skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Nor does any currency with your "argument".
We are beginning to see some sweet differential embeddings of discrete things like stacks and context free grammars. This is where deep learning gets really fun because it is learning to program.
I'd like to see neuroscience take more of a fundamental role in grounding/situating deep learning approaches. VGG is often mentioned as being roughly analogous to the visual cortex, but it differs in important ways. There's all kinds of why questions there. E.g. Why does deep learning work better with (e.g. ReLU) activation based on pooling while biological models use an inhibitory mechanism? Theory on why certain activations work better than others in DL is a little weak imho. Right now ML practitioners just throw a lot of parameter combinations at the wall and see what sticks. That's fine, but it's not really indicative of a robust understanding of model behavior.
They are! We just keep them to ourselves! (Father of two girls and married)
I could also have referenced the original(?) take on this: https://github.com/flame/how-to-optimize-gemm
We have minor refactoring baked into our definition of done, so when agile team members run across existing code that doesn't meet current standards then they're supposed to just go ahead and refactor it on the fly. Since it's part of the definition of done, it's not "extra" work and is accounted for in the user story points estimate.

Larger refactorings that impact multiple modules have to be treated as separate user stories and prioritized based on business value just like everything else.
IMO, this is where a good leader (SM, tech lead, whoever - I don't mean a literal manager) advocates for sanity on behalf of the rest of the team. Mostly, this just requires somebody to say "No." every so often in the face of ridiculous demands.

As SM, it's my job to ensure that not only will the PO listen to concerns from the team, but the team feels empowered to provide that criticism. If neither of those happens, I've failed.

A bad PO will RUIN a team. I've seen them do just what the blog entry claims. I've also worked with POs who don't do any of the bad things claimed.
Italy Sparks Global Fear of Fresh Euro Crisis
Show HN: Coded notary service on blockchain, need a feedback
For the margins there is a global setting in the API that will set the specified margins on the entire document. You can specify additional margins on top of this by setting a margin in css.

Page breaks are controlled by the CSS properties page-break-after, page-break-before and page-break-inside.
WORKPRO 165 PC Casa Kits de Ferramentas Chave de Catraca
ASO tactics that will help you mobile games gain more visibility in app stores
This should be on the top! Time savior.
Object Oriented Docker Java API v0.0.1 Released
What are these technical priorities that are being ignored by your team?

I know some examples of cases where the development team was performing poorly which led to a bad experience with scrum. The symptom is when the development team asks for stories to refactor some code. They don't want to add any new value to the system or enable work in a different area: they've just made a rats nest out of the code or it doesn't live up to their expectations or guidelines. The cure for that? Set coding guidelines (and not just the syntax formatting variety: be hard and opinionated on initialization, patterns, and language features), mentor your team to refactor code after they've got it working and made their tests pass, and encourage developers to leave code in a better state than they found it. Also ensure that the business stakeholders and product managers are not setting unrealistic timelines and expectations. In time you'll find fewer requests to create backlog items to refactor code.

What else is there though? If your product and team leads are not concerned with security, performance, or other important factors you need to make them aware... that has less to do with scrum and more to do with good communication.
I agree, that scoring system is flawed as it provides no motivation to attack at all. For example, take a game where one team just defends heavily, and the other two teams decide to ignore them and have a proper game between themselves (and trade a few goals). The defensive team would be rewarding for being boring.

A better system might be if a team's final score were determined by subtracting their concessions from their goals. Or, if you want to tweak the style of play between offensive and defensive, applying some coefficient between goals and concessions (e.g. concessions subtract 2 while goals add 1). In a way, this is already the system, except the 'goal coefficient' is zero which is clearly unbalanced.
I'm just saying: go for what you want. You don't really have to do anything in life -- it's all up for debate.

If I had plenty of money and nothing more important to spend it on, I'd (personally) go for a crazy fun extravagant wedding. If not, then I wouldn't. If you have no savings, obviously don't spend a ton on a wedding...
I really dislike agile. A product owner asked me once if I get some benefit from them...and no, I don't. Thry get a lot of benefit from me sharing what I'm doing because they can then keep track of it and communicate it to other people, but I don't get any benefit personally.

I want to be the guy who talks to the rest of the employees, implements things and get direct feedback from them. I dont want anyone in the middle of that. It just complicates everything and makes me less connected and known in the company.
This is not what the terminology "perfect knowledge" means. Perfect knowledge (more often called "perfect information") refers to games in which all parts of the game state are accessible to every other player. In theory, any player in the game has access to all information contained in every game state up to the present and can extrapolate possible forward states. Chess is a very good example of a game of perfect information, because the two players can readily observe the entire board and each other's moves.

