skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I missed your power price comparison point earlier.

It's not true that it's as simple as putting numbers in a price comparison website because energy companies use bafflement pricing.

We know they use bafflement pricing because we need Tariff Comparison Rates so people can compare.

Ignoring for a moment that some tenants can't change; some can change but are told they can't; some people in debt or on prepayment meters can't change; people with some smart meters have limited options; (this list is quite a few people who can't change) we are left with people who need to work out if they need cheap price per unit (but with a large standing order charge), or cheap standing order charge with a higher price per unit.

The other two reasons we know it's not easy to switch are 1) OFGEM has to regulate the price comparison websites to prevent poor behaviour and 2) most people never switch.

(I find it annoying g you've been downvoted. You're making points in good faith and not being rude.)
Yes, but you would need to know when it succeeds and when it fails - how else can you train it? Solve this, and it's plausible.
The nice thing above Melissa O'Brien's above paper is that, a serious pharmaceutical researcher, she takes it for granted that MSG causing headaches is real. Like there is no question any more.

It's a tour de force. A nice highlight in the paper is when she explains how she thinned the skull bones of rats, in order to directly observe the change in flow in brain blood vessels caused by glutamate, without the disruption of actually drilling through the bone. A real life Amy Farrah Fowler, man! :)

Most of the prior MSG research was largely conducted by shills hired to defend the food industry. They made serious mistakes like: instead of randomly sampling, specifically recruiting people with self-reported sensitivities: that's a good way to gather a motley crue of tin-foil-hat hypochondriacs. If you recruit that way, then for every person with an actual sensitivity, you will get 100 others who just feed on mass hysterias. And those people will predictably claim that they have a headache from a placebo. It's a ploy designed to lump the real sufferers into the same group as a bunch of flakes and make them the object of ridicule. Another pattern is the blatant dismissal of edge results. Oh, only 3 more people had headaches on the real thing than the placebo out of a whopping hundred. That's just noise! Yes, fuck the several people who are actually sensitive to CGRP and/or have that genetic feature that makes them slow to clear glutamate (discussed above paper).
There's an interesting idea here though, also solvable with software/ML: Some kind of social network aggregation/multiplexing layer, which automatically segments your online/social network activity across different profiles, providing some isolation between work, hobbies, family, different groups of friends, etc...
There are already bits and pieces that accomplish this to some degree: sandbox tabs, VPNs, and yes fake profiles...
Not received ;).

me "at" hkmurakami.com

Apologies for my cryptic code (is that statement redundant?)
Aren’t we all?
>I highly doubt that.

I can only assume that you've never been poor, because lack of transport is a massive obstacle for people struggling to get or stay on the bottom rung of the employment ladder. The world is a very different place if you're on the breadline - quite minor issues can become crises if you just don't have any spare money to fix them.

How do you get to the job interview if you can't afford a taxi? How do you carpool if you've only just started the job and don't know anyone who works there? What do you do if your shift pattern changes and you can't get a ride any more? What do you do if the person giving you a ride quits or gets fired? What do you do if they lose their license for drink-driving or their crappy old car breaks down?

If there was a private bus operator ("dollar van") serving that route, the local authority wouldn't have to subsidise it.

>Providing subsidized bus routes to work is basically subsidizing employers who employ these people.

Yes, but what's so wrong with that? Running a subsidised bus route is a hell of a lot cheaper than paying unemployment benefits and dealing with the social costs of long-term unemployment. It'd be nice if those companies were willing to pay for it, but they clearly aren't.

Place A has a lot of unemployed people with low skills. Place B has a lot of low-skilled jobs. There's no public transport between place A and place B, so a lot of those unemployed people can't get to those jobs. Is it really so irrational for the local government to solve that problem?
Pretty Components: Prop-Based Styled Components in React.js
Binge-built tv shows are definitely great for storytelling, over the last 15 years or so I've found feature length films to be severely lacking in depth compared to the development that can happen over untold hours of serialized tv. There is something to be said for the isolated narrative format, though. I appreciate that I can watch any random Star Trek without refreshing my understanding of the plot or getting sucked into the next episode. I wonder if this format would be used in more Netflix shows if Netflix had a random button.
Bose's Awesome 'Magic Carpet' Suspension Is Making Production at Last
A video demonstrating the process would be very useful.
Your comment history is extremely problematic for Hacker News, because you've been using it to engage in nationalistic flamewar. I don't care what your views are or which nations you have feelings about: doing this is as toxic as it gets.

