skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The idea of the principle agent problem is that the best person who is able to understand their own wants and desires is the person themselves.

I don't see how markets are supposed to solve that when we allow countries with slaves to participate on the markets. Or landlords to exercise economic rent over the land that other people maintain and live on. I guess my point here is I'm not sure markets as we have them today solve that problem very well anyway.

> Equal number of people doesn't not solve the principle agent problem.

But it does. If your claim is that every person is an economic agent representing themselves on markets (which isn't true for many people, but sure let's go with it), then any equivalent system would have to factor in the amount of work they provide to the algorithms that are markets and provide an equivalent (alternatives might include surveys, bizarre computer generated questions, kickstarter style projects but with government/basic income style funds). That's fine, it's still an interesting direction of research, which would be necessary to understand the computational structure of economies.

The alternative claim, is that markets some how create a system that is greater than the sum of computers and people it encompasses... this paper deals with that by placing it squarely in the realm of NP completeness.
Gsgdg
We apparently have two entirely different observations of reality. I will share a little more of mine:

Kay and Papert did fantastic research on computing and education. Apple takes the idea, and turns it into something that Kay describes as:

"Think about this. How stupid is this? It’s about as stupid as you can get. But how successful is the iPhone? It’s about as successful as you can get, so that matches you up with something that is the logical equivalent of television in our time."

and:

"Yeah. We can eliminate the learning curve for reading by getting rid of reading and going to recordings. That’s basically what they’re doing: Basically, let’s revert back to a pre-tool time."

Or take the web. Berners-Lee. Smart guy, great intentions. Early days were just plain text or the MS Frontpage goodness rocked by our professoriate. Not pretty, but plenty of actual content that you could learn from. Contrast with today where all of that stuff is buried several pages deep. What's link one? Some bullshit content farm like WebMD full of popovers, dickbars, and ads for pills nobody needs. Then there's the Facebook/Twitter awfulness, where enumerating the breadth-and-depth of it would span several books.

Or television. Higher-minded early execs tried to use it as a tool for raising the cultural bar--operas, great authors, polite debates. Those guys got their clocks cleaned by the guy who put on "Gilligan's Island," and that guy would have had his clock cleaned by the assholes who made "Survivor" and "The Apprentice". How long before they just straight-up show porn on broadcast? I do not know.

Or automobiles. Very practical inventions. What did we do with them? Urban sprawl, 5-lane highways, white-flight, drunk driving, global warming, etc. Many Europeans lucked-out by lacking either the cash or the empty space to follow us in that particular mistake.

Obesity, opioids, mcmansions, etc. pdfernhout nailed it on the scarcity mindset in a post-scarcity world. There is a trajectory here. If you can show me how I'm wrong about that trajectory, I would love to hear it just for the sake of my own sanity.

I would also assert that will and analytic brain power are entirely different things. Take Kalanick. Obviously plenty of analytic intelligence. Technology is like steroids for analytic intelligence. It let him become tech-bro master of the universe instead of some two-bit engineer. It did not stop him from becoming a total asshole.
An oddly specifically USnian complaint.
Thank goodness for the dominance of WhatsApp in the rest of the western wold.
Maybe I'm wrong but based on my experience if you are a company who is depending on end customers then you need to have a good reputation and a very strong and positive brand.

Except your clients are totally dependent on your product with absolute zero alternative choice.

Most military suppliers don't depend on private end customers so they can be successful without worrying about public opinion.

I think Google is becoming more and more like companies Exxon Mobile or former giants like Malboro. People absolutely need their products so they can do whatever they want.
> i have developed malware(mac/win) for govermment,
they used to spy on political opponents/russians

Do you ever feel bad about what you did?
I live in the apartment block pictured in the article beside the Albert Clock. As far as I'm aware the river is now little more than a stream at best. What is most certainly true though is that it has been forgotten.