A good example of a game of imperfect information is poker, because players have a private hand which is known only to them. Whereas all possible future states of a chess game can be narrowed down according to the current game state, the fundamental uncertainty of poker means there is a combinatorial explosion involved in predicting future states. There's also the element of chance in poker, which further muddies the waters.

Board games are often (but not always) games of perfect and complete information. Card games are typically games of imperfect and complete information. This latter term, "complete information", means that even if not all of the game state is public, the intrinsic rules and structure of the game are public. Both chess and poker are complete, because we know the rules, win conditions and incentives for all players.

This is all to say that games of perfect information are relatively easy for a computer to win, while games of imperfect information are harder. And of course, games of incomplete information can be much more difficult :)
An actor involved in the kidnappings is the police, that actually does create a 'relationship' with the kidnappers in the long run. This means that killing the hostages reduces the future chances of successful kidnappings.

Kidnapping is a repeat business also.

Second, killing the hostage could make the pursuit a lot more intense: releasing the hostage might put it dead on its tracks . Police has limited resources, and successfully resolved kidnappings are way below murders.

And then, there is actually a human decision of not killing someone. Criminality is not a switch that turns you into a sociopath.
Isn't life funny sometimes? Just this morning I was thinking about this kind of thing and how it makes no sense. Setting aside contexts where an employee couldn't have "Invented" something without company assets (laboratory equipment, etc.) and that being precisely their task, I don't see how it is in any way moral that, if a person who gets paid to write simple software and maybe stumbles upon a solution that is way beyond the scope of their job, should not own all rights to this intellectual property. But it's a difficult situation and I could probably fill pages with my opinion alone regarding when and when not this kind of thing makes sense. Looking forward to other peoples opinions though :)
For an entertainment machine, I'd suggest installing Steam and auto-launching to big picture. Very easy to navigate from a couch w/ a controller, and you can use it for nearly any media task you want. It does take some time to configure your media directories, but not having to deal w/ a mouse on a media machine is so much easier. Plus, since your base OS can be something like Debian, remoting into the machine for administration is eminintely doable.
I think you are entirely right that the "sell books and consulting" is a major driver of what Agile became. I got involved in the Agile world circa 2000, but by 2010 or so my main feeling was increasing horror: http://agilefocus.com/2011/02/21/agiles-second-chasm-and-how...

One of the especially interesting things to me was that at the beginning there were a variety of different methods. People behind them got together in 2001 to figure out what was common, and that's where the Agile Manifesto came from. Of the Agile Manifesto signatories, I think only two of them were Scrum people. These days, though, most people thing that Scrum is Agile and Agile is Scrum.

I see three reasons for that. One, Scrum was the simplest, arguably the lowest common denominator; it had no technical practices. Two, it could be installed in place at existing waterfall companies doing what is effectively mini-waterfall, so there would be little disruption to the hierarchy. And three, it had a "certification" program, where a) anybody wanting a career bump could spend 2 days to get a "Master" certificate without taking any test or proving any competence, and b) any "consultant" wanting easy money could quickly become a Scrum trainer. Basically, Scrum became the Amway of software processes.

If you go by actual behavior, it turns out the highest priority at most companies is not actually to improve, to get better at making things for users. It's instead to make managers and executives feel like something is being done without disturbing the power hierarchy. Low-end Scrum fills that need adequately, letting you move marginally in the direction of agility, apply some new labels, and declare "mission accomplished".

And my point here isn't "Scrum bad", really. There are some great people in the Scrum world. My point is, "Business models shape outcomes, so be careful which you pick."
Then you've surely hit the memory reclaim problem. I checked just now and my GNOME Shell started this morning is using 153 MB memory (resident).

There are some latency issues after moving to Wayland, though. Don't have a good link, but AFAIK it has something to do with Mutter or the Shell which were never specifically optimized for latency ending up being responsible for input handling.
The law of “fuck yes” or “no”
Second world chess champion Emanuel Lasker spent a couple years studying Go and by his own report was dejected by his progress. Maybe he would have eventually reached high levels, but I've always found this story fascinating.
Yes. s3.2 suggests they use audio cues to help them align the video frames from different videos. (I guess it's easier to correlate audio than video.)
Thanks. It's totally by intention. I believe tools should be as simple as possible and do one thing well.
"but if you want the girl you get her what she wants"

That's the sadest thing I've read today.
Culture as a Growth Driver
How about not allowing file:// URLs?
Maybe they meant the Agile Manifesto? It’s short and hopefully not controversial: http://agilemanifesto.org
Like real football.

Except you have to make sure you score in both the other team's goals to make sure they concede more than you.

And I expect once someone score then you can't sit back again as the result is uneven.