Edit: actually you went so far over the line that we banned the account. No one is allowed to turn HN into nationalistic hell, regardless of which nation they're fighting for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17108836
This would make for a cool open source project. Create a custom client for your favorite AdTech company, which injects real-looking noise into the data, blocks the resulting ads, and provide a decent interface to the content you actually need.

If somebody wants to get started on this, I'd be happy to build the front-end. (email is in my profile)
> I've never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face.

A full list of advancements in physics made thanks to advancements in philosophy during the 20th century: Ø.

> How else are supposed to understand and make meaning of their findings?

You don't. Your everyday intuitions no longer apply to phenomena on scales often well described by physics. Shut up and calculate.

> Take scientific realism for example. Roughly, whether our theories have a 1-1 mapping to reality.

Science/physics doesn't provide a "1-1 mapping to reality", it provides predictive models which don't necessarily apply to all phenomena. Newtonian physics is still being used today in everything on the ground.

> Are the entities described by, say physics, really exist? Say an electron? Or is it just a concept or a tool that we use to understand the world?

I could (in principle) harm you with an electron beam. Does that qualify for "really exist"?

> A common objection to scientific realism is Pessimistic Meta Induction. Roughly, we've been always wrong about physics and physical entities, even when we made progress, therefore we're likely wrong now (maybe less wrong but still wrong).

See above for "scientific realism".

> I think part of the reason we don't have consesus on the interpretation of quantum mechanics is because of this dismissal of philosophy by physicists.

Nobody stops philosophers from picking up a book on quantum mechanics and writing their own interpretation. The problem is, in vast majority of cases the interpretations are either wrong or complete crap.
HBO also does streaming, so I don't get your point. If it's just 'most stuff on Netflix is cheaply made crap', that's a fact the article more or less states in it's body. That said, the expensive things are quite good, if rare.
The quality of TV writing has definitely improved in recent years. But we a have a new problem now. The producers still want the shows to run forever. Instead of telling discrete stories and wrapping them up in a season or two they try to keep stringing the audience along. The characters end up repeating the same situations.

Rather then one series that runs for 5 to 10 years I’d prefer 2 or 3 different series telling different stories about the same characters. A few crime series have been dealing with one case person. I’d like to see more things like that.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Nationalistic flamewar and personal attacks are not allowed here. Please don't create accounts to do this with.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

In case anyone is wondering: no, this is not because of your views. I don't know what they are and it doesn't matter, just as a fireman doesn't care what color a fire is.
> We are talking urban transit here and not advance bookable trains

"The same with transport -- there's half a dozen ways to travel from say Edinburgh to London"

That's not urban transport.

> Why take the choice away? Because more operators means fewer trains/busses/trams per operator as the infrastructure is generally limited. So in urban areas shared ticketing is what customers prefer.

In well run urban areas (like London) the competition comes from providers bidding to run the service, but the actual specification of the service including the conditions and ticketing, are done by the local authority. There are multiple bus operators in London, but most people don't realize that.

The day to day choice comes down to choosing Bus vs Tube vs Bike vs Uber vs Taxi.

In poorly run areas (like Manchester), the on-bus competition rarely exists, and when it does tickets aren't interchangable.

> If given the choice of a 20% cheaper ticket but half the trains people would take the more frequent service.

Some people would. You and I would, because we're highly paid IT professionals. Others wouldn't -- hence the reason that where direct commuting services do compete (say Milton Keynes to London), some buy flexible tickets, others buy "Virgin only" ones to save 15%.
A response:

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2018/05/19/the-friendly-mask-of...

Facebook involving itself with this malignant warmongering psyop factory constitutes an open admission that the social media site considers it its duty to manipulate people into supporting the agendas of the western empire.
Regardless of the size of organization, GDPR applies. In particular, note the section "Right of Access":

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...

Which requires the organization to supply information about use of personal information. This will have an operational overhead regardless of scope of Personal Information used.

For a worse-case (hopefully impossible) variant of what this request looks like: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-acce...

Oh please somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Otherwise that's a silly amount of operational overhead for bootstrapping. Even for systems designed from the start to not use personal data: The org would still need to handle a rather detailed and costly administrative request.
strcat is C and not C++ though.
New Release: 0 A.D. Alpha 23 “Ken Wood”
I don't think the US is involved in mass imprisonment [0] and organ harvesting [1] of innocent people. We're talking about hundreds of thousands being locked up for holding beliefs the CCP doesn't like. And it's happening today.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Go...
I fail to see how crime victimization surveys disprove possibility of feedback loops. You can have higher murder rates among the black population, yet have overall similar misdemeanour rates. You can even have a higher misdemeanour rate among the black population but have a propostionally even higher arrest rates due to these models and their feedback loops. Or maybe I am missing something in your argument? Care to elaborate?
Your comment runs counter to my experience learning math and the experience of basically every person I know with graduate or higher education in the subject. Sure you might be trying to learn something you're not ready for if you're frustrated, but even then I don't think anything past 300 level math will be realistically frustration-free the first time you're exposed to it. It feels to me like you're splitting hairs with your comment here: learning or doing new math is fundamentally a frustrating process, even for mathematicians. If you're doing math and it's not frustrating, you have an exceptional grasp of it and it's not new to you, which usually develops after persevering through many frustrating exercises.

