"

Intel is trying to downplay a massive security vulnerability in their hardware as something that OS vendors can just let users opt in/out of
True, it's the only reason I'm still using Facebook, but any alternative service would also require everyone to register an account. There is a strong competitor called Nextdoor but the privacy is even more concerning because they require your address and they share it by default (yes really!).
Because a protocol with a finite number of coins has an inherent value to it, by virtue of the fact that other people are there and you can only use it if you have a token. Imagine I have a club, and it costs $5 to enter. You can always just create your own club for $2, but it's not a given that people will come. This is how a completely open-source protocol can monetize.

The same is true with Bitcoin or Ethereum. You can fork it and make your own, but the majority of the people want to use one of the original protocols, and you can only use the protocol if you pay with the proper protocol token (either BTC or ETH).
I run Drone CI (https://github.com/drone/drone) on Digital Ocean. For ~5 dollars a month, I get all of my private repos built automatically. I looked at Travis, Circle, &c., but they all seemed really expensive for private repos that may not be built > 50 times per month (with many not getting built per month).
Yes. As I keep on saying, the fact that there are so many coins is the demonstration that cryptocurrencies are not scarce and thus are not an alternative to gold.
In fairness though I'd say the issue is far less pronounced with desktop and laptop hardware than it is with mobile devices.

I can get a PC from 10 years ago and install Windows 10 and it'll most likely run absolutely fine - really rather well in fact. On the other hand, many people would probably be quite frustrated if they had to use a phone that's even three or four years old.

It amazes me how people react even when I tell them I'm still using an iPhone 6 Plus that I bought in 2015.
I believe ChartMogul are adding revenue forecasting to their product shortly.
This app seems so promising and usefull
Why not do some actual research before acting like you know it can't work?

Nobody verifies the order, but if you try to broadcast an intermediate state without your counterparty's permission, you can't actually spend it for 1000 (?) blocks.

If your counterparty is able to present a proof that that was an intermediate state rather than the latest state then he gets to spend all of the money in the channel immediately.

So all you need to do is monitor for transactions that are spending old channel states, and take all of the money if your counterparty tries to do it. This is even out-sourceable, so you could have a third-party monitoring the blockchain for old channel states and spending the money to you if anything goes wrong.
Looks like Intel is trying to avoiding the best solution to not compromise benchmark scores.
It’s not legal for non-essential federal workers to choose to work for free:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/10/01/federal_worke...
I'm skeptical 800 million dollar projects would pass through local government at that level in 5 minutes, unless everyone who voted in favor had already been canvassed or taken part in intense debates at other meetings or were rubber stamping a special committee decision etc. What regional authority was it where 800 million dollar projects happened so regularly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm describes the search algorithm in more detail.
The quoted sentence is not true, but most practical callbacks will create multiple paths to objects via borrows. Or you can move your structs into closures (like in C++). But I think what you originally wrote (using callbacks without Rc/RefCell) is fundamentally hard. You have to guarantee somehow that the struct is still alive when you access it though the borrow in the callback, otherwise you have a memory safety problem.
Linus would be just as effective if he never used another swear word. It is his technical knowledge, his position as the final committer, and his willingness to stand up for what he believes in, that gives him power.

Ranting and swearing is part of who he is personally, but those are not generally required for being a good project leader.
>feels like the most democratic media I’ve ever seen.

The Democrats thought the same thing too, before Trump won the election. Perhaps you are falling victim to a filter bubble confirmation bias?

A democracy implies independent national sovereignty. When anyone (govt, corp, or rogue hackers) across the world can effectively manipulate your elections at scale, sovereign democracy is no longer a thing.
I've caught myself doing this with more obscure (to me) words—ones that I only encountered in text and not in spoken conversation. Debian was one ("DEE-bee-an"). I was talking to a friend one day about it when I first started using Linux ("LIE-niks"!), and he was amused by my innocence :)

> And he did this with at least one other word ("requiem")!

Did he pronounce it "rek-WHY-em"? That would drive me insane.
"I'd be keen to hear why you think that switching to another search engine is ridiculous?"

I think you answered your own question: "I reckon that most users wouldn't even notice/realise if they were using another search engine".

For example, the other night I wanted to watch a movie. I entered the title in the Chrome address bar. Google was automatically used of course (yes it's customizable through a few menus, but for most people that means it's auto Google). The first result had an option to rent the movie. I clicked "Rent". Google Play was used of course. And I gave Google $3.

I don't personally mind this particular case, having long ago made the conscious choice to use Google Play over Apple or Amazon...or...ummm...for renting movies (mostly early Chromecast support). But it's a simple illustration of how Google isn't just a "search engine" that pulls up information you query when you want to surf the information superhighway. It's the automatic background interface for a great number of activities we do in our life. The fact most people probably don't even realize that is exactly one problem.

(And this has solutions of course, but it's one point to keep in mind.)
Your comment motivated me to sign up and subscribe. I didn't find it much different from subscribing to other publications: create an account, login, choose subscription level, pay.
... and I tried to see comments on it days ago.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16149039

It is strange how no one was interested when previously submitted and sudden it attracts a lot of interest.
what magical machine does raiblocks run on that doesn't consume energy?
I posted a few minutes ago about how chaotic privacy-related public policy is around the world. http://www.dbms2.com/2013/07/08/privacy-data-use-gap-theory/ This article is another wrinkle yet.
He's speaking about the boundary conditions, you're just parrotting something you have clearly misunderstood.
Don't know. Probably because they wanted to have something catchy there. It changes nothing about my point. Don't forget that Bitcoin.org doesn't represent the Bitcoin "society". It's operated by a very small group of very opinionated people that aren't doing what the community tells them, but whatever they wish (I don't mean to say that they go against the community - but they don't ask about everything, like this). If this group wants to do a change in the Bitcoin itself, it first needs an approval of the community.
Sidewalk Toronto
> I am surprised there has not been an antitrust case against Google and Facebook. Google is definitely abusing the monopoly position it has in search. The claim that any user can switch to Bing by just typing in a different URL is ridiculous.

Can you point to a clear case of consumer harm?

Antitrust doesn't (or, at least, shouldn't) exist to protect companies, but consumers. Ad prices have gone down, service prices have gone down, product prices have gone down.
Their prediction wasn't based on speed and low cost.
And I did too, but I can already buy a lot of those foods elsewhere now. Even Walmart carries almond and coconut flour now, grassfed beef and butter, humane local eggs, generic brand almond milk, etc. Whole Foods does have a few more options, but I don't think I have very much reason to step into the organic food store/whole foods anymore. And it's lessening by the day as their competitors pick up those niche items more.

That was with my ex so I don't have to deal with it anymore, but when you have a limited budget and strict diet requirements in addition to medical bills we just looked for the cheapest place that sells what didn't kill him.
> My whole attitude towards cryptocurrencies changed when I realized that intrinsic value literally didn't matter to the global rich, they're not interested in growth or value at all, only in security, and they'd be willing to pay a premium to store their wealth if it only means that they can control the risk.

perhaps a bit more accurately, they're interested in growth and value, but they've got enough of both that they've become interested in eliminating risk. which requires finding assets which are decorrelated from one another. the various electronic currencies are a new sort of asset class which appear to be decorrelated from everything (except NVDA?).

> The volatility of crypto is immaterial...

eh, the volatility isn't great, but so long as it is very different from everything else's volatility, it can be useful.
Oh really? Can I have a quote from the whitepaper then, please? It says nothing like that.