If the pitch is small enough it will still be an interesting match, as you have 3 parties you can't rely/trust the others enough to just park the bus and camp.
There doesn't appear to be anything new about this, ground-source heat pumps have been available for domestic use for quite some time.
And going by the name, and looks, it's actually an air-source heat-pump, but I could be wrong.
How can gamification help with mobile app user engagement
It's not just Gnome Shell. I mean, I do hit the memory reclaim issue, but Gnome Shell is still not using that whole extra 1GB. The rest is evolution-data-server and so on.
U.S. Fertility Rates Hit 30-year Low
All large organizations — including Tesla — are composed mostly of mediocre talent. This is mathematically inevitable. Furthermore "talent" is a myth anyway.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/07/22/the-talent-myt...
I was recently "playing" with some radiology data. I had no chance to identify diagnoses myself with untrained eyes, something that probably takes years for a decent radiologist to master. Just by using DenseNet-BC-100-12 I ended up with 83% ROC AUC after a few hours of training. In 4 out of 12 categories this classifier beat best human performing radiologists. Now the very same model with no other change than adjusting number of categories could be used in any image classification task, likely with state-of-art results. I was surprised when I applied it to another, completely unrelated dataset and got >92% accuracy right away.

If you think this is a symptom of AI winter, then you are probably wasting time on outdated/dysfunctional models or models that aren't suited for what you want to accomplish. Looking e.g. at Google Duplex (better voice synchronization than Vocaloid I use for making music), this pushed state-of-art to unbelievable levels in hard-to-address domains. I believe the whole SW industry will be living next 10 years from gradual addition of these concepts into production.

If you think Deep (Reinforcement) Learning is going to solve AGI, you are out of luck. If you however think it's useless and won't bring us anywhere, you are guaranteed to be wrong. Frankly, if you are daily working with Deep Learning, you are probably not seeing the big picture (i.e. how horrible methods used in real-life are and how you can easily get very economical 5% benefit of just plugging in Deep Learning somewhere in the pipeline; this might seem little but managers would kill for 5% of extra profit).
I agree with the criticisms of Scrum on the whole. However I find it bizarre that this article and the other one it links to (which quotes Milton Friedman, which ought to be enough to raise eyebrows by itself) crticises organisations which market themselves as non-hierarchical (or in the marketing lingo 'holacracies') when they clearly adhere to hierarchy if you think about it in any depth, just a badly organised one.

Edit: And I guess my real point here is that Scrum doesn't usually work because the development team as a whole has no way of pushing back on decisions made by the overall business hierarchy unless they just go tools-down.

Then it goes on to crticise Valve for not delivering HL3, despite that clearly being a successful business (and one where Gabe has over 50% of the $2.5 billion equity valuation... non-hierarchical, sure, whatever you say) - perhaps all of this emphasis on shipping products as fast as possible and no emphasis on the service and the interests of staff is the real problem here.
Strongly disagree. There are a lot of approximation algorithms and heuristics in wide use - to the tune of trillions of dollars, in fact, when you consider transportation and logistics, things like asic place & route, etc. These are all intractable perfect info problems that are so widespread and commercially important that they amplify the effect of even modest improvements.

(You said problems, not games...)
On contrary I found scrum to be empowering for developers at least in my organization. Earlier, we used to have Technical Manager who provided estimate for a feature/project just based on his gut feeling which often was challenging and not feasible. But then developers needed to burn midnight oil to achieve the targeted release date. It often put enormous pressure on highly talented and competitive developers who had to cover up for less skilled developers. Now the development team is empowered to give its own estimation considering all factors. Mind you, in can lead to overestimation, but then we have experienced Technical Lead working also as a scrum master and individual contributor who is there to correct the course.

In general scrum will work best when
1. The product owner is from technical background with enormous experience under his belt in product development/architecture. The Product owner does not work alone in silos to create backlog but interacts with development team regularly to refine the backlog. In our case, the product owner is someone with 20+ years of experience who has worked in roles like developer/architect.

2. The scrum master is also highly technical person who has been working on the product for several years. In our team, the same person wears different hats as per the need like scrum master/technical leader/individual contributor.

It may not be exactly as per scrum guidelines but worked fine so far for us. Ultimately we need to look for good practices in each methodology and bend it as per our needs.
A C program to find the 1500th prime palindrome with 13 digits in less than 3s
>I get triggered

You should be more considerate than to be throwing around this term.
I 'm actually of the opposite idea - let the two fields evolve by their own darwinian process as this will yield more interesting results. DL itself has created its own scientific questions and puzzles that may lead to important discoveries (which may transfer to neuroscience). E.g. "why does batch normalization / dropout work."
Could be NXT panels.

Which made me wonder, are they also using the sound system for active noise cancellation?
> no true Scrum implementation would have property X.

