skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How is tweeting not considered putting it into the public domain, it's open broadcast.
Did you misread my comment? I'm really confused how you could think that I was saying "of all problems", when I specifically said "of the instances where someone asks if X is a good solution".
Can I just buy an automated professor and administrator?
Have you seen http://www.margrave-tool.org/v3/ which builds on Kodkod (which came after Alloy...)?
Never heard of 'em. Where I live, we used to have Musicland - gone. Sam Goody - Gone. Tower - Gone. Several other smaller shops -- all closed years ago. There's only one record store here, an independent dealing mostly in new and used vinyl.
OK, we've changed the title.
> If there is such space, it will have to be run by kiosk and a few minimum wage employees.

I don't think so. Outside of the airport that's not useful to anyone. At that rate you can just go to the section where they have bestsellers at Costco or Walmart. A bookstore with no selection is practically pointless.
Show HN: Simple drawing board made in pure HTML/CSS
That was 15 years ago, though -- a veritable millennium in the internet age. Although Amazon was around, a lot of people still accessed the internet over a cable modem (or even dial-up!) or some other technology which didn't provide ubiquitous internet access. Most people surfed the internet from their desktop, as opposed to using their phones from a wide variety of places from the couch to the toilet.
I do respect your viewpoint. But immutable and orthagonal are just weird jargon to my project managers, product managers, analysts, customers, etc. For me, it's somewhat equivalent to odd terminology that probably irritates you from the business like "synergy" or "paradigm", or "incentivise" From the tech side, we parody those terms. Rest assured, business folks parody us for our monads, immutables, etc. It makes us seem like we're trying to feel self important.

Wikipedia isn't really convincing to me. There's no page for contextual functions because it's not really new, exciting, unique, or notable. I feel the same if you call that "monads". I can implement them in decades old
programming languages. Same for immutable. Existed long before anyone called it that. We used it without having to have some catchy moniker that nobody understood outside the family.

Basically, I want to stop alienating project managers, product managers, and customers with weird jargon.
> Stuff like this is frankly why so many programmers shy away from lisp and s-expression based languages.

I do it because the editors are terrible.

I love s-expressions, but it will be a cold day in hell before I waste more of my life with Emacs, Vim or DrRacket.
This comment nicely brings in the pain of geo-restrictions. There are services that would accept payments when done from the local country (say, with a billing address there), but wouldn't allow streaming for IP addresses believed to be somewhere else. And now the customer has to bother about getting a VPN service on top of streaming service subscriptions. This game that's being played, with "get this, and this, and this, and also that, plus something else", gets annoying quite fast.
Comments moved to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16388833.
THIS. This is the kind of company we should strive to work for.

Appreciating something just because it's novel is bullshit. Appreciating something that solves an actual problem effectively.. that's where I want to be.
Well, using 16bit floats works fine and allows to use more layers, but might be too little.

I'd be interested on a more conservative change using a single byte or maybe 4 bits.
NoSQL Performance Benchmark 2018–MongoDB,PostgreSQL,OrientDB,Neo4j and ArangoDB
Couldn't they just introduce a change that would only affect certain websites such as getty?
That would be more logical than completely destroying how image search is meant to be.
Undergrads aren't learning the nuances of this year's tax law. That's continuing ad.
Worse, it is teaching a generation (or more) that our justice system is stupid and broken. That in turn erodes ideas like rule of law that a essential to modern civilization.
I used to work for a bank for a long time. IMHO, this new fascination with technology is kind of a fad and more of a lip service for marketing purposes. In practice, we still use MS Excel as per what we have been doing for the past twenty years.
Lisp macros (that the article is talking about) work with the same input and output language, not with two different languages/representations as is written. Macros can expand to other macros and even to themselves. It's an iterative process in which the intermediate pieces of tree have fewer and fewer macros until none are left. Other than not using macros, the target code is in the same language.

(In C, the preprocessing phase also works with the same input and output language. It's not a tree data structure, but rather a sequence of preprocessor tokens. Tokens in, tokens out. Parsing is then done in the next phases of translation. Macros have to do some light parsing in order to delimit the argument lists, of course, and to identify the operators like the token pasting ##, stringification # and whatever, plus to handle the preprocessing directives and #if expressions with arithmetic.)
ThePirateBay is an example that muddies the distinction.
Fonts are hard. I don't think CoreText is worse than others, most vendors seem to have a history of horrors, and at least it's not rendering fonts in a kernel driver like Windows did(!?) - see for example the Project Zero series of "one font vulnerability to rule them all" - https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com/2015/07/one-font-vuln...
If you're already 15 years deep into your career then I would say to suck the quant industry dry of all the money you possibly can with your expertise before you switch to something else that you'd enjoy. $1mm+ is no joke and a very very rare opportunity.

