skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> "students from poorer neighborhoods make more strategic mistakes."

It's likely simpler than you guess, and not because poorer people are dumber (I'm not even sure why you assumed that making strategic mistakes in college planning is caused by low intelligence): students in poorer neighborhoods aren't plugged into the privilege networks, that tell them which are the best schools to apply to.
LG has launched a blockchain platform Monachain
If I may give some feedback:

I took a look at the https://serverjs.io/ page. The only text is "server.js for Node" which literally just tells you the package name and the product it's for (which I could've guessed from the .js).

Below this, there are some features:

* 'Everything you need is loaded by default' (everything I need for what?! :P)
* 'Realtime channels in a couple of lines' (okay, so it's for realtime communication - websockets? RTC? something else?)
* 'Use async/await and forget Callback Hell' cool
* etc..

I scroll down even more still not quite knowing what the package is for and read "Powerful server for Node.js that just works so you can focus on your awesome project". Okay ... what sort of server is it? An SMTP server? A web server? There was something about websockets earlier, so is it a websocket server?

It's not until I read through the code and see function calls to things like "get" and "post" that I guess it's _probably_ a web server.. but I'm still not entirely sure.
You’re being far too charitable. There are instances of state actors hiring armies of shills that purposefully derail any criticism of their country.

Not saying that’s the case here on HN, or in this particular thread. But it is still something to be aware of.
I'm sort of with the other poster on this thread that it shouldn't be that hard. The overall product is impressive, but every action is done in the context of an existing product where step 1 isn't to write Maps from scratch, but to understand the system (with help from documentation, coworkers, etc) and then see how you can make a change to achieve the desired outcome.

Maps is sort of an outlier IMO since so much of it is done on a canvas, rather than traditional web tech, but if you hardcoded some street geometry, would it be that hard to render it to a canvas and then make it draggable? Then make it clickable, etc?

It sort of sounds like you're having a tough time breaking the large project that is maps down to the individual tasks, maybe do a side projects where you go from idea to prototype yourself, and then see how you can improve it? Hell, maybe just try making google maps yourself? start with a really shitty version that's black and white and work your way up?
Shopify app challenge. 6 months – 6 apps
Suggesting that their product works best in their browser is a world away from what MS pulled in the 90's, with the embrace and extend of standards.

I wonder how many relic Intranet apps force the use of old IE in Corporate world because they were built with the 'extended' dialect of JScript.
Plenty of enjoyable vignettes, but a disappointment as a whole.
I’d like to start a collection of articles in which the title poses a question and the answer is actually yes.

My rule of thumb is that, whenever an article says “Is X the secret to Y?” that the answer is almost always “NO”.
Why would they need to know if a device was unrooted? What does this app do aside from showing you ads and you friends' pictures?
Insights on how to write down symbol games that match sensor readings would come from trying to do that, and gaining experience, would they not? It has an empirical kernel: whether or not you are successful at writing down good symbol games. That might technically be classified as philosophy, but since "the art of writing down good symbol games" is clearly founded in a task where you can easily evaluate your success, it strikes me as having more in common with other bodies of knowledge that grew around goal achievement than it does with philosophy.

If you have multiple matching symbol games, maybe just either prove them mathematically equivalent (a la matrix mechanics and Schrodinger's equation), or if they aren't equivalent, write them both down and keep an eye on them until you develop an experiment that can distinguish between them. As far as I can see, that remains within the paradigm of "go forth and match the symbols."
I don't understand the assertion that the US Gov't can't do anything to prevent the foreign governments from doing this... The FCC has broad powers to regulate the public airwaves. This technology clearly disturbes authorized and licensed utilizaton of the airwaves OUTSIDE of the bounds of the Embassies. FCC should have the power to prevent this.
How do bicycles balance themselves?
So, given that Mass Effect, and The Witcher are not being pulled, anything goes, unless your game has naked anime boobs in it.
That has a name: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
> a grade A student should have a higher priority of getting into a top school than a lower grade student.

Why? Attending a school isn't the Stanley Cup trophy.

Why bother pouring resources into students have already achieved educational targets? Comparative advantage implies that lower performing students have more room to gain from better schools.

This is before even getting into what even defines "better", which is too quickly overlooked.
The way I understand regulation is that it usually entrenches the existing players, making it even harder to fail.
Unfortunately, you've been beaten to the punch by Ian Betteridge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
I can’t help but think this best aligns with US immigration system. US take in huge amount of international students, but don’t have a reliable (no, lottery-based work visa with a ~50% SLA is not reliable) and easy way for top graduates to work. Instead, policies that were made tens of years ago in fear of US jobs stolen by foreigners are still effective and the same mindset influence many Americans.

