skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Strangely enough a friend of mine uses scrapbooking. It is very old school and manual but she gets a lot of enjoyment out of it. It is something she wants to leave her children when she is gone.
Very interesting. I put in all of my details. There is no way in hell I could find anything comparable for $500 or less a month.
I have yet to see any religious text that defines a man as a person having a Y chromosome.
This is why I eventually bit the bullet and purchase the home. I didn't want to be 65 years old trying to deal with increasing rent on a fixed income in retirement.
A Moving Mesa Midgard Cube
> There is a lot of overpriced software, especially on MacOS

I really don't think this is the case. It's not fundamentally wrong to charge $50 or $100 for software: it just means that there are some people that won't be able to afford it, but the tradeoff you make is that you might be able to provide better support or higher quality.

> Will people realize how easy this app is to make? Will they care?

Well, I certainly did ;)
Look at https://twitter.com/year_progress for some ASCII goodness.
It's good to keep market-specific language to market-specific silos, but you need to put some little (milquetoast, plain-info) bit up front. Otherwise you turn off every market.
Your forgetting the tax write off of mortgage interest. Which needs to go into you equation no? That can be sizable.
Is Apple collecting the minimum amount of user data possible?

Do purchasers of Apple hardware decide which "features" Apple should offer?

Do these purchasers decide what tradeoffs will be made between (a) not collecting user data (maximum privacy by design) and (b) collecting user data with the justification that a "feature" requires it (sacrafice user privacy as required by manufacturer's design)?

Apple's CEO calls privacy a "fundamental human right".

If by its design Apple hardware encourages or requires that right to be abridged (e.g. AppleID, AppStore, etc.), who makes the determination that the purchasers absolute fundamental right (hardware only, no data collection) is outweighed by the need to provide "features" that encourage or necessitate privacy tradeoffs (pre-installed software, ongoing "services", licenses to compile and install software, etc.).

Who decides when the "fundamental right" to privacy should be diminished to support a "feature" chosen by the manufacturer?

If there is (a) one type of hardware/software company that collects user data and sells advertisement, (b) a second type of hardware/software company that collects user data but does not sell advertisement, then is there (c) a third type of hardware/software company that does not collect user data?

What would be the most ideal company for the privacy-conscious consumer: (a), (b) or (c)?
That's an App Store issue, not a developer certificate one.
Odd I read the article and got the sense that it wasn't necessarily painting one side better than the other but tried to give an overview of the full financial picture. It missed details sure but the overarching point was "run your own numbers and look at your own situation and see what makes sense for you."

> But articles like these should accurately discuss the financial upside of buying.

I think the reason it didn't is because buying is the default "good" choice in most people's eyes and even if they don't understand some of the details you mentioned (I didn't know all that myself) the goal was to open a layperson's eyes to the broader landscape.
Didn't you use expert systems 10 years ago for those? Rules running of SQL queries, which you crafted yourself or through the help of a domain expert?

I think its fare to claim that companies who skipped that process might want to consider it first, as a cheaper way to start with predictive analytics.

But, I'm not sure, I am actually intrigued, what was the techniques used before ML in that field otherwise?
A large point of concern I do not see discussed with centralized currator like FB is the ability of massive cesnsorship
Why do you feel it's racketeering?
The Golden Rule is that the people who have the gold make the rules. In this case, NYC has a whole lot more gold than Alabama.

If you are thinking about people being decent to each other, that is the Silver Rule and doesn’t apply to corporations since companies are rewuired to do the profitable thing not the conscionable thing.

In this case: spend money to move the train full of poo elsewhere, or leave it right where it is? The profitsble option is “leave it where it is” because that costs less.
If you could lower the price of a Ferrari to the price of a Camry it would be a tremendous success too. You can make a business selling to Katy Perrys and Beyoncés, but not at a $700 price point, and not by raising $100m in VC.
Predictive analytics is the future for people who are trying to predict things.

Use the right tool for the task.
Can someone explain the dynamic that’s going on here? I somehow can believe that VCs are so stupid to be purely hype driven, so what is pushing them to make this their investment focus?

Do they just jump on every bandwagon in the hope that one of them might pan out?
The original CISC HP 3000s were a stack machine.

Newer HP 3000s used PA-RISC CPUs instead (register not stack CPU), but the MPE operating system included an emulator/translator so they could still run the legacy CISC code.

(The same architecture was also used in some of the early HP 9000 workstations, specifically the 500 series.)
Apple is charging developers money to avoid a problem imposed by Apple themselves.