Don't be a sucker. If you must, take option #2 - get that $1mm, and then exit.

This isn't the most wholesome suggestion I've given, but given the harsh realities of the world and capitalism at large, you must protect yourself with money.

Form an exit plan, set aside a large cash reserve so that you technically never have to work a day in your life ever again, and then chase your passions and explore all the other things the world has to offer.
https://stores.fye.com/index.html

There are also various regional retailers.
The part you're missing is that jobs will also be created while others are destroyed. We lost tons of horse caring jobs as we switched to the automobile but it didn't wipe out society.
Whatever Google does, they will be called evil for it.
I had a feeling the internet copyright fun police had to be involved somewhere. No way Google decides to cripple their product that badly without some kind of legal pressure. It would be funny albeit highly abusive of their position for Google to completely delist Getty from their services, not to damage their business but to prevent copyright infringement of course.
I have tried doing the weekend project but there I have this problem that I want them to do the right way only.
Result of this I almost spent my day exploring through all the packages and libraries and just starting enough that I can't move forward in any direction. I know I have to overcome this and do something concrete but yeah this is where I am.

A lot of time I spent my weekends doing datastructures and algo. It seems at that time that I am learning but there too I didn't see myself making any progress it resets every time I take a break of a week or two and I myself admit that I am not persistent in any of my choices on what to do on weekends. I work in a 6 day job here. So I got only one day, i am working on my efficiency and try to put myself in place where I can make some quantifiable amount of progress. But yeah happy to here that weekends are the way to assess and do new things.
At some point the government could decide Amazon (or other big tech companies) are monopolies, and break them up.
Big Data Technologies and Management
That's because nearly all data is relational. At first it seems like you don't need a relational database, in fact NoSQL seems easier to use at first.

As your data grows though you realize that your application become more and more complex. A single query might translate to multiple queries to the database, you need to handle scenarios where fields might not exist etc.

With relational data you might have more work at front, but then the database solves many of the problems for you.

As another person said, when you're using databases like MongoDB you're going back in time and reliving the history, because databases in the past looked a lot like that before Codd invented the relational model, for example [1].

Also the whole NoSQL thing seems to be cyclical, we had XML databases in early 2000s[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchical_database_model

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XML_database
Brooklyn apartments this time of year are often poorly heated. If you're paying for the electricity to run a space heater, it might as well produce bitcoins.
Wow! This is awesome. Hats off to you Marcus.
> Yes, tons of jobs are going away (although I think it'll be 10-20 years for most of these, not 3-5 years like many seem to think), but what new sectors, opportunities, jobs, etc. will be created?

How many of the people whose jobs are destroyed will be able to move into the jobs that are created? In something like 30 states [0] 'truck driver' is the largest single occupation; where would those skills be re-applied?

I agree that nothing will be done regardless due to a lack of political will, but I don't share your optimism. I suspect that the change will be gradual to begin with, but that suddenly there will be a whole category of people unable to earn a living with their skills, and unable to afford to re-skill into something that can be used.

[0]: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-...
This morning everyone hated Google for hosting news pages on their AMP cache, tonight everyone hates Google for NOT hosting images on their image cache.
I've been using bacon ipsum[0], I guess now I have some more variety

[0] https://baconipsum.com
Until Getty goes after Bing too, from the scant details in the article.

This is why I'm scared of Twitch getting big enough to draw itself into publishers' crosshairs and have similar controls for copyright and stuff as YouTube does.
Because those tech companies were found to have been illegally colluding to suppress wages of their workers.

It’s easier to hire cheap workers when your actions are keeping wages lower than they otherwise would’ve been.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust...
Many amazon stores are B. Dalton mall store sized, not B&N super store sized. It’s weird, because we are basically back to where we were before the super book stores.
I agree. The expansion of Netflix to 130 countries was a great move! The content isn't the same in all locations, but it's better than incentivizing people to download from elsewhere by keeping content closed and restricted.
Why does that matter? Borders didn't shrink in size physically just because the Internet got bigger. And the B&N that replaced it was just as big.
> Worse, it is teaching a generation (or more) that our justice system is stupid and broken

Well, you wouldn't be wrong for coming to this conclusion (source: this ruling, and more!)

> That in turn erodes ideas like rule of law that a essential to modern civilization.

Not necessarily. Our implementation of this is essentially flawed, but that doesn't mean all possible implementations of rule of law are flawed as badly. I would hope that this would inspire change, but people are inherently against change so at the end of the day you are probably correct.
You say that in 10-20 years, tons of jobs are going away. You say it seems very unlikely the American political system is going to address it without violence in any successful manner.

But you also say that you think we will adjust and adapt and thereby keep the work a job, make a living system that we have. I don't see how that optimistic result follows from the pessimistic future you predict.

