skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't know if I'm living in a bubble, but I don't think I've ever come across a Foucauldian critique in the wild, as it were. Occasionally I've come across a moral panic over some careless tweet an assistant professor wrote. It is true that a lot of humanities faculty are pretty far-left, but that's just one end of the broader trend in academia, exacerbated by the fact that so few artists, philosophers, or writers find much to like in capitalism.

As for analytic philosophy, I like some of the work - but I think you've pointed at something like a nice cover over a dirty secret when you mention its apoliticism. Analytic philosophy essentially restricts philosophy to a very small subset of its traditional topics, which are emphatically non-political. That's part of why it's tended to survive and dominate in countries that have regular panics about professors having the wrong political opinions. It hasn't done well out of the strength and clarity of its arguments - often they are orthogonal to the concerns of French and German philosophers. It has done well out of the conservatism and cowardice of university administrations, and embattled accademics.
The code I'd like to highlight in this example is as follows:

U64 bishopAttacks(U64 occ, enumSquare sq) {
occ &= mBishopTbl[sq].mask;
occ *= mBishopTbl[sq].magic;
occ >>= 64-9;
return mBishopAttacks[sq][occ];
}

Two bit-operations and one Multiply are all that is needed to "perfect hash" a bishop's position + all of the possible combinations of pieces which might block it. From there, the "occ" variable serves as a lookup-table's index, providing a pre-calculated bitmask of all of the locations a bishop can attack.

It seems like the "occ" bitboard represents the occupancy of the board. (A bitmask of 1 for every piece that could block the bishop's movement). While "enumSquare" seems to be the square the bishop is actually on.

In effect, this is a time-space tradeoff, with every single bishop (or rook) attack being precomputed in a lookup table. Then, during runtime, two-bit operations + one multiply are all that is needed to use the table.

---------------

Some notes to help decipher what is going on:

* Because a chessboard is 64 squares, a 64-bit long integer is all that's needed to represent true/false values across a board. These "true-false" collections across a chessboard are called "bitboards", and can represent anything from board state (Ex: a bitboard that represents all black pawns), to "potential moves a bishop can make" that the AI should iterate against.

* The general problem to solve here is called the Sliding Piece Attack: https://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Sliding+Piece+Attack... . Bishops and Rooks are complicated, because they may be blocked by enemy and/or friendly pieces. Other pieces (Knights, Pawns, or Kings) have much simpler movement patterns.

That's what makes this so magnificent: the calculation in runtime is calculated in something like ~15 clock cycles on a modern machine. (2 cycles for the two bitwise operations, 5 cycles for the multiply, and 5 cycles for an L2 lookup)
A lot of people involved in ICANN are European themselves anyway, and many believe in user privacy on a personal level. And it's not that ICANN doesn't, either, it's just a big ship to turn around on a dime.

So yeah, there's no way any kind of response like this will be happening.
Note that this is not data leaking from one person to the other. Here the ad networks know specifically that the two people are doing stuff together, but that they are not the same person.
REAPER 5.79 CRACK DOWNLOAD [UPDATED] FREE
The burden of proving the provenance of the data relies on the data controller. Unless the data controller wants to pay a high fine, he has to prove where he got the data, and how/when/where the data owner agreed that the data controller was allowed to use the data.
All those “philosophers” are mere ants compared to Nietzsche
> For whatever reason there seems to be extremely little interest in the private direct funding of science.

Too much income equality. You can't have Rockefeller University without Rockefeller.
Right, that was the point I was trying to make, perhaps I didn't state it well. Seek shelter immediately and try to avoid flying glass. I would also avoid UMBs (Unreinforced Masonary Buildings) these buildings WILL collapse. They aren't as common in FiDi but are all over Soma, Chinatown, and the Tenderloin.
Broadband adviser picked by FCC Chairman Ajit Pai arrested on fraud charges
In my opinion it is ridiculous to equate a web platform to a government, regardless of scale. One is a web-platform, the other is a government. The difference is clear to me.
2018 NAB Highlights from Backblaze
The IP can be used to correlate them being together (connected to their home WiFi), but would be unable to track them outside (unless the phones try to connect to “free” public WiFi which is subsidised by ads and will no doubt rat the users out to Facebook).

Cell phone towers don’t correlate to IPs at all; the IP layer is added way above all that at the GGSN in the carrier’s network, which doesn’t even know nor care which tower you’re connected to.
The many shades of (Apple's) space gray
There are plenty of superzooms (which are basically a mirrorless or DSLR without an interchangeable lens) that cost too much and get you too little and are too big, but the compact market is weird and tiny and not great.