To be fair, the developer subscription includes tools and documentation for Mac/iOS specific development that a price tag is fair for. But for the use case of cross-platform (e.g. Java) open-source development, not even a standard CA-rooted code signing certificate allows distribution without the security error. You have to pay Apple for one, or else your app is 2nd class and your users need workaround instructions.
MoviePass owners weighing merger despite burning through cash
Except Nespresso is $150 for the machine and $1/drink, not $700/$5, and the coffee market is much better developed than the green juice market.
> The problem is most people don't move sideways or down... they move up, thus negating any windfall in investment prowess.

But the investment is what allows moving up, no?
In the case of renting a SFH from a random person, that might be kind of true (but not all landlords make money off renting anyway), but consider:

- Your landlord may have a lot more capital to buy homes with no mortgage and the and ability to maintain homes cheaper than you can or remodel homes cheaper than you can.

- Your landlord might be a large apartment complex where the economics are different from SFH.
Do you know how remoteok make money? Thanks
Totally agree. Would you say that GP's suggested language is sufficiently plain? I would worry that it would turn off publishing partners, who want to hear things like "increase audience engagement" not "read easier".

Maybe something generic like "improve focus while reading", which could appeal to individuals and publishing partners? Appreciate your taking the time to share feedback — this sort of stuff is not something we're skilled/experienced at.
I have plenty of food in my refrigerator more perishable than green juice, and no QR-code reading iOS app, and have still managed to avoid killing myself with food poisoning.
> I've read that the mortgage interest rates are around 2-3% in Europe

From what I understand, these aren't fixed rate 30-year. The rate can change year to year. The US is unique in offering one interest rate that will be consistent for 30 years.
Write me a SQL query that labels images, produces a transcript from sounds, recognizes handwritten text, does facial recognition or recommends items.

See the point? Welcome to 2018.
Well, then I would say it was not a good interview. And yes, if you can, go to as many interviews as possible. There is a 'mood' for passing interviews and the more you do, the more you approach them with the right mood.
It gets even worse when they want an outcome that they themselves only believe instead of being impartial.
Note that this will be capped at interest on a value of $750k for houses bought starting this year, so less than before. I think the leverage angle is ignoring the fact that your equity can be wiped as well in a downturn. It's unlikely my index fund will go to zero (and if it does, we'll probably have bigger problems on our hands).
Only on about day three when you are trying to straighten up the computer screen which is wonky in directions that don’t exist.
My last company made us stop writing integration tests because "they don't actually find any issues". We then switched to blackbox testing which seemed to basically only be integration tests anyways (at least within a single component/module) so that's, good?
>> A house in 1897 cost the same as a house in 1997, adjusted for inflation.

>It is hard to believe, given new technologies that are supposed to make it cheaper.

I'm not sure if this is really true but it wouldn't surprise me. A "house" actually has more stuff these days. Structurally engineered lumber that will last longer. Inspections to ensure it will survive the disasters in $localArea. Larger square footage. Granite counter tops. Fancy HVAC systems that are increasingly more complex and higher efficiency. I bet on a per-square-foot basis house. Not to mention most the price of house purchase is the land-value, which is probably even higher than historical norms in desirable areas.
I used to take lots of walks at night before I had a full time job and children. I live in Austria and it seems bizarre to me that police officers would check you out just for walking around at night. I never had such an experience whether I was living in Vienna or my small hometown.

What I did see was black men having to show their ID at subway stations, which to me was a very unsettling thing, because it was pretty obvious that they were looking for drug dealers and focusing on a specific race.

I was held up in Croatia and had to show my ID twice. But I was with a group of people in a party area, so that kind of made sense.

Is taking walks maybe an uncommon thing in the USA?
I understand that if the test hits database, then its an integration test.

But what if a whole load of the logics are in stored procedure? Surely those needs test too.

Of course, one can make an argument that depending too much on stored procedures is an anti pattern....
Think about how the players must have felt!
People tend to move up as they establish and grow a family but then sideways or down in retirement. That equity stays even if you move up into a bigger house.

It’s not uncommon for someone say in an extensive Northeast community to retire to a warmer climate down south, sell their house, use the proceeds to buy something much nicer (in a low COL area) and cash out a nice payday from their equity.
This will reduce environmental awareness. The school is being terrible. There is no doubt the trips will resume eventually and these administrators will be laughed at. This bad and comic action may well the legacy for a couple of them.
Hardly lazy. The entire space has existed for 10 years and the underlying tech for even more. So far all that has been produced is massive amounts of fraud. If you want to count pump and dump scams, Ponzi schemes, pyramid schemes, terrorist funding, organized crime money laundering schemes, crypto-locker scams, “underage kids buying hardcore drugs” schemes, child trafficking schemes, blatant tax fraud, “hiding money from the ex wife” schemes, and all the other underground frauds, scams and criminal behavior as “valuable”, be my guest.

... oh and all at the low low cost of the several small nations worth of electricity required to power the brutally slow, inefficient by design Rube Goldberg contraption that is the blockchain...