Very fair, I wasn't clear. I don't think this terrible future is coming, but even if it is, and the majority come to agree that it is, we're not going to do anything about it. Even if the number of jobs does plummet and we have record-high unemployment, we still will take forever to do anything about it, assuming anything can be done. It might be that all the ideas we've come up with (which really just seems to be variations on UBI) won't work and are just rearranging the deck chairs again. Except now the AI is Amazon and we're all B&N :)

if we begin to think seriously about solutions rather than spending time repeating the same arguments about whether the problem exists at all, we can fix it

Yeah, I'm not really in favor of that. The arguments are necessary. We shouldn't be putting huge changes in place without even having the argument as to whether it's necessary.

I think you're underestimating how destabilizing and destructive these changes are going to be. If AI is going to be as bad for employment as many think, the solution is massive and represents a completely fundamental shift in economy, culture, politics, etc. For example, switching to meaningful UBI would entail huge tax increases, slashing of other benefit programs (and dealing with their supporters), and decades of fighting about the amounts, administration, waste / fraud / abuse, etc. There has never been a coalition in American politics strong enough to get something like this done. The abolition of slavery would be the closest thing, and we had to fight a full-blown bloody civil war to get that done, and we're still dealing with the cultural fallout of that change 150 years later.

I also think you're way ahead of the vast majority of Americans as to whether it's as necessary as you claim. To wit: Republicans have exactly zero interest in fixing any of this (or a bunch of other problems) and 18 months ago voters decided they should hold all three branches of government. Yes, popular vote, gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc, etc.

The point is that it's all well and good to say "enough talk, let's put these solutions in place!", but I don't think you realize how hard the opponents to those solutions are going to fight, and how powerful and entrenched they are.
"A friend is training a simulated robot arm to reach towards a point above a table. It turns out the point was defined with respect to the table, and the table wasn’t anchored to anything. The policy learned to slam the table really hard, making the table fall over, which moved the target point too."

Seems as though the problem of learning unintended techniques sometimes may be better described as the model being too creative! Hitting the table is a really clever solution for the problem it was given. These examples show that the real challenge for researchers is constraining the models enormous capacity for creativity without stifling its ability to learn.
Never once has this been true when I've pressed someone on it. It's FUD that's been repeated for years and oft reinvigorated by people that can't be bothered to Google or change a couple UEFI settings.

It's not even true in many (most?) cases that Secure Boot must be disabled.
I said explained. Not defined. Not implemented. Definitely not proved. Just explained. There is typically exposition, as well.

So, by all means, keep arguing points I'm not making. I was offering what I suspect the parent post meant by it being easier to reason using the mechanics of the language. Nothing more.
Twitter isn't quite an open broadcast, and even if it were it wouldn't necessarily mean it was entered into the public domain. A recording of a musician's public performance of their song is still under copyright; MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech is under copyright; literal broadcasts (TV/Radio) are still under copyright.
This crosses into religious flamewar, which we really don't want on HN. Please don't do this again.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
TiDB seems to have a pretty active community, judging by its repo (https://github.com/pingcap/tidb). Also, saw this thread on TiDB v MySQL recently that's pretty detailed (https://www.quora.com/How-does-TiDB-compare-with-MySQL). Looks like a good option worth trying out.
If that’s the case, then almost all the Roman writers were also confused about it, as well as various Roman sculptors.
You are making the completely unwarranted (and demonstrated false by modern history) assumption that decisions coming from capitalism are made objectively and rationally.
I think many people tend to grossly overestimate the profit levels of large companies. Let's take Amazon since they're arguably the reason for the failure here and a company I think many perceive to be lush with money largely because of 'greed.' It also hits on notions from this paper like companies just not hiring enough employees, even if only at certain times.

Amazon currently grosses $178 billion. However, their net income is what matters. That's what's left over after paying cost of goods, salaries, rent, taxes, and so on. Basically what's left over after the mandatory expenses to keep your company running. And that's only $3 billion. 'Only' sounds funny preceding $3,000,000,000 and is undoubtedly what leads to complaints against Amazon (and here as well) that they're just being greedy, not paying employees enough, and so on.

But that's not really accurate. Amazon has 566,000 employees. If they gave each employee a $1000 raise. For those working your average 2000+ hour year that's a whopping $0.50/hour raise. Yet that marginal raise amounts to $0.56billion, or 1/6th of their entire remaining revenue. Interestingly enough 1 executive earning $1million in compensation is, by contrast, only 1/3000th of their remaining revenue. This critical calculation on the number of workers to fill any given role is why compensation and things can seem so lopsided. The sheer magnitude of the number of workers at many of these companies is very counter intuitive.