You can see where the Farset meets the Lagan on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZoAjeBViG0
The concept of NP-complete is different form the concept of np-hard to approximate in any way. The question if a particular problem is hard to approximate is typically a diverse and interesting research area, that does not have obvious answers.

For example, it has been proven that the well-known traveling salesperson problem on metric instances (i.e., instances satisfying the triangle inequality) can not be approximated within around 1.008 unless P=NP, and there is an approximation algorithm that has factor 1.5.

I have not read the above pre-print, but from a cursory glance it does not discuss theoretical approximation hardness at all. It does have a section on approximations, but it is hand-wavy and fluffy and uses a colloquial/non-strict meaning for approximation.
It is python. They linked a presentation[1] and a talk about the bot.

[1] https://speakerdeck.com/majek04/gatelogic-somewhat-functiona...
> ...you could argue that being featured on a popular blog helps people discover them, and with google ranks as well.

I ran a semi-serious gaming blog for years and we often had our stories repackaged and linked from Kotaku, at the time the biggest gaming blog in the world. The extra traffic and SEO boost was negligible at best.
Same with me - Blues and Fusion. (The Tango scene is more traditional, websites and flyers.)
Yes, portions need to be defined per thing though.
1 gram of a vitamin supplement is fine.
1 gram of eggs, not so much.
Absolute ridiculous false dilemma. It is not that if the US hadn't chosen to invade Vietnam and to kill everything that moves someone else would have, the US just opted to do that on their own. And it was not like they were there to free the people (from whom anyway, they were not enslaved). There was no vacuum to fill, the same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan, were the US created the vacuum that was afterwards filled by the now crumbling ISIS (though there at least the people were not free before).

And that's the core of the issue, and that is why these political comments are on point (which otherwise would be way too political for HN). By cooperating with the imperial US military Google is directly supporting one of the most evil forces in the world, by supporting the drone program they are directly supporting a program mainly used to kill civilians in the middle east. There is nothing good about this.
At the older end of "teens" - a lot of people enter partner dance scenes when they're starting college. So 18-20-ish. (I'm a late bloomer, only started dancing at 25.)

And at that point, yes, they start to do everything on Facebook.
facing needing to argue with a person trained intensively from a early age to ground all conjecture in fact and human cost of mistakes, ie a general, I will gladly face that situation over aby necessary argument with a politician, even a more sensible type like as lawmaker. our world problems ate created by distortion of reality that no soldier would indulge or permit, none i ever knew at any rate
NgRX v6 – NGXS – TSConf 2018 – Augury in the #59s Angular newsletter
Well, we never knew how to build a secure successful ecosystem. Between the various way to secure DNS this seems reasonalbe.
Why would cloudflare do that? It's not in their business model and "it makes more money" is hardly a thing that motivates corporations all the time, otherwise google and facebook would be offering subscription services at 20$/year to get ad- and track-free.

Why would cloudflare even want to know what websites you visit? They don't operate an adnetwork, they operate a CDN. At best they could use it to pre-cache websites in regions before demand rises. But they can already do that without DNS...
Gdfd
Then you run into the same issue gpg has: it is hard to get up and running.
> a person who's driving force is profit rather than lust for power

I don't think it's a safe assumption that those who manage corporations (as opposed to those who merely own them) are categorically driven by profit more than by power, at least not overwhelmingly so that their behavior can be predicted that way.
Can This VC Close Education's Achievement Gap at Last?
It gets even more confusing when there are two universities with the same name, like Victoria University in Wellington, and Victoria University in Melbourne.
The title of this post scores 10000 HN points.
I don't have anything against tech companies helping the military, that's their choice. I wouldn't want to build that stuff, but others can make that choice.

However, AI weapons is something I strongly condemn. They raise many unsolved ethical questions, such as if they kill civilians who committed the war crime? How do you make sure they don't kill civilians?

If Google were revealed to be developing biological weapons or chemical weapons, I suspect you would have a different opinion.
> What is "evil" about working with the military or developing weapons?