Sony's current compact line seems OK, though I haven't used them--the DSCWX cameras. They've got Exmor sensors (their mirrorlesses all use Exmor sensors) and reasonable lenses. You won't get mirrorless performance, but you're not expecting to, so, yeah.
Absolutely. We need less polarization and more nuanced debate.

It's one of those issues where it appears that party lines have been drawn around it and both sides seem to be drifting more and more extreme.

I don't think that the average person is that polarized on some of these issues, but instead I think party members are afraid of being shunned for not fervently agreeing.
Does WhatsApp make it clear what "end" means and how many so-called "ends" you are transmitting a message to?
"The community"? Government is just one highly formal portion of the larger community.
The Spoofax Language Workbench http://www.metaborg.org/en/latest/ uses scannerless generalized LR parsing. When language processor development effort is more important than raw parsing speed (e.g. for external domain specific languages), Spoofax's grammar, abstract syntax tree, and semantics tools are exactly the right thing.
> Appear in the background of enough photos and Facebook can use other data to eventually figure out who you are, even if don't have a computer or smartphone

Facebook faces a class action lawsuit for "improperly us[ing] facial recognition technology on their uploaded photographs" under an Illinois law "that says a private entity such as Facebook can't collect and store a person's biometric facial information without their written consent" [1].

[1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/04/16/603056662...
> If you have the organizational skills and self-discipline to use a credit card the same way you'd use debit or cash, you're way better off using a credit card

The problem is everyone thinks they are above-average.

If credit cards were really a great deal, they wouldn't make any money.
When somebody uses the "leave the window unlocked" comparison, I try to rephrase it as "imagine you have your satellite TV with thousands of channels. You browse through channels and realize that, on channel #12985 if you press the A button on your remote, the channel will broadcast you videos that were supposed to be private".
This is probably a closer analogy as you are not physically trespassing, you are "committing the crime" from your couch, you are not "stealing private property" (as, the docs are still on the owner's servers) and it's mostly on the broadcaster side to transmit sensitive information on a channel that is for everyone to see.
I couldn't tell from the landing page whether this is a desktop app, or whether it runs in a browser. Could be interesting if it is a desktop app.
Yes, I understand that. Consent was originally in quotes because it wasn't actually consent in GDPR terms.

However, I will continue to argue that it was consent in a more general sense: They bought a domain, therefore their info is published in whois. It is necessary to provide the service. If they do not want their info published, they could have taken action to prevent it (whois service, alternate name, alternate email.)
https://imgur.com/a/CEtcm
Shut up and calculate means that "sure, that's a nice toy model, but show that it reproduces the standard model", and also "sure, nobody really understands why the model is that way, but it works, so shut up and use it".

And also, shut up and come up with something falsifiable (in our lifetime).
I would recommend against that book. Through slightly changing claims he's "established" he concludes for the need for "sense data" which is nonsense.

Also, white paper looks yellow under a yellow light because it white. White is the color of the paper.
ELB is the worst LB out there.
I thought the massive water tank at the top of One Rincon Hill , to control swaying in the event of earthquakes, was interesting: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/One-Rincon-tower-feat...
Signup confirmation mail goes to spam folder in Gmail.
The original interactive blog post is also really awesome https://worldmodels.github.io/
Ask HN: Is the Flow State actually productive for development?
Definition of Flow State: Distraction-less period of coding where you are very absorbed by your work and don't detect anything else.

I used to believe that flow state is great for coding and all the personal literature I read seems to confirm this and some of my personal experience as well. However after reading some literature that debate and argue against this idea, stating that you often are doing productive work that you feel like is productive due to it feeling almost like rote work but really not might not cause a real impact whereas if you had more questioning (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocus), you would figure out easier ways to accomplish the goal long term etc if you weren't so self-absorbed.

I wasn't too sure if this right and I think not many people question the theory of flow state enough and after searching through academics and research, I realized there isn't much on flow state and work so I was wondering if Flow state is legitimate with proven effects or is it like one of the personal voodoo stuff that everybody repeats and just believes without having ever shown how scientifically it works and its scientific effects.

EDIT: Found the paper by the professor who coined flow state:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/224927532_Flow_The_Psychology_of_Optimal_Experience
> Can you mention some insurrection where armed protestants won over a well-equipped state?

I think you mean “protestors” or ”insurrectionists”. “Protestants” suggests something somewhat different.

The French Revolution might be an example. Or might not, depending on the exact criteria.

> For me this reasoning for the 2nd amendment comes out only as a power fantasy which, if it was to actually play out, would simply leave the country worse off (versus unviolent opposition that may need outside support to succeed over a longer term).

Successful revolutions tend to involve outside support or defection of the government forces as decisive factors, but often start with internal non-government armed insurrection.