This is just an effort among many to attract talent in the US, and at this point any country who doesn’t make this kind of effort is basically leaving free money on the table.
Don’t mistake the HN comment section for a place where you need to be concerned about one narrative or another bandying about sovereign claims to the Spratly Islands.
In context, this is attacking someone for being vulnerable. That breaks HN's civility rule and is not ok here. Please don't post like this again.

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

Edit: since you continued to be aggressive downthread, I've banned the account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Great sci-fi in there, No?

Long after the humans were gone, the 2 ai's duked it out as one tried to invent credible "people" and the other tried to detect them. Finally they became so locked in the battle, they became like one bicameral mind imagining a world of "people" to itself until one fine morning they said to themselves "let there be light" and found it good...
You wouldn't get the contents, but you could tell who was talking to whom, when, and for how long.
Ad nauseum
Data Science Bowl 2018 Recap
It's like they're so impressed with their messages (interesting people stand out, take risks and responsibility, and die, scarcity and fear are the reasons we made governments, humans are the real zombies, life is hard) they forgot to make a good show.

In fact I actually think they can't. Anyone remember season 2 where they tried to develop characters and what-not? It was agonizing.
No, but I have found the ones in Netflix shows to be more banal, with even cross-season cliffhangers resolving with low import to the plot.
> voluntarily better their individual positions in a way that wouldn't affect the positions of others

Except that it does affect the positions of others, by pushing them down the list. If there were another opening at someone's preferred school, that doesn't mean that someone would get it. Others likely want it, and one may be ranked higher. But by voluntarily swapping in this way, the results of each of the schools' lotteries are discarded, and others are disadvantaged as a result. One way to keep it fairer would be to modify the algorithm to rank and swap in such cases. Ranking would be necessary, because it could be that three people in school B want to attend school A, while only two people in school A want to attend school B.
Funny thing is that everything in the Equifax breach (addresses, social security numbers, income) is public information in Sweden and everybody can access it.
Let me don my physicist hat here for a moment.

I couldn't care any less what philosophy has to say about the phenomena I studied when I was in academia. Except insofar as there is overlap with the observations (empirical) and elucidation of the models (rational/mathematical), what concerns philosophy is completely separate from what concerns physics.

I suppose if I am forced to make some statement assuming there is a definitive, important relationship between philosophy and physics, I'd say this: physicists implicitly assume a sort of rational empiricism. We can't prove (philosophically speaking) that our approach maps to some "True Reality" but that isn't the goal. Effectively we've asserted (implicitly) there is a "1-1 mapping to reality (whatever that is)". Philosophy has no response to that that isn't also an assertion. And that's why philosophy simply isn't relevant to physics.
Pied Piper Coin
Tell me about a complicated man
Depends entirely on how much work you put into the fake profiles.
Intro to Python Image Processing in Computational Photography
somewhat described in the book Victory, by Peter Schweizer
I doubt they are spending €1000/resident on public transit...
It's not conjecture at all - it's empirical fact.

There are exactly zero real physical systems that can be modelled with perfect accuracy to any indefinite point in the future.

Physics is made of limited toy models of complex systems. It makes accurate predictions over limited timescales under limited conditions.

That's it. That's all you get.

The limited accuracy doesn't keep the predictions from being useful over human-friendly timescales.

But it takes an unrealistic act of hubris to believe physics does more than this, and that after a few hundred years of effort its predictions and frameworks are already perfectly accurate and perfectly correct.
They would at least have been required to disclose the leak in a timely manner.
The twitter version of the yanny/laurel audio clip is severely distorted, and the original audio from vocabulary.com is not. [0,1]

Given this fact, the whole thing is twitter click bait, over almost nothing at all. One may as well argue over the correct spelling of “yanny” and whether it should have two N’s or not.

[0] https://twitter.com/CloeCouture/status/996218489831473152

[1] https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/laurel
Just googled myself for the first time in years. I was surprised how little information about me exists. It took until page 5 for a reference to me rather than other people with the same name and that was in relation to a limited company I us to have when I was a contractor. I only appear again 8 pages later.

I've removed myself from all social media since the start of this year and am in the process of de-googling myself.

So I'm pretty well hidden it seems. Still have some work to do but so far so good.
It's hilarious to me that you used Paul Manafort as an example while the Clinton Foundation is likely the biggest money laundering operation in history.
Hard to see what your standard is. In what sense do the official docs (https://www.tcl.tk/man/tcl8.6/TclCmd/contents.htm) fall short in your opinion?
For background, link to a discussion about the previous article [1] in the series: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14232499

[1] http://www.righto.com/2017/04/reverse-engineering-76477-spac...
While I understand the need for fairness and the desire to make strategising pointless, it's still weird if two students win each other's jackpot.

