skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"A common operationalization of music ability is
sensory discrimination of auditory musical stimuli of vari-
ous types". Music ability is defined as "rhythm, melody, and pitch discrimination". So it´s not about being able to play music, but hearing and classification ability.

So it translatates in non-fancy-wording. Being able to differenciate rhythms and melodies depends on your genetics and can not be practiced for improvement. But it says nothing about the effect of practicing on being a better music performer.
QEMU and Docker on Stock ChromeOS with Termux
You may not have to remove shading in winter. The sun is higher up in the air in summer, so an overhang can be all you need (https://greenpassivesolar.com/passive-solar/building-charact...)
Now do one for financial crimes
> it's not possible for that to have gone unnoticed

Keep in mind that 93% of heart defects are detectable via an echocardiogram around week 24 of pregnancy. So I would imagine that in most cases where the heart defect is fixable then it's repaired, or else if it's not fixable but also not serious then the kid is just prevented from doing sports. Or else if it's serious and not fixable then pregnancy is terminated.

So I would expect the actual mortality to be substantially less than 2x. And given that heart-related mortality in children is extremely rare, I suspect it would be quite tricky to detect. Especially when you need to account for confounding issues like maternal age during pregnancy, ICSI use, etc.

Given that there are around 5,000 CHD-related deaths in children per year, and around 1.5% of babies are IVF births, we're talking at most 150 deaths per year instead of 75, probably less due to the reasons mentioned above. And once you start trying to take into account imperfect data confounding variables, it's hard to say whether having definitive proof one way or the other is even within the realm of science at that point.
Amazing. A great candidate to be included into suckless.org [1], in my opinion.

[1] https://suckless.org/rocks
OP said "population level gender differences might better explain Google's hiring pipeline" referring not to the population of the US, but the Pool of Engineering students.
These data can be used to identify their source. This will become easier as more data becomes available.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15209306

I guess the value of the data depends on who measures its worth. Replicated p-values lead to multiple publications, which are valuable to academics. But these results can still cause misdirection. What is a low p-value worth if it doesn't lead anywhere?
>Just because a narrative is biased and skewed doesn't disqualify it from being better than other narratives.

Better according to who? Thanks but no, I'll make my mind regardless of what you or others think is better.

It is not for you to decide whether I should be lied to or just misled by the "better narrative". If I have two bills and both are fake I want to know.
To elaborate on LYAH, I think it's a pretty bad resource for actually learning Haskell. It's very "here's a feature, now copy it". Which works fine for learning syntax, but works poorly for learning Haskell.

Check here for a review that really resonated with my experiences about LYAH:

http://bitemyapp.com/posts/2014-12-31-functional-education.h...

Note the author of that post is also the author behind the Haskell book, which is also what I'd recommend currently.
> and substantially reduce their drug use

Drug use is a symptom, the result of another problem. Consider, for example, an undiagnosed personality disorder, or an untreated childhood trauma. Furthermore, what I'm going to mention next isn't helping that either.

> the opportunity for a fresh start

That's just marketing shenanigans. In reality this is rather relative; if one has become a convicted felon, they remain a convicted felon for life. This haunts them till the end of their time. The stigma hampers functionality in society in multiple ways: friendships, and employment first and foremost, but also hypocritically the 2nd amendment (of which I as a European am no proponent of, but what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander), and the loss of other rights [1]. This society inhibited perfectionism inhibits a defeatist attitude which lures a convicted felon back on the dark path of criminal behaviour on top of things like personality traits or already financial issues. Prisoner series like Orange Is The New Black (though certainly not the first!) beautifully articulate this specific problem, and a myriad other.

The problem is that we see criminals as individuals who cause an issue in society. Instead, we should regard them as individuals who are unable to participate in society and look at it from that angle, by trying to make them participate in society. Getting rid of the defeatist attitude is one way to increase participation in society, looking for medical treatment. Some examples of problem solving procedures (vary on individual basis) are dental procedure (for e.g. former meth addicts), basic insurance, medicine/drugs (methadone for e.g. former heroin addicts), psychological therapy.

I don't want to be negative about the program, though:

> Fair: The clear demarcation of the offenders’ new supervision conditions and the opportunity for a fresh start allow the offender to regain their sense of self-control. The contract enhances the perceived fairness of any subsequent punishment; this perception of fairness is further supplemented by the sparing rather than harsh level of punishment upon violation, which additionally limits disruption of employment and other non-criminal routines and relationships.

This puts the other parts into perspective, making it indeed more fair for the convicted felon (or less unfair, depending on your perspective). That doesn't mean the sentence itself isn't still out of proportion; it already is put out of proportion because there's societal punishments on top of the sentence. Some of which are harmful for rehabilitation.