That's not the point. Scrum does not say anything how good your organization is. Scrum won't fix these problems.

Thus you can have a great Scrum setup and still fail.

Of course you can have bad management and a 'true scrum implementation'.

Your mistake is to assume that Scrum fixes all kinds of management practices or that 'true scrum' also means all kinds of other things, which it does not.

It's also unlikely that specifically bad management practices are especially caused by Scrum - it might have some negative effects in some organizations - it might have positive effects in some other organizations.

Scrum is simply not sufficient to be successful - if we want to be successful Scrum might be a good tool in a certain domain, but we also need to address the other issues/topics/practices/processes. Most of that stuff is very independent from using Scrum or not.
And the non-mediocre talent pool is exceedingly limited, and fickle. They jump to the next opportunity faster than your business cycles.
Maybe companies with execs who need to fly around.

In high school, the father of a best friend was a VP of Circle K grocery stores. They had stores all over Arizona and New Mexico, many in very out-of-the-way locations.

He was very much a hands-on manager. He got his private pilot's license, his twin engine and IFR ratings so he could fly the company's twin Baron on inspection tours of their stores.

He did this two days/week, knew every one of the couple of hundred store managers by name and what their particular stores needed. No way he could have done that without the plane.
Reset your routers to avoid malware attack, FBI warns
With turn-over like that, nobody is going to be successful. What is driving the turn-over? Are team-members being moved elsewhere, or are the quitting out of frustration?

As for training for the SM (or PO, or anybody else), it's a continuous process. The CSM is a starting point, a basic level of understanding. At my office, many of us have gone on to take the Advanced CSM course. Most of us attend meet-ups, conferences, etc. It's not a once-and-done thing - nothing in a professional career ever is - if you aren't learning and improving every day, you're not doing your job.
You’re absolutely right - and that’s the e tire core point of Scrum: to promote agile methodology (which can be summed up as you just did)

However the reason there is “bs” (by which I assume you mean the process/meetings/etc) is that most teams suck at being agile. Scrum provides a more rigid framework so that a team can develop agile skills and then, when ready, move beyond scrum.

Most people think Story Points or terminology like Standups comes from Scrum too - they don’t! They’re from XP.

Scrum is exceedingly simple and suffers from being over complicated and dismissed by those who don’t understand it,

The blog post above is no exception.
France’s ‘Spiderman’ joins fire brigade as citizenship awaits
Obviously they will fight to keep their monopoly and protect their cache.

Just like lab grown meat is gaining traction, I think synthetic companies have the ability to push the social angle. "Identical in composition to the diamonds mined by slaves and used to finance terrorism." Just need an English major to turn that into a catchy slogan! :)
I am on KDE 5 and TIL! Thanks.

Alt+right click resizes window and Alt+left click drags the window.
Show HN: Fluugi – Find cheapest multicity roundtrip
I appreciate a good reason to think deeply as much as the next person ... but odds are just that, odds. If we were the result of some freak black swan event that kickstarted "life", the odds of it happening are irrelevant ... because it did.

To be clear, I'm not saying that's what it is ... the fermi paradox is a great thought experiment. But let's just keep things in perspective. Low odds don't mean something won't happen, just like "true random" doesn't mean the same song can't/won't play 10 times in a row ;)
If they weren't fascinating, they wouldn't be cults.
It's not really related to the story, but training my facial muscles has been a low-commitment hobby for me.
I noticed that I could do the 'Elvis Presley' lip curl naturally on the right side of my mouth, but not the left at all, which I found strangely irritating. So, for the next week or two I spent maybe 5 minutes after brushing my teeth practicing in the mirror.

First scrunching up my entire lip, and spending time deliberately trying to get better isolation on my left side. It took a little while, but now I can curl my left top lip with barely a twitch of the muscles on the right side.

Carrying on with this, I've gone on to train to wiggle my ears, arch eyebrows independently(still can only do it on the left side), and to deliberately control my orbicularis oculi muscles which comes in really handy to make a posed smile look warm and natural.. Or to express subtle skepticism/ disgust by flexing one in isolation of the other. I'm guessing actors and comedians probably do this a lot; haven't bothered to Google it.

I don't think its so much about strengthening of the facial muscles as it is about paving the nerve pathways. Like physical therapy.
Would those three tools be enough to get started/find some bug bounties?
Every time there is news about a language, the first thing I am interested in is reading the syntax, I don't really care about anything else.

Unfortunately it's often hard to find code examples.

Zig doesn't fail that rule, I browsed 3 or 4 pages or so on the website, and could not find decent code examples.

It's frustrating. You should be proud of the syntax choices you're making and it should be the first thing you see so that developer might get a little interested, look at rust and go and nim.