The whole space is a joke.
A 8x10 camera weighs about 4kg. Adams used smaller formats most of the time, everything he'd need would be under 6-8 kg.
I imagine someone like him would not settle for an inferior viewpoint with a easy hike as an alternative.
Our bodies have a finite number of breaths. We don't always prioritize our time that way when it seems like that.

Maybe it's also a mindful presence the most of one's day/week/month/year is important.

I recall another post about a graph that is generated for the # of your weeks that are used up. It's powerful, and as positive, or not, as I guess as one wants to make it.
Awesome product! Been using it for a bit, and does indeed help.

Just a quick bug report - it does the wrong thing on right-to-left text. e.g. on this article [1], it highlights the beginning (right side) of one line and the end (left side) of the next line in the same color, which doesn't actually reflect the flow of reading. There's also a weird effect on LTR text embedded in the RTL (on my setup, the "a" in "axios" on the third line of the body is bright red, while the rest is complete black).

EDIT: [1]http://www.maariv.co.il/news/world/Article-633899
That's true. Once we start regulating FB we will never be able to stop regulating everything. Soon, tentacles of regulation will be everywhere. Even our thoughts will be regulated. Ok, let's not regulate it then. Good point.

But also, can't we say, if you start allowing FB to grow and operated un regulated what's to stop pretty much anything on the internet to do the same?

Hmm. What to do?
Wow this is amazing! I don't understand the VCs input about ML, why and how would it help in this use case?
Bitbar is a nice discovery, thanks for sharing!
I don't quite understand the sudden optimism around the feasibility of strong AI. The only major advancement in the last two decades seems to be neural nets in pattern recognition. Before deep learning, pattern recognition wasn't even considered proper AI. The other advancements seem to be just based on better compute and not a new revolutionary idea.

I hope people also get to hear from researchers on the other side of the argument (like Michael Jordan): the real risk is not super-intelligent AI destroying human race, but stupid AI being handed over control of critical aspects of our daily lives.
> Small increases in property value are multipled relative to your initial investment.

But don’t forget that leverage works both ways. Small declines can wipe you out.
In some countries "mortgage vacation" is mandated by law. You can just stop paying it for 6-12 months if shit hits the fan. Some banks allow re-financinng to prolong mortgage and lower monthly payments too. There're insurances that cover your mortgage if you loose your incomes for legitimate reason (injury, company downsizing etc). Neither of those exist when renting..
Given that Tesla hired a bunch of car people to scale their car production, it's safe to say that understanding what Apple did isn't their forte. I suspect it wouldn't have helped; you can't cost-effectively send final assembly of a car to a contract manufacturer, but you can for a phone.
Okay, so that would require totally changing the application architecture, and in the end it would suffer from exactly the same issue: A broken worker that takes tasks from the queue and immediately returns an incorrect result will quickly take over a significant portion of the tasks. That’s exactly the issue the article was talking about.
It really depends on your situation. If you can afford to buy, and plan to live at least in the short term in that property, I think buying is a good thing. If you need flexibility and want to move around, or you can’t afford to buy, then renting is better. Personally I think buying is the best thing in the long term, and by long-term anything longer than five years. Rent keeps going up. A mortgage doesn’t really change that much.
> I know a handful of people in their 60s...

To be fair, I know a ton of people in their 20s who took advice from people in their 60s and now have mounds of student debt and no career.

I'm not saying buying a home won't work out well. I'm just saying that the baby boomers seem to have had a unique path towards financial stability that doesn't appear to be sustainable for the generations that followed.
This is very country-specific. I sold a flat in Scotland at the end of last year. I think I paid a flat-fee of about £2000 for a solicator to create the home-report/brochure, handle the necessary paperwork, post advert(s) online & arrange viewings, etc.

I'm sure the fee was probably calculated based on the sale price, but the idea of paying 6% of the sale-price is very alien to the UK at least, and I suspect Europe too (though in Finland I've just bought a couple of places, never sold one.)
Successfully trading value with an anonymous third party over the internet, without fear if them renegging, seems to be all that's required to demonstrate this.

Before bitcoin this wasn't possible without trust in a third party, as far as I'm aware.

No paper needed.
> I'm fairly sure the cost of a dozen viable stolen identities to use as money movement channels is MUCH cheaper than the transaction fees on bitcoin, so it's not like the enterprising criminal doesn't have a classical, high performance, downmarket option.

Ok, and in 2010 did the average person have access to such a network?

I personally didn't have access to those things. Thats sounds pretty difficult, actually. But what I DID have access to was bitcoin. And it worked! And it didn't get censored like visa or mastercard was doing.