Incidentally, fixing this might also make things like arrests generally less violent.

[1] https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicte...
Trading successfully is conceptually simple: buy low, sell high. Finding these patterns is what's tough.

First you need to figure out what your investment horizon is. Microseconds or years? Or somewhere in between?

If you're good at programming there's a good chance you'll be attracted to the shorter time horizons (high frequency trading). At a longer time horizon your risks are different and so are the programming skills you need. Generally you'll need to be able to apply statistics and probability to what you're looking at. Look up Kelly criterion.

One of the best things to look at on any time horizon is liquidity differentials. Try to find two things that should be the same thing from a price or risk perspective, but trade with different volumes.

In the ETF space an example of this is the ETF versus it's basket. Or leaders and laggards within a specific sector.
FactCheck.org said something very similar to that.

> Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them. The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals.

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/trump-pence-acid-wash-fact...
It's quite a lot like Fletch, in a weird way
But NYC’ black or latino population is (mainly) Christian and mainly speaks Englsh
Yeah, I spent more time than I care to think about lobbying for this kind of change in the States. Got practically nowhere though.
>a lot more available housing

The amount of liquidity has little to do with the overall supply-demand balance. There is plenty of AMZN stock available for purchase; doesn't make it cheap.
>I get that people don't like change, but trying to stand still in a moving world only hurts the people standing still.

Eventually the world will move so fast that all of us might as well be standing still.

The factory worker that this initiative affects is a just the first victim. He is a representation of the impending wave that is to consume all of us.

As the technology we create cannibalizes our jobs where does the world go from here? Many theorists talk about crazy things like universal basic income with machines as our servants. However, we all know that these theories rarely ever end up fitting the ideal fantasmical utopias we imagine. The future is unknown.

I feel remorse that people are losing their jobs and I sympathise with individuals taking measures to protect these people with 'job protection' or 'artificial job creation.' When technology inevitably cannibalizes your career, technology will be moving at such a horrifying velocity that no human, programmer, engineer, scientist technologist let alone a factory worker will be able to keep up. During this time not only would you want job protection, you'd be on your knees begging for it.
Practice doesn't make perfect. Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice make perfect (there is no such thing).
How much of that is simply splitting pennies and front running slower traders? Is that truely creating value? Seems like they’re siphoning value to me.
Jim Rogers says the next bear market will be ‘the worst in our lifetime’
You should be fine watching the show first.

Do you feel more satisfied with fiction when powerful villains are, by some miraculous stroke of luck, brought to justice? Or do you feel more satisfied with the logical consistency of stories where the powerful can mostly get away with crimes, because that's what power is?

The latter is more like the book and noir-ish fiction in general. I also prefer the latter, perhaps because the first is just so much more common. Maybe if the standard Hollywood ending had powerful villains crushing attempts to bring them to justice I'd have an affinity for "plucky underdog triumphs against the odds" stories. But the plucky underdog pulls off an improbable win so often in popular entertainment that I'm tired of it. To believe that underdogs are actually underdogs I need to see them lose more often than they win.
>So the increase in housing supply at the upper end of the market is only inducing additional demand

People move to New York and San Francisco because they get jobs there, not because apartments are built.
Didn't miss distribution & discovery. Distribution is different nowadays of course (hence the social engineering program is very clever and will feed you a lot of truth and grab you if you're seeking truth - i.e. all prominent 'alternative' sources). Discovery? Well, no not really. Discovery for the masses is at the will of the centralised social engineering program (Google, Facebook, etc)

When anything significant happens in western politics you can better you bottom dollar it wasn't an un-staged occurrence. Trump was your man before election day. Brexit was the ultimate divisive illusionary 'you have a choice, you can make a difference' nonsense, despite the fact that having one less centralised corrupt level of power is of course worthy of a vote.

Journalism is a dead as a dodo.

Have you been psyop-d into attributing tin-foil hats to anyone who raises there head from the Orwellian / Huxley media sources and takes stock of history, and seeks alternatives from the mainstream, rather than the brain-rotting recycling 'news'. Does 'conspiracy theorist' make your alarm bells go off and want to cease all association?

The thing to invest in is local. Turn away from centralisation for now, until the whole thing is open sourced and you can track your politicians lives into the intimate details, and you have a monetary system that's not debt-based. Once that day comes maybe local won't be your only avenue for hope.
as long as people are cheaper than robots, it's not a question of "needing" people.
We as technologists are the last to fall and the first to blame others for not being able to keep up.
Martin Fowler -- Refactoring.