Technically speaking every mathematical proof is a proof "from first principles" - but if I teach you analysis and linear algebra, you're not going to just derive vector and tensor analysis easily, no matter what first principles you're working from. Beyond the first few years of undergrad math everything is so far removed from first principles that it's virtually certain you will struggle with some of the material unless you have significant prior exposure to it. There isn't really a way around that. You have the exposure or you don't, but math you haven't learned never just "falls into place", so to speak, even if it's relatively easier for some than others.

In fact, every former math graduate student I can think of has told me the first year or so felt like wallowing in confusion. Likewise "working at the edges until it feels easy" seems like a distinction without a difference, in my opinion (but reminds me of Grothendieck). I don't see a meaningful difference between the frustration of software engineering and the frustration of math, either. If you're not doing research mathematics, day to day applied math work becomes just as much about routine, "grab your toolkit and put things together" work as programming.
USAA is one of the most progressive banks in the country technologically speaking as well. They had 2FA deployed long before everyone else, app money transfers, picture check deposits and lots of other things long before any of their competitors.

USAA also usually has very competitive personal loan rates and mortgage rates. Their insurance rates are usually unbelievable. Their customer service is top rated as well.
I understand that. What does it take to be on teams like that? How do I skill-up to that level? I have put in a lot of effort over 5 years but maybe I'm doing it the wrong way.
There's a lot of problems that slackbots can solve, but asking people what type of slackbot they would pay $10 a month for is not probably not going to generate a lot of viable business ideas.

Find out problems folks are having and from there narrow that list down to those that are easily solvable by slackbots.
This is an odd ruling to me.

If an ISP is willing to sell that data, are IP addresses now PII for everyone?

If one part of a company has such a DB, does it apply to every part of the company? What if it's multiple companies owned by a conglomerate?

If you include an image (or a font!) from somewhere else in a web page, you are causing the user's IP address to be sent to the hosting party, are you liable for sending PII if the target can link IPs to names, because they (e.g. Google) have a DB?
They don't need to be 100% fake. I can imagine that many automatically generated "profiles" that contain a grain of truth may be enough to poison the data well.
I really like that people asking fundamental questions about the way AI can be pushed forward beyond just ML seems to gain a little bit of traction again, at least in the public eye. Even Kissinger opined on the topic just a few days ago

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/06/henry-k...

I agree with Pearl that there's something deeply misguided about thinking that intelligence truly can be solved as a data optimization problem. I'd be happy if we'd see more research about AI at a symbolic level again.

The biggest hindrance seems to be funding. ML is really successful in a lot of commercial domains, general AI is a big moonshot. With most researchers moving from long term university positions to the business sector I'm concerned about this sort of research, not just in computer science.
It's certainly true that the current state is better than a non-lottery system. That's not what the judge's decision changed though - it changed from preference+lottery with trades to preference+lottery without trades.

This creates a strictly worse outcome for that school year, since only students who would mutually benefit from a trade would trade, and students who did nothing or could not trade would remain unchanged.
Surely, a company that requires the presence of its founders to function has way less of a future than a company that doesn't? A great company should not be dependent on any one person.
Oh, they care. They don't want other governments to know what they know.
> Roughly, we've been always wrong about physics and physical entities, even when we made progress, therefore we're likely wrong now (maybe less wrong but still wrong).

This is an extremely good point and one that people very often overlook.

It applies to all sorts of different areas of life.

For example in health/safety, we have always believed many things to be safe (or at least not deadly) and found out later that they were not safe or caused more harm than anyone thought (radiation, smoking, asbestos and more). So there are likely many deadly things today that we don't take seriously and in 300 years our children will gasp when they look back.

In programming, when you are fixing "buffer overflow number 15,452" you have to understand if this bug was going to be the last one it wouldn't be number 15,452. So just like the 14,451 that came before it, there will be more to come. So you should stop for a moment to think at a higher level or consider taking steps to completely eliminate the problem at its source instead of focusing on that specific instance because otherwise that number is not going to stop growing.

