skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Another example why software patents don't really work. Because most thing software patents cover are not really inventions but ideas. Also the written code is already protected via copyright. That is the difference to a eg. wind mill, the blue prints are only protected by a patent, not by copyright. And it effects only the implementation.
Common sense would dictate that one website does not cause another website to do anything, particularly those with vast communities. This is a classic case of someone misunderstanding the utility of an analytical technique. IMHO they may execute it right (didn't bother reading) but apparently fail to ask the right question in the first place or comprehend the limited utility of the result.
It's been a clause in every employment contract I've been given. I signed the first one, because I wanted the job; the second company folded between my signing and the start date, so it was moot; I didn't sign the third contract at all, but I worked there for 7 years, which apparently is tantamount to acceptance :(

Some companies have put this clause in contracts for shorter-term project-based contract work, but I've just crossed it out, generally with no pushback.
As neither an American nor a Chinese national, I think you should care because if Apple can do X with the Chinese government, Apple can do it with America too.

I'm not saying it has. I'm not saying it will immediately begin doing so. But there's clearly a limit where they will, and all America has to do is push it to that limit. American governments and American intelligence agencies have shown repeatedly (via gag orders and secret courts) that they're not above making companies spy on their users (domestic and foreign) and forcing them to stay mum about it.
Do we really care about the kind of people who care about "cultural appropriation"? Just don't pay attention to them. http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Just_Don%27t_Look#Lyrics

The same can be said about many, many other "online mobs".
The constraints moved!

We had a write intensive workload for a user community that would generate short (~5s) periods of high traffic (6-9Gb) against a file server — this would impact everyone because sessions would be interrupted. It was devilishly difficult to troubleshoot because it was lost in the statistics, aggregated in 30-100s chunks.

Fixing that revealed another constraint where we hit a constraint with the file server process itself.

It’s one of these things that was interesting because the storage with fancy SSD can handle the workload no sweat. In the old days, monitoring would catch the io constraint first.
You don't actually need lender of last resort.

If actually read the books by the inventor of the 'lender of last resort' called Walter Bagehot. He wrote on of the most famous monetary books 'Lombard Street: A Description of the Money Market (1873)'.

Modern central banks constantly refer to how they 'follow Bagehot' but actually don't.

In this book he actually makes it quite clear that the 'lender of last resort' is only need in England because he says 'Getting ride of the Bank of England would be as hard as getting ride of the monarchy' (turns out its even harder).

He specifically point out in his books that a better solution would be for England to adopt a banking system like the Scottish had where the 'lender of last resort' was not needed because banks can create their own liquidity.

'Lender of last resort' was his idea how to restrict and give a clear set of rules to the central bank so it would stop causing so many crisis that were all avoid in the free banking system of Scotland.

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/upldbook115pdf...
> “After each time series is transformed (if necessary) to a stationary one, a Granger causality test is performed.“

This is actually methodologically incorrect. You test Granger non-causality by taking a VAR system and you do not difference the data for stationarity! You use the cointegration order to determine how many extra lags of the exogenous variable to use beyond the order p that defines the lags tested against the null hypothesis (what the authors mention is tested by AIC, BIC, and observing autocorrelation of residuals).

> “The ADF test, differencing and the Granger causality test were performed on data aggregated to monthly frequency”

Hmm. It looks like differencing was done based on the ADF test... this is not valid for Granger causality.

Remember, with the frequentist statistical tests, there are so many fraught issues like this.

In the end, a test like this only talks about the following:

“Under the assumed hypothesis of no causality, how extreme do the observed test statistics appear to be?”

— where the test statistics are in part based on estimated model parameters that are highly sensitive to methodological errors, like differencing prior to computing the coefficient-is-non-zero tests in this Granger VAR model.

In the end it makes me skeptical of interpreting any of the results from the OP.

A good explaination is here: [0].

[0]: < http://davegiles.blogspot.com/2011/04/testing-for-granger-ca... >
> I was talking about the last ~1000 years,

The West was still pretty poor even 200 years ago. Going back 1000 years ago makes no difference. Economic development and the fact that almost everyone benefited from it in the West is very, very recent History.
Just because you don’t doesn’t mean you can’t. Again, you speak and explain for your intended audience, who is often not your grandma.
And how much are you willing to bet she won't find someone willing to fund her endeavor?
The "Australian aborigines", is a confusing term.

There were many tribes with many languages and many different supernatural beliefs.

But in general they were the worst of humanity. They killed, raped and were cannibalistic (Which is a bit loaded, in general this was ritualistic and post war, not that they killed others because the food was easier, so who's to judge really)

I've never seen any real evidence that they contributed any medicine to humanity.

And given the Hippocratic oath is 275 AD (Written proof) it's impossible to say they had it before since only a fool would believe verbal histories more than a generation. Kinda like Snopes, a friend of a friend.

It's a strange world that people think a culture so primitive they don't even have a writing system could somehow have complex ideas.
>I'm just telling you how perception by association works. Your choices are your own.

For that to work, the people you go to interview with have to have some idea of what your previous company is like, which is very unlikely.

Also, "I had bills to pay" should erase 99% of your "perception by association" concerns. And guess what? You can't verify that. And if you do try to verify that, you're the problem.
enedil is correct.

To expand on that: MIT and Apache2 grant a licence to copyrightable expression. But the literal code is not what is patented, the idea is. Granting a license to the code doesn't automatically prevent someone else from patenting the idea.

MIT doesn't say anything about patents. Apache2 additionally grants a licence to any patents which the author has which cover the work, and also tries to prevent someone using the work and then suing other people for patent infringement. But it does so by saying
" any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed." Which is a null threat in this case, as the idea is to try to prevent there being a patent in the first place.

You could argue that the author should have patented the idea, and then freely licensed it. But since patents cost thousands each, that's a bit much to ask.
You understanding of economics is quite limited. That is vastly oversimplified and principally wrong story.
I very much agree, especially on your point that the world is better for you being able to work on your product.
Mitt Romney had such a low income tax because the majority of his earnings was through municipal bonds. (which are not taxed)

I rolled my eyes when the media said he was 'taking advantage of a loophole' and some people floated removing that 'loophole'. That would have been a blunder of blunders.
Not more imperative. Just still imperative, but now using features Haskell users wish were available in other imperative languages.
> Imo, OSS advocates really really want open source contributions to be used as hiring signal, because that would mean more open source developers. That is what this all is about, primary. Wish to come back to "open source developers are superior, because reasons" ideology that was pushed for during open/close source wars.

That's a new take. As someone who lived through that "war" in the 90s, the typical refrain from the "closed source" crowd was that open source developers were merely hobbyists, whereas closed source was built 100% by professional software developers.
The FBI was compelling Apple to develop new software for them for free. Caving would allow the FBI to make similar demands at will, compared to China having an entry requirement.
I originally read about the phenomenon years ago in a (audio)book, but I cannot recall which one. It may have been one of Oliver Sacks' books, or part of a course from The Teaching Company or the Great Courses Plus. They discussed related research that claimed to have found strong evidence for depression in patients paralyzed from the neck down which was greater than the life changes and such could account for. I was never clear on how they could possibly manage to separate the things to be able to make such a claim and the facial paralysis emotional involvement seemed to make much more sense. There is a great deal of evidence already linking facial involvement to emotion, such as the classic study where participants held a