Best software practices book I've ever read, even though I don't use Java for a while now.

It's FULL of practical examples. Most of the book is examples, and it's not a small one.
So it is up to big brother to save the day, right?

Because, according to you, humans are incapable of being rational or well informed, they must therefore be taken care of as if we were toddlers? Where does it end and how do you choose whose freedom you will allow?
I had a similar personal experience. For years growing up I slept to a white noise machine that played a 3-second recording of a mountain stream. I became intimately familiar with the clip and could anticipate every trickle, the changing pitches of different water droplets, and the length of the loop. I can still conjure it from memory in great detail.

Intriguingly, on a single night I experienced some sort of hypnogogic auditory hallucination that caused the sound to lose all familiarity. Instead, I perceived the sound of a male singer arpeggiating rapidly. I found it highly disturbing.
Some people think that a certain skin color is "an obvious red flag" and wish to hire only people of a certain other skin color.

Do you think there should be laws against that?
Most people don't look further than the stock price and if they like the company. In that case, it is gambling. People think they don't have to spend any time and they should get a good return.

Like Peter Lynch says, most people spend more time deciding on what refrigerator to buy than the stock they're buying. If you spent as much time researching a stock as you do a house, you'd probably do much better in the market.

Stop buying stocks only because someone told you to or because you like the company.
Meh. Too often falls back on nudity to make up for failure to develop a more immersive environment. Said in another way, they used nudity to make up for a small CGI budget.
This paper appears to be deliberately misleading.

The "10,000 hours to expert performance" notion originated in Ericsson 1993 (http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracti...) , which defines a very specific term, "deliberate practice" -- "In contrast to play, deliberate practice is a highly structured activity, the explicit goal of which is to improve performance. Specific tasks are invented to overcome weaknesses, and performance is carefully monitored to provide cues for ways to improve it further. We claim that deliberate practice requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable." Ericsson adds more detail in the full paper.

It's not just "are you playing piano for X hours per day".

The paper in this post mentions deliberate practice in its review of the literature, but then all of a sudden and without explanation reverts to the more generic term "practice" for all of its contributions, which appears to be defined as "how many hours did you play your instrument".

Note that "play" and "practice" are explicitly disambiguated in Ericsson.

I have a hard time believing that the authors are unaware of this distinction, especially considering that they heavily reference Ericsson.
When your audience is affluent and powerful, you don't need as many to have an oversized impact. It's not like NYT has a small readership. They are massive and their influence is far greater than that of The Enquirer.
Sure, but first define "comfortably".
and so it goes, as with all things, gwern becomes irrelevant, out of touch, and unimportant

edit : don't think the 0.001 ms downvotes were not noticed, hacker news
Show HN: How healthy is your heart?
Take the Revvo cycling test to measure VO2Max - the single best measure of fitness & heart health (according to the American Heart Association).

Schedule your free test ($150 value): http://revvo.co

Revvo measures VO2Max with lab quality but without using complex lab equipment like face masks. Our mission is to make it easier for virtually everyone to measure and improve their fitness.
Lost interest in the first 30 mins. What I saw was a contrived story timeline inconsistencies (people protesting 1960s style outside the building - really?), flying cars with drivers (who can drive and land badly - really?), stacks stored on spines (and only the richest can afford the cloud - really?), squaller living on the planet with rich living on the towers (not original by any stretch), one special living person better than everyone in the universe (again, original?, really?), a police department functioning like the 1990s, a woman detective have inexplicably drives Neo (sic) to the super villain and will inevitably be romantically involved with Neo? Please people - watch some Black Mirror and plethora of short Sci-fi films on Youtube for intellectual entertainment.
This is why Bipolar is considered a disease. You are only truly free if you are in the middle. Too far one way or the other and you become entrapped by either a Dystopia (no freewill) or Utopia (complete freewill).

This is why I also balance my use of legal and illegal drugs. Too far one way or the other is unhealthy.

Some would say Everything In Moderation, Even Moderation.

However I say, Everything In Moderation, Except Moderation.

Consistency is everything. Balance is everything.

This is why the BLOCKCHAIN is a breakthrough. Because it enforces 10m timestamps in the QUANTUM computer we are collectively building.

In the current Quantum computers (the human brain) we have inconsistent timestamps. Somepeople sleep every night, others stay awake for longer.

You can only stay awake maximum 7 days. God made the world in 7 days.

Everytime you sleep you can think of this like the brain producing a BLOCK in your brain on the LARGE block chain.

Likewise, everytime you blink you can think of this like the brain producing a BLOCK in your brain on the SMALL block chain.