I guess this question is only asked by those who are confident that these weapons won't be used against them.
I disagree. In my TLS implementation, I support multiplexing, timeouts, and generally everything you said is hard, over standard TLS impls.

I found this much more straightforward to implement than DNSCrypt. See my response to the sibling comment for a link to the code.
Their review is only hidden for a while to make sure it's real. The current situation is dismal, it has to be fixed somehow. There is no perfect solution, because the completely open approach is abused by spammers.

It may not be the best solution, every solution has drawbacks, but do you have an idea for a better solution to filter out fake reviews? If so, please present it.
Week 22 in the Information Security, 2018
Almost no - but what tiny market there is, is growing. My favorite pet project to watch right now is

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/reflexcamera/reflex-bri...
Well, "evil" is a point of view of course. You don't even have to be a pacifist to reject working in the weapons industry. To me it's like working for a gambling site or a hedge fund. I'd rather work for a mission that makes the world a better place, not worse.
Have another account here but don't want to take the karma hit for being a crank. I published this 2-page proof that the EMH is false:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.0423

(didn't set the date so in the document it's wrong, this was published 2010.)

It doesn't depend on P = NP, it's simply a rigorous proof that EMH is false.

Let's switch gears a second. Here's a famous elementary proof[1] that there are infinite primes. Suppose there are just finite primes, up to some largest. Multiply them together and add one. No prime divides the new number (because "every" prime leaves a remainder 1), so you've just produced a new prime. This new prime is larger than the largest prime in your finite set because you multiplied that by the rest of them and added one to get it. So this is a contradiction, you couldn't have had finite primes up to some largest.

Anyway if you think there might be a largest prime after what you just read, it just means you don't understand the proof. If you believe EMH might be true it just means you don't understand the proof that it is false.

Of course, nobody ever even hypothesized that academia was efficient :)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid%27s_theorem#Euclid's_pr...

--

EDIT: no mistake in my comment
Yup! Partner dancer here. Not just event-making, but general community organization. Regular venues can have Pages, organize Events, and usually have Groups for their regulars. And all this can be run by one or two part-time or volunteer workers. Annual events usually have a Page that persists year to year, and an Event for each year's event. Facebook is clearly aware of this kind of market - they recently added features that are super useful for multi-day events, like workshops 10-5 every day for a three-day weekend and dances on two of those three nights.
Is there another use for these drones right now? Because all I've seen is pretty close to "ethnoreligious genocide". Many people straightforwardly advocate for it.

Can you really pretend that you're developing "neutral" weapons technology in this climate?
This is where Facebook actually does some good... their open source efforts are really good...

https://github.com/facebookincubator
And...
https://github.com/facebook
Meh. Whatever your opinions on P = NP, the efficient markets hypothesis is unfalsifiable. You can only falsify a joint hypothesis of efficiency plus some model of information flow into a market.
Gdsdgg
Google has an excellent track record closing services, but this one is an outlier. No JS fallback, difficult to scrape, par google, par.
There is an impedance mismatch between the terminology in economics and CS. CS is at it's core a hard math discipline, and absolute statements are used a lot, and they differ quite a bit from what people outside of the field understand. This paper assumes a basic knowledge about CS theory and economic theory.

While you're right in your points here, the CS aspect of this paper leans on the CS theory. When a computer scientist say, "we cannot do this efficiently" it means, "We might be able to do this efficiently for some instances of the problem, but not for all instances". And when the scientist say "we can do this efficiently" it means "we know how to solve this in a way that when we double the input size, the difficulty will be a fixed factor larger. But it might be infeasible to solve any instance of the problem what so ever".
Depends, how much do you like RSI?
I don’t think economists claim markets are efficient. There’s far too many examples to the contrary - see amazon, wellsfargo, and Verizon as examples. While those companies do technically have competition, they operate with significant market power.