Thats the usecase. Me sending money to wikileaks. I cannot think of any other plausible way for me personally to send money to wikileaks back in 2010. Stolen identities sounds like it would get me sent to jail, and it seems hard. No thanks. Bitcoin was easier. (A dollar for a transaction fee is still cheaper than cross country money transfers, actually.)
Pitfalls of India's biometric ID scheme already used by 1 billion Indians
There is no rationalizing with people so blinded by the promise of getting rich quick from Satoshi’s glorious bitcoin. People who have drunk the koolaid can’t be reasoned with.
Before the shock wave, the brightness of a nuclear explosion boils everything
Chris Horner??????

Chris "Redacted" Horner[1]?

The guy who "won" the Vuelta at 41? The guy who joined pro-continental teams only to have their race invitations withdrawn?

You can bet there are a lot of claims that Horner was a doper, and many claims that he was one of the worst.

Maybe Jonathan Vaughters's Tweet about him shows the utter contempt the pro peleton feels for Horner. Maybe Francisco Mancebo is hated more on the US circuit, but probably not.

[1] https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/commentary-a-partially-subje... (read the comments if the "redacted" doesn't make sense, or Google "Rider 15")
I think they wanted us to do something with NLP and ML, to make it syntactically-based. I happen to have studied linguistics and know how complex this would be — and of course it would have to be custom-built for every language. The current version, which just uses line position, works fine and is language-independent.

Another explanation: they didn't actually know how they wanted us to us ML — they just knew they wanted us to use it.
If the goal is to counter that oppression, how can it help to dispute or ignore the categories?
They put a lot of study into hyped categories, so they at least understand the businesses they're investing in. They can evaluate the caliber of talent, understand the depth of your moat, etc. Whereas with businesses outside of the hype (or outside of their specific specialty) they're not confident in their ability to even evaluate the potential of an investment.

(I'm working on a startup right now that's in a similar position - non-hyped B2B segment. VCs are all "hey, look, we don't understand X market very well, maybe go to Y VC?" And Y VC is all "hmm, you're only tangentially related to Z market that we actually understand, so you'll need to get to Series A-sized revenues before we'll put in a seed-size investment.")
The answer in most cases is "yes".

This post is full of the kinds of flawed arguments that usually accompany pro-rent arguments -- which do a real disservice in identifying those cases where the answer is "No".

Breaking down the problems by section:

Equity

"Here’s the rub: Only a small slice of your mortgage payment builds equity."

There you go, the article defeats itself not even a full screen below the correct answer.

If you rent, 0% of your monthly payments build equity.
If you own, X% of your monthly payments build equity.
X > 0

It attempts to list all the parts of a mortgage payment as if itemizing it makes the equity earned meaningless.

Your mortgage consists of four parts:

Principal (the equity-building piece)
Interest
Taxes
Insurance

This is basically correct, but the case for "Your rent consists of the same four parts + two additional parts where the property owner may make a profit off of you as well as some additional money to cover various expenses that they'd rather not pay for out of pocket."

Again, nothing in this section invalidates that building equity is better than not.

One way of thinking about renting is that you pay all of this, plus the extra stuff and in the end you've built equity for somebody else and none for you.

Opportunity cost

I didn't bother to read this to be honest, these sections are almost entirely filled with notions that "if I just invested my money in horse farms or leverage backed security instruments I'd make more money in the long run" blah blah blah. The logical flaw in these are usually pretty easy to spot as they involve a scenario setup that's not like-for-like (meaning the same house as a renter vs. as a buyer) and focus on weird time frames like the lifetime of the loan not the life of the person.

In other words, at the end of 30 years, the rent may have made more money in some scenario of a perfect investor, but then they still have to rent to have a place to live. The homeowner now owns their property free and clear and can do all kinds of things with it, and their now future income is entirely liquid.

Should I rent of buy

Do what you want! But don't follow the flawed arguments in this blog. Here's what it really comes down to, do you want your money to be more liquid and your location to be more mobile? Then rent.

Do you want to own large amounts of assets that can be liquidated in a few months (in most places) or that you can live in virtually free in the future? Then buy.

Bonus: if you buy, you can end up in a situation where you just have other people literally giving you money to pay your mortgage away...it's called being a landlord. You can even do it with parts of your property, like a bedroom or a basement. Over time you can own a property outright, rent it out, and use that rent to service another mortgage in a property where you live meaning you live virtually free and accrue assets at a frightening rate.

edit once again, here's probably the best post written on the subject.

http://assayviaessay.blogspot.com/2014/04/rent-or-buy.html
> leverage angle is ignoring the fact that your equity can be wiped as well in a downturn

I call that out when talking about "no recourse". If you leverage 5X in the stock market and invest $1M in index funds and the market drops by 30%, you are on the hook for the $100k beyond your $200k you lost. If you leverage 5X in a personal residence and the market drops by 30% (and you live in a no-recourse state), then you mail the keys to the bank and walk away. Very unique situation.