These large inconsistencies in BLOCK size between chains causes multiple universes to be created, aka false memories.
Options are great, even for individuals. The main issue is that everything is in size 100 lots, so a huge number of stocks are simply "too big" for me to regularly use options on as an individual.

If I were to do something like sell a put option on AAPL ($156.41 at the moment) would be $15641 into a single stock that I may have to put up. I'm closer to ~$5000 per trade as an individual, its not like I have as much money as those banks or hedge funds. In short: I'm only really able to buy and sell options on shares with $50 or lower prices. At least with my relatively conservative trading style.

But still, selling puts is a cool way to be "paid to be forced to buy a stock", and if you're worried about missing the upswing, you can always sell a put (at the money) + buy a call out of the money. Such a trade benefits from the volatility of the market, and is still strictly safer than owning the stock outright.

I mean, I'm a long-term buy-and-hold investor. Selling puts + buying a FOMO out-of-the-money call option is a really good trade most of the time. Given the tradeoffs and the decisions I've made on my portfolio. It basically allows me to benefit from market volatility.
Take something really complex, dumb it down to 3 variables, draw conclusions... profit?

Is the difference between Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimi Hendrix measurable by "rhythm, melody, pitch discrimination" and whatever methodology they used to quantify these variables?

It's like measuring computer scientists ability by how quickly they can implement binary search.

EDIT: it is interesting that musical practice doesn't change those abilities. But I think the title of the article is misleading and grasping.
Does it allow plain text composing/viewing yet?
The title is quite misleading: the notions "practice" and "ability" here refer to different things: "practice" is taken to mean practicing the creation of music with an instrument, while "ability" is taken to discriminate between auditory aspects of music one is listening to. I would expect significant causal relationships between practicing the creation of music and ability in the creation of music, and between practicing audio discrimination and ability in audio discrimination.

It's rather unfortunate that the title is so poor, as the paper itself is good aside from that; the study they mention a few times (Schellenberg & Weiss, 2013) found that "more music practice is significantly associated with better music ability" and I'm glad people are going through the effort of checking results like these for causation vs mere correlation.
As a former professional musician I was initially provoked since the title clearly does not align with what I experienced when working.

What the study refers to as musical ability is in fact the skill to discern different pitches and rhythms.

Obviously there is an enormous amount af practice required to master an instrument. But I still find it hard to “agree” with the paper, I’ve noticed large differences in how attuned I am to pitch and rhythm depending on how much I’ve practiced. Hearing pitch, at least for me, is a skill that can be both trained and lost. Which makes me think that maybe it is not the total amount of hours practiced that is important but also how recent that practice was. I can find no mention in the paper of how “fresh” the participants skills were. Also, there is a huge difference in how you practice, how efficient it is etc.

To be fair I didn’t fully understand the statistical stuff, but all in all this fells like a somewhat blunt study especially considering the provocative title.

Edit: spelling
Educate and re-educate toward what exactly? Knowledge economy jobs are being upset by technology almost as fast as manufacturing jobs. See financial adviser and paralegal positions as examples. Your solution also naively assumes that people in their 40s and 50s who have only ever had one type of job can all magically re-train into knowledge economy jobs that may or may not be available where they live. The whole "we just need to re-align the labor force" argument has never made sense to me.
Let's call it poetic justice, or taste of their own medicine.
I've never practised guitar a day in my life, yet I'm most likely better than you at it. ;)
I never said anything about money being required for social signaling. If you're signaling that you spend a lot of money, then you need to spend a lot of money.

If, however, you're signaling that you're a serious engineer who doesn't care about fashion, you wear and do other things. This also doesn't need to be consciously considered to still be happening. Ask yourself why so many engineers who work in air conditioned offices wear hoodies but never put the hood up. At the core, social signaling is about saying "I belong to this group" and possibly "I'm high-status within this group". For whatever value group takes on for (the rhetorical) you.

Edit: There's also the problem of it being the fashion, especially outside the fashion crowd, to talk about how much one doesn't care about fashion or signaling. Which is in itself frequently a kind of signaling.
U2F is the only generally available two-factor method that is phishing-resistant. Phishing accounts for a large percentage of targeted attacks, something that is highly relevant in a threat model for journalists.
That reminds me of the programs you could run on a TI-83 calculator that used a similar approach for playing sound on headphones or a nearby AM radio: http://www.pacmeb.com/calc/features.php
Like the other guy said, if you need a TLDR for learning stocks, maybe it's something you shouldn't be getting into.

It's a dry book yet still one of the most recommended out there. There's a reason for that. You aren't going to learn the market in a day.