In general it's very good to be able to recognise the patterns that have been consistent over a long time and appreciate that the present time is probably not that different from what came before it. Time is going to pass, your present is going to be simply added to the next person's past, and it's unlikely to magically be void of those patterns that have been persistent for thousands of years.
If Terence Tao admits that doing mathematics is hard, then I am extremely leery of anyone who thinks otherwise.
Delivering one million emails an hour
it looks like it doesn't handle negation. one of those unfortunate but interesting features of the space of recursive declarative languages.

if you allow something to be true only if something else is not true, your solution space is no longer monotonic. meaning that a result you thought was part of the solution can later be retracted. if there is a cycle (trivially "a if not a"), then you may not ever arrive at an answer. that might seem simple to detect, but that cycle can exist through an arbitrary number of rules and data dependencies, so in the limit is undecidable.

ideally, as in this solver, you could keep adding terms you could show to be correct from the data and rules at hand until they and all their consequences have been found, and which point you can stop (fixed point). but negation screws up this plan.

there are various restrictions on negation, solver heuristics, and partial conservative proofs of termination that can be applied. but this is where your beautiful simple declarative world starts getting sad and messy.

[edit: I'd like to leave this because I wish I understood the problem with negation earlier, but I just skimmed and missed stratification, Frank thoughtfully explains below]
Pork Legs Are Shaking Up British Politics
I think I was lucky: I was born soon enough that I could use the Internet as a reckless teenager and very little trace of that remains (unless someone has logs from long-crashed private forums, or IRC logs). People born not long ago, in many parts of the planet, don't have this luxury. Everything is a constant archive of your life.
UPDATE - Saturday May 19

The drawing has been updated on the blog post cited above; there was an error in the description of it, this has been clarified and the code has been updated as well

Join the Telegram group to discuss: https://t.me/joinchat/G8AnchIna2q8yn1lGHirkA

Note that Even and Odd Values of N have a very different pattern.

For example try using the values 99 and 99, and then 100 and 100, in this HTML PREVIEW VERSION:

https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/acmegeek/p...

CODE TO TRY:

Javascript https://beta.observablehq.com/@montyxcantsin/unwinding-the-u...

Mathematica https://github.com/shaunxcode/a-pattern-in-the-primes

Perl https://www.dropbox.com/s/z5tfub5geyuctex/prime-draw.pl?dl=0

EXPLANATION:

In short, actually there are some curious patterns in this, and they are not simply equivalent to OEIS A054521 (as we, and others, initially thought they were).

For even values of n, they seem to approach the OEIS A054521 sequence as n increases. But for odd values the pattern is different and OEIS A054521 doesn't describe it at all. More discussion of this on the Telegram group...
It's important to remember that the Gale-Shapely algorithm generates a "stable" solution, AKA a local optimum. It doesn't generate a global optimum (which is impossible, since utility function is N-dimensional -- one for each mate -- and projecting that onto 1 dimension requires picking whose utility matters how much).

"The traditional form of the algorithm is optimal for the initiator of the proposals and the stable, suitor-optimal solution may or may not be optimal for the reviewer of the proposals."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem
Clare Waight Keller Revealed as Meghan's Designer
I hope more scientists, specifically those in the public eye, don't blatantly berate philosophy "because they can't do experiments on important questions".

The incident that jumps to memory involves the science "popularizer" Lawrence Krauss, who berated (although he has issued a non-apology) a philosopher of physics, David Albert, for critically reviewing Krauss's book:

In response to a critical review by philosopher of physics David Albert, Krauss called Albert a “moronic philosopher” and told the Atlantic’s Ross Andersen that philosophers are threatened by science because “science progresses and philosophy doesn’t”.

Peter Woit, Senior Lecturer in the Mathematics department at Columbia, discusses (although, it is roughly six years old now) that here[1], with references. Here[2] is a comment from that same blog post sharing "examples of contributions from philosophy to progress in physics".

Don't mean to single out Krauss on that; of course there are other well-known scientists too.

[1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=...

[2] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4623&cpage=...
It ain't that easy (cache invalidation is hard). But they did it anyway, so, yeah, you can have your cake and eat it.
Stranger Things was a surprise hit, but not as massive as really big cable shows.

See comparison to Game of Thrones or TWD: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...
Cryptocurrency Exchange Coinbase May Apply for a Banking License: Report
> our warfighters deserve the best killing technology

Like biological and chemical weapons? Or more like Napalm buring through children? Or metal-free landmines that are even harder to remove after war?
Ludic drive?
Title seems misleading to me