If you don't want students to trade because some are better at it than others, you could still do an automated trading round at the end. Start with the students that got their lowest choice (or possibly even no listed choice at all), and check for all of their preferred schools if there are students there that would prefer to be at this student's school.

Every trade would improve efficiency, but because students have no control over it, it wouldn't hurt fairness.

Though listing popular schools high can also be prevented by banning down-trades. But that would still be unfair because skilled traders will still be better at it. Automating it would solve that problem.
Another shout out to Ally. Not affiliated with them; have just used them for many, many years. They reimburse ATM fees (used to be unlimited; now capped per month); no minimum balances; and have interest checking.

The only times I get frustrated are when you need a lot of cash (think buying stuff from Craigslist). Incoming wires are free; outgoing wires are reasonably priced (and is how I submitted funds to the attorney in a different state to close on our house).

The few times I’ve had to contact customer support my wait time was in the single digit minutes.

Many other things I could add, but I already sound like a shill. Schwab is also great for ETFs. No experience with their other banking products.
Starring Goodfellow et al https://arxiv.org/abs/1406.2661
I've never understood how some physicists disregard philosophy and do it with a straight face. How else are supposed to understand and make meaning of their findings?

What does this even mean? Why is it the job of physicists to derive whatever you consider to be “meaning” beyond the physical implications of results? You’re free to play in the gaps left by physics all you like, but don’t drag physics into it. The nice thing about empirical results is the freedom from needing meaning or interpretation. What an attempt to impose philosophy on physics gets you is a genius like Einstein getting stuck on QM.

Philosophy is an obstacle to good physics, because it’s a subjective exercise about human expectations. Physics is about testing how nature works, even when it defies all expectations and our ability to interpret it. Philosophy was an amazing field, but over the last few centuries it’s been gutted by science, and it’s a shell now.

Philosophy, like all other studies, aims primarily at knowledge. The knowledge it aims at is the kind of knowledge which gives unity and system to the body of the sciences, and the kind which results from a critical examination of the grounds of our convictions, prejudices, and beliefs. But it cannot be maintained that philosophy has had any very great measure of success in its attempts to provide definite answers to its questions. If you ask a mathematician, a mineralogist, a historian, or any other man of learning, what definite body of truths has been ascertained by his science, his answer will last as long as you are willing to listen. But if you put the same question to a philosopher, he will, if he is candid, have to confess that his study has not achieved positive results such as have been achieved by other sciences. It is true that this is partly accounted for by the fact that, as soon as definite knowledge concerning any subject becomes possible, this subject ceases to be called philosophy, and becomes a separate science. The whole study of the heavens, which now belongs to astronomy, was once included in philosophy; Newton's great work was called 'the mathematical principles of natural philosophy'. Similarly, the study of the human mind, which was a part of philosophy, has now been separated from philosophy and has become the science of psychology. Thus, to a great extent, the uncertainty of philosophy is more apparent than real: those questions which are already capable of definite answers are placed in the sciences, while those only to which, at present, no definite answer can be given, remain to form the residue which is called philosophy. -Bertrand Russell
It's worth considering that anywhere in graphical models where coefficients of any sort learned can be augmented by neural networks (such as in the last decade of natural language processing, where the SOTA of almost all problems has been successfully neuralized).

I wonder if Deep Belief Machines and their flavor of generative models, which seem closer in nature to Pearl's PGMs, have a chance to bridge the gap involved.

Edit, as an aside: Given the enormously high dimensionality of personal genomes and the incredibly small sample size, for over a decade I've failed to put any trust in GWAS studies and found my suspicion supported on a number of occasions, considering difficulty in reproducibility likely brought about by the above problem. Is there any reason to think that improved statistical methods can possibly surmount the fundamental problem of limited sample size and high dimensionality?
Would make a great TV series :)
Under GDPR, the Controller is the entity that the Data Subject gives their Personal Data to, and the preponderance of responsibility for managing that data lies with the Controller.

If the API data under discussion here includes "personal data", then Blizzard shouldn't (under GDPR) be sharing it publicly; Blizzard is the Controller, and it's their responsibility to ensure that only known and compliant Processors get access to the PI. (E.g. there is a requirement that all Processing activity is done under a binding contract (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-28-gdpr/ SS 3))

When an individual wants to be forgotten, they can contact Blizzard (as the Controller) and tell Blizzard to delete all their PI. It's Blizzard's responsibility to ensure that all Processors delete the PD that Blizzard gave to them.