Also, I once heard an Econ explain EH as “true if enough people operate under the assumption that it is not true”

Edit-After waking up a little more, I’m not entirely sure of my statement that amazon, wellsfargo, and Verizon serve as examples against EH. But the later quote I heard from someone with 30+ years of research.
Dutch Economic Report
Mark Brown/Game Makers Toolkit

He analyses games and specific game mechanics. It's pretty awesome if you are into gaming.
The problem is so clear in their write up that I can understand your thinking. However, in reality as this was going down it was probably not that clear cut.

Especially when you consider that they are getting DoS attacks every 2-3 minutes - so all deploys are going out into a hectic world and the dots maybe aren't that easy to connect under those circumstances.
Steam Client is so incredibly bloated - I wish they released a Lite version without Steam Link, Achievements, Trading cards/Inventory, Browser, Community, Workshop, Hub, ...
It could also update less frequently if it had fewer features and updates would be faster.

Just the list of games I have and the DRM required to play them.
EEVBlog - electrical engineering and opinionated hardware teardowns from Australia

bigclive - teardowns of cheap ebay stuff. And lots of LEDs

Regular car reviews - Reviews of cars, but not so much the cars themselves as the sociological parts - why was this car built? For who? Who bought it? What were they trying to signal?

Doug DeMuro - The opposite. Car reviews that focus on the tiny things like weird quirks of the interior

ADVchina/laowhy86/serpentza - Life in China

Geoff Marshall - UK trains

Steve1989mreinfo - Reviews of MREs. Including unboxing and eating long-expired WW2 rations. Who knew canned peanut butter could last 70 years?

Retro Game Mechanics Explained - Very in-depth yet easy to understand explanations of quirks of nintendo hardware programming like scroll registers etc

Techmoan - Obsolete and forgotten media formats (Tefifon!)

Technology Connections - Some light technology history

The 8-bit guy/8-bit keys - 8-bit computer and keyboard history, repair, restoration

VectrexRoli - Old game consoles

TNT Amusements - Arcade game hardware

Lazy Game Reviews - Retro IBM PC, retro computer and modern gaming content
Fun fun function has helped me to find the joy in programming javascript. Kudos to him!
I choose B if I can get away with it and it results in me squeezing some money out of the cryptocoin market while also discrediting it, C otherwise.

I'm not a moral/ethical rolemodel and I hope nobody thinks I am.

>They did not invent their own crypto. At the risk of going on a side-rant: what is it with disciplines that teach people to stay away from their discipline? Why is it that cryptographers get to tell people to leave cryptography to others, but somehow it's OK to build your own consensus protocol, "eventually-consistent" NoSQL engine that is actually plain old inconsistent, or your own programming language with weird "wat?" semantics?

Because it's cool and you can impress others at parties with smalltalk or even reach the HN frontpage!
Frankly, everybody with a bit of economic common sense knows that efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is just a weird theoretical nonsense which is nowhere close to describing real world.

If you want a full critique, read Steve Keen's Debunking Economics, it has a chapter on EMH.

Oh and by the way, there is quite a bit of people who believe that P=NP. Most famously Donald Knuth. I recently became convinced about that as well.

Amusingly enough, the first thing that a rational person would do upon discovering a relatively efficient algorithm to solve NP problems would be to cash in all the Bitcoins. Thus proving in practice that no, markets are not really efficient. :-)
I think you just summarized federated public feeds: twitter, instagram, facebook, etc.
> The history of global regulations on the military application of useful military technologies is not too impressive.

I don't think that's true at all. Since WWII we've been quite successful at reducing the use and proliferation of destructive military technologies through treaties. Certainly they don't work 100% of the time and they work in tandem with other forces but they've been a key part of the solution. See https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties
5 Google Adwords Tips and Explained Tricks to Maximise Your ROI
Working on weapons is ok, working on AI controlled weapons however is very dangerous. There are many unsolved ethical questions around this as in, who is responsible for the civilian casualties? Soldiers, pilots, sailors and commanding officers have rules of engagement so I ask, if the rules of engagement are coded and they glitch out, causing the murder of innocent people, who killed them? Is it the software engineering team?

What if the training data of the AI is skewed and furthers the violent oppression of a minority, who's responsible for that? Is it the data collectors? The software engineering team?
What is "the AO3"?
The result also exploits how the notion of efficient markets doesn’t include the computational time and cost of detecting the arbitrage opportunities, and so should be updated.
Hffh
> You can add a scary warning which could be enough for many users

Hah. Does the tech crowd never learn?

What we expect the "many users" to see:

+-------------------+
| This is dangerous |
| you'll be on your |
| own, so take care |
| |
| [cancel] [ok] |
+-------------------+

What the "many users" really see:

+-------------------+
| This is a mildly |
| annoying message |
| only made to |
| delay access to |
| instant happinness|
| and BTW blah blah |
| blah blah blah |
| blah blah blah |
| |
| [meh] [buzz off and giev me teh warez]
+-------------------+

> And charge additional fee for fixing system broken because of this.

<at your regular party>

"Hey I hear from <insert {relative,friend,whatever} here> that you work with, uh, computers and stuff, and, I think my phone is somehow, uh, broken, and I know zilch about computers, so could you help me with it pleeeease?"

I've been astounded with spectacular consistency over the years at how much people can achieve (however unsafely) to get stuff for free even if they openly claim to be tech illiterate. That includes jailbreaking and installing "alternative" app stores. Basically some kind of goal-oriented BOFH's dummy mode on steroids.
> then it implies that there is nothing special about markets

How so? It implies simply that markets are not efficient. It does not imply that state control would be more efficient and it does not imply that markets are not the most efficient way of determining the value of a resource.

What it definitely says however, is that a government committee could not, in any way, successfully determine the value of all goods and fix prices based on that determination.
Yes, this is why Instagram and Snapchat are thriving, only those who the user approves can view their posts - and they dissapear quickly
Digital is a framework built on top of analog. Boolean logic is the foundation of all of our modern computing, and so we built all of our circuits around the ability to handle HIGH and LOW signals. What your describing seems to me like you're saying that leveraging an analog signal is the benefit of quantum computation. If so, I don't really agree. If not, then I misunderstood.

Either way, I suspect that the superposition between the change in value and the change in time, in relation to all of the other superpositions in value/time changes, is the true computational power of quantum technology.
Article 13 could “destroy the internet as we know it”
This is why I support the authors research, without knowing if it even is NP complete (as this paper claims) we are faced with it being NP hard. Without studying the problem, we can't even begin to find approximation algorithms.
Off-topic slightly, but is there a way to change my YT username? In other words, changing https://www.youtube.com/user/[mycurrentusername] to [newusername] ?
"The video below demonstrates an attacker remotely launching the Windows calculator app on a fully patched version of Windows 10."
So devious!
What’s distasteful about that? That’s their key differentiator that enabled a lot of their advantages. And there's also Android anyone could use if they’d want to.
Lhgyjtyj
EU teen here - most of my friends share memes through Instagram group chat and via WhatsApp (SMS Texts in the US).
Yes.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202724
So just to better understand the issue of P=NP, am I right in assuming that an NP problem is like trying to build a neural net for image recognition?

In the sense that it takes a huge amount of time and images to train the thing to become smart (in other words, to go through the entire network of neurons one by one and assign better weight values etc) but when it comes to actually verifying if our network is smart all it takes is to run an image straight through the network?

And the issue of trying to prove N=NP is essentially trying to prove that there isn't a magical way to train a neural network with just one image of training data?
For anyone wondering, 9.9.9.9 is https://www.quad9.net/ who claim to not only resolve requests but also check them against IBM X-Force's threat intelligence database.