And this is the case for most large small margin companies. Back to Barnes and Noble, in 2016 they had a net income of -$24.5 million with 26,000 employees. Try to keep those figures in mind when considering this. I think the post that described any real solution for them as akin to 'shuffling chairs on the Titanic' is very apt.

---

If anybody has a counter point here, I'd love to hear it. From my perspective it seems people are replacing reality with ideology, whether intentionally or not. We want to blame companies for being greedy, even when in reality the numbers don't really support such views. All jobs are disappearing, when we have 4.1% unemployment (even the U6 is down to 8.2%!), etc. I used to feel very similarly, but the numbers simply don't support these incredibly cynical views.
Come work at MUFG, largest bank in free world, $2.7T, which decided we have to be a tech company.

Our head of technology strategy for Americas is on hacker news at quarter to midnight. And hiring, not just for blockchain. (See my “about” text.)

Worth a chat if you’re in NYC or San Diego.
It’s weird, but some stores are thriving and others are dying. The one in downtown Santa Monica Ca is super crowded whenever I went there, while the one in downtown Bellevue WA is super dead. My impression of B&N changes quickly....
Yeah, it like how Kodak "never saw digital coming." Actually they had PhotoCD long before digital cameras were a widespread thing. You can recognize a shift to electrons and still not figure out a way to make a large chain B&M business work.

Smaller scale, but one of the first larger bookstores around me to discount books on a consistent basis effectively helped drive a lot of the smaller bookstores that had been around forever out of business. Ten or twenty years later, they were complaining online when they were effectively driven out of business by Amazon.
There are unfortunately plenty of other ways to learn that lesson.

On the up side it may encourage people to participate in distributed systems that are more resilient against arbitrary censorship.
Because being on the receiving end of a public broadcast does not give you the right to re-use the content. The content owner, for better or worse, typically retains the exclusive right to use or broadcast the content, regardless of how many times it is broadcast.

Consider older mediums; does broadcasting a TV show put it into the public domain? Or playing a song on the radio?
Bezos cheerleaders and their ilk never seem to be willing to acknowledge that creating wealth is much harder than extracting it, and either out of bad faith or naivety will misidentify ventures that specialize in the latter as being exemplars of the former. In this case, we have the incalculable loss of so many person-years of experience in a deep topic, literature, that’s being shrugged away as a case of the market moving on in a post facto justification of the actions of some corporate raiders that never even considered alternatives beyond stripping a company of its assets for their own sake. I just wish we could be honest about what actual competition, what actual wealth creation, looks like, because this isn’t it.
How does SpaceX get these amazing camera shots?
Why would the Chinese government want to remotely blow up my battery? Would the NSA want to remotely blow up my battery?
Google seems to taken up a mantra of "if it ain't broke, break it" lately.
But that gives you a url-encoded version of the image, not the actual URL of it, IIRC, which is sometimes annoying.

Edit: It looks like they've changed it back to the actual URLs.
Thanks for the effort!

I think it's a bit clearer now where the differences lie. For example the assumption avg(randM()) != avg(randF()), which should more precisely be avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()) to justify stemJob(randM()) >> stemJob(randF()).

There is another assumption here, that is that if you don't touch it, stemJob() is a fair function in the sense that stemJob(randM()) == stemJob(randF()) where randM() and randF() have the same Ability and Preference. I find that unlikely as, for example, there is evidence that people are more likely to hire candidates of the same sex.

What is interesting is that it boils down to the question whether or not you believe that avg(randM()) >> avg(randF()), or in words that in general men are much more capable then women in STEM and I asked for a theory supporting that claim in my original comment. If I understood correctly someone who supports equality of chance would agree that stemJob() must be unfair if it turns out that avg(randM()) ~ avg(randF()).
In the latter case the copyright holder would still monetize of of, say, ads hosted on their website.

I'd have an easier time with this reasoning if I saw more legal argument directly addressing why "exclusive right to their respective writings" includes the right to require readers to also see something else at the same time as they view the writings.
I think there will be very legitimate advantages to AMP for email. However as more and more marketers embrace it, that gives away leverage. It is a very gradual thing.

However much like the ad ecosystem, if Google can control the entire email experience from inbox to landing page, and marketers become dependent on it, then that allows Google to exert pressure in other areas that benefit it. My bet is that this eventually takes the form of an auction model for ensuring your messages reach the inbox of the users. But this is a very long-term thing, which is why I see AMP as merely a stepping stone (and not necessarily a direct one). Hope that clarifies a bit.
This is a classic red herring, totally unrelated.

If anything, that undermines the point I'm arguing against: why would these companies feel any need to collude to suppress wages if they could get better performance just by hiring cheaper workers?

Also, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Netflix, etc. weren't part of this suit, so again, not relevant.