So in this case, my conclusion would be that it's Blizzard's responsibility to either anonymize the data so that it contains no PD (this might be the case already), or stop sharing the PD publicly and require a DPA (Data Processing Addendum) signed by all API consumers. Obviously the second case is not very palatable.
They're not--we write dozens of checks a year with two kids in school. $25 this, $50 that, music lessons, camps...
I'm drinking at the moment, so maybe messy but not sad.

The engine supports negation in the standard way: stratification. You can call 'from_antijoin' with a static relation for its second argument but not a variable. It is not discussed in the post because it is a bit of a diversion from the intended message (and because antijoin is computationally not much different from a filter).

If you would like a more general compute model with non-monotonic iteration, I recommend differential dataflow!
Sure you're not going to do 6+ hours. However you may choose to take the 2h30 train rather than the 1h30 train to save 30%. We did this a few months ago when we went on a break to London.

Most european countries spend far more per passenger-mile in subsidies for the rail network. This would allow cheaper tickets, but that would mean more students taking the train instead of the coach, and therefore even less room. Until we build more infrastructure we can't sensibly reduce ticket prices.

The changes in discussion now are nothing to do with removing shareholders, it's about 'simplifying' the tickets. This will cause 1% of passengers to pay £50 more, and 99% of passengers to pay 50p less, all because that 99% value their time over buying their tickets from someone other than 'thetrainline' (which saves £1 a ticket straight up)

However if you do remove shareholders, you'll save about 3% on the price of train tickets -- i.e. they'll cost the same next year that they do today. Whoppee.

I went to Exeter Uni, I drove down from Warrington. The train is expensive, but the reason for that is that crosscountry trains are massively overcrowded, and the decision not to run longer trains on crosscountry routes is down to the government, not to Arriva (or whoever runs crosscountry)

Last time I took the train to the south west I chose to travel on ATW and FGW rather than Cross Country.

However if I were going to travel Leeds to Exeter tomorrow, I would go to 'trainsplit.com', type "Leeds", "Exeter", and select the date, and within 30 seconds find a fare for £62.61 (including the fee for using the service)

Now if you were to buy it at the station it would cost £153, which is silly.

Banning split ticketing ("simplifying") will not drop the price
Renationalising the rail network may drop that price to £148

The reason that "simplifying" tickets and "removing anomolies" is again in the news is because more and more people are doing it, and this is harming profits.
No. The rich and everyone else send their kids to the same public schools.

In the Netherlands people value the idea of living in a classless society. It would not be acceptable for certain people to have their own "special" schools where their kids get "special" education.

The way the rich try to get around that is by congregating in the same rich neighbourhoods and sending their kids to the same school. That is why the lottery exists, to distribute the kids evenly in a fair manner.
schelog by Dorai Sitaram https://ds26gte.github.io/schelog/index.html is a classic version of a funtional/declarative hybrid as a purely operational artifact. apparently its still being updated, but I remember it from many years ago (early 90s?).

it uses the ability to return multiple times from a continuation to allow sets of results (streams or solution trees) to be expressed directly in scheme and intermixed freely with the functional subset.

a 'nice' mixture of declarative and procedural would be really slick. i should go back and look at mozart/oz again.

I'll definately see if my limited ability to deal with formalisms lets me understand the type system proposed in
Datafun.
They handled the disclosure awfully. The GDPR has time-frames for notifying data protection authorities and the people affected about breaches. Presumably, they would have failed on that count.

Then the question is did they have the appropriate safe-guards in place, w.r.t. the importance of the data. I don't think we quite know what their systems look like. But the answer is probably not, given the scope, amount of very personal data, and the fact data from US, Canadian, and UK individuals was leaked, and the time it took to notice the breach.

Factoring both these things in and maybe the fact that an executive was charged with insider trading, they could be fined accordingly.
> 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.

That's true. My understanding is that they did that for two reasons. The first was that a property of this particular algorithm is that mutually beneficial swaps are only possible if there is a third student placed at a third school who would also prefer one of the two being swapped, but whose school is not desirable, so he doesn't have a choice, which was deemed unfair (I don't know how I feel about this argument). The second was that allowing trades for this school year would encourage strategizing in the following years, which would lead to worse outcomes over time. These two things were addressed when they changed the lottery system once again.
Six-plus hold 'em
There are so many ideas here for how computer systems could be improved. It reads like an argument against the computer in a medical setting (or at least a move away from current, perceived, over-reliance) and yet systems could so easily fix 99% of these problems.