OTOH, the critical and forgotten underpinning of the 2nd amendment was the expectation (which failed to be mandated) that the federal government (and the states) would simply never have large standing armies or internal security forces, and that the call up of the universal militia would be the mechanism of fighting any needed wars or dealing with civic unrest. An armed citizenry is necessary to that model, but it's the absence of significant government armed forces to oppose the citizenry, not the mere fact of an armed citizenry, that is the guarantee of liberty.
Within linguistics there's plenty of politics associated with Chomsky but it's mostly politics within the field, it has nothing to do with politics writ large. He is cited more than any other linguist I expect. I haven't paid attention in about 15 years now, but back in the day there were plenty of linguists who liked his politics plenty but were sore that lines of inquiry they found fruitful -- reasoning about how linguistic form relates to function in particular -- had been banished from the influential journals and conferences by Chomsky and his acolytes. Semantics is plenty formal, by the way. Lambda calculus and other formalisms get lots of print.
So you just read about seo from time to time, get a few ideas and select one that you think will fit your circumstances, try it , and wait ?
Haha, I just realize after taking a look at your commenting history that I've read most of your comments on the posts where you commented. I work in adtech, it's not a reputable industry but there are still low hanging fruits on which lifestyle business can be built.
Woman partially sucked from plane when window breaks mid-flight;plane lands safe
As the article you linked says of Chomsky's view (correctly), "Statistical language models have had engineering success, but that is irrelevant to science." Chomsky wants to know how your brain does things, and not how best to make a computer do something to approximate that. He reiterated to me and a few others in 2009, during a seminar, that right from the start he always said that the only way to do machine translation is brute force statistics -- but back in the 50s he took the funding for translation research, and then just did whatever he wanted with it.
Pharmaceutical companies influence research according to [1] to gain support for their medicines.

Studying economic factors underlying social activity isnt by itself Marxist. This methodology is adopted in support of different political positions. In fact, many free-market economists also do this and get accused of 'economics imperialism' by social science faculty who want to study other factors.

Another point made in [1] is the blame isnt just on companies but people being influenced.

[1]https://medium.com/@drjasonfung/the-corruption-of-evidence-b...
> I disagree with this statement because this claims assumes you keep up to date on tax code changes. Getting married, buying a house, and having a child now add in deductions for mortgage interest, child tax credits, child care tax credits, a first time home buyer's loan, and potential changes to your bracket because of your spouse and how you file. Taxes for an individual with 2 kids, a house, and business are definitely more complicated than taxes for a single individual who lives in an apartment. At some point, you have to ask if this is worth your time as opposed to getting work done, especially seeing as how demonstrated in the past year, the government can radically change the tax code.

Those are all questions you would ask your accountant.

But from GnuCash's POV, it's just entering in more transactions per year into their various account buckets.
It certainly seems true that the owners of capital are suffering from the reproducibility crisis as much as anyone is. What 'danharaj is arguing, I think, is that the owners of capital are not well-placed to solve it.

The very nature of capitalism is that people who produce monetizable results should be rewarded for that work, and that people who don't shouldn't. This is fundamentally incompatible with doing science in a reproducible way: paying for positive results and not negative ones gets you p-hacking as an emergent effect. Of course the capitalists don't want to pay for non-reproducible positive results, hence the firestorm. But they more strongly don't want to pay for negative results.

The capital owners in the science industries will probably end up doing something sort of like what the capital owners in the software engineering industries have done: begrudgingly accepted that a non-capitalist approach (open source development across multiple companies without proprietary advantage) produces better results for everyone, and figured out a way to kind of support it. Much like the capital owners in the software engineering industries, they still won't be very effective at it. Their nature will be to still try to extract proprietary advantage when possible, to cut costs per the tragedy of the comments, etc., and so this model will only work well when funded by companies rich enough that they can allow themselves not to show an immediate return on their sponsorship.
Good question.

We're participating on the periphery of the MLS discussions, mainly to try to encourage the MLS team to consider and support decentralised use cases.

At the moment there's a temptation to go for a simpler approach which assumes there's a centralised sequencing server which solves all the races you otherwise get (and which have plagued us in Matrix whilst implementing Megolm). However, assuming a centralised focal point for each group conversation kills the whole point of decentralisation, so we're trying to ensure it's not designed out.

See https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mls/MnLJkbJ_Mwe8Oz0Ll6... for the gory details.
Relevant: one of my favorite articles.

https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/
Seconded for Russell
Iterating in batches over data structures can be much faster
Making Windows Slower Part 1: File Access
I live in silicon valley and
* My health care is just fine
* I don't feel an earthquake every other week - perhaps you are just afraid of them?
* Take Caltrain to work - it's clearly not "dire"
* groupthink - yes, and you appear to be among them, bashing the bay area as if was on the verge of collapse.

The bay area has lots of problems, but also lots of good. Great weather, health care, job and recreational opportunities, can ride a motorcycle all year, can work at places that make things I care about.

If you were in NYC, you would have another massive set of problems, Chicago as well.
No one is talking about a "Facebook-governed polity" in the sense of FB fielding police forces and standing armies, or holding elections to determine their leadership.
Yeah I was wrong on the math:

P(H) = .0069

P(D|H) = .87

P(D|H')= .1 (10% chance the test says you have it but you don't)

P(H|D) = 0.057 or about 6% probability you have complication after machine says you do
> My broader point is the Marxian framework is a bad one for modern science.

I will concede that it's reasonable to think it's an incomplete and limited framework, but I have to take issue with calling it bad. For example, I think this starting point is more productive than the premises of this report.

> Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic more than useful.

In this example it's plain to me that VCs are capital and entrepreneurs are labor. That's usually the game in such moonshots. Here we can analyze what sort of science is being done through this relationship through a Marxian lens too. VC's want to make big bets with potentially astronomical upside. That means only certain kinds of science will ever be done in this way. Yea, this kind of science is probably more replicable on average, but what about something like Theranos? This sort of science funding has its own problems with inefficient and incomplete allocation of resources.

I'm not a hardcore Marxist; I don't think you can reduce the world to one grand theory based on hot takes inspired by Hegel, but I think it's a more powerful tool than most care to admit.
This is the correct answer. We noticed this happening in our small lab and decided to run some tests and in fact if one person searched for something odd like 'Swedish fish' then visited sites selling Swedish fish, everyone in the lab would start to get ads for candy and snack food. Similarly, searching for "mountain bike" would result in everyone else seeing ads for bikes and bike accessories. It sort of became a game to figure out what the test search term of the day was.
Q+A: App Academy’s Jeff Fiddler on Programming Languages
> like, Mountain View maybe

During the Loma Prieta Earthquake a bunch of my coworkers fled the building and took shelter in the parking lot under the power lines.
2 is the key. It’s not just “demonetization” it’s seemingly arbitrary demonetization. It seems like political censorship to some people, to others it seems random and capricious. Nobody seems to have any clue as to how it all works and the natural result is that people take it personally. Transparency costs nothing and scales infinitely.
https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/946886702932557824 :D
For what it's worth, I've never been a senior developer although I have been working for 10 years. I've gotten the title of mid-level software engineer or simply "software engineer". The situation is a bit more complex for me, since my salary when I was a junior level was well below the local average for a junior, and right now as a mid-level it's a bit better, but still only make slightly below an average junior.

As far as disqualifying seniors for junior jobs, depends on the companies they're moving from and to. A mid-level or senior-level job at a small company with only 3 developers doesn't necessarily qualify me to be a mid-level or senior-level job at a large established software company. So I'm fine with being downleveled in position when changing to those companies. And because of my salary situation, I'm 100% sure it will result in a pay raise regardless of the title. It's happened with some colleagues before, when they left the place I worked at. One left a 55k/year job with a technical lead role to a 70k/year job as a mid-level role.
I don't think Heidegger is the most influential 20th century philosopher, and I don't think he belongs on any list, except perhaps a list of Nazis. Foucault is definitely more influential, as is Derrida, if you take the number of citations as evidence of influence. If you want to look at genealogy of specific philosophers, Foucault would have his closest influence in Althusser, and Deleuze would probably have his closest forbear in Whitehead, and Derrida, probably in Levinas.
Maybe papers need Yelp reviews on reproducibility. 1-Star couldn’t reproduce.
You would probably find it less silly if you stopped mischaracterizing it as an argument.
Robot to run for mayor in Japan in 'world first' promises 'fairness and balance'
Third vote for this book! Amazingly knowledgeable man who is quite the succinct writer.
China’s Yitu Battles for Position in Huge Facial Recognition Market
> Train lots and lots of physicists, chemists, engineers, programmers, materials scientists, biologists, mathematicians. [...] Employ them on promising ideas, and on impossible ideas.

The scientifically minded are not the ones who will be deciding what's worthy of research. Politicians and bureaucrats will, and there are plenty of them who believe in all kinds of pseudo-scientific nonsense. How does your system prevent them from shoveling tax dollars into research on homeopathy and young-Earth creationism? And how does it prevent them from using funding to incentivize scientists to find the "correct" results?

To phrase my question more generally: I would like to know how your system would avoid making science merely a tool of political interests instead of a tool of moneyed interests.
> Eminent Philosophers Name the Most Important Philosophy Books from 1950-2000
Samsung wants to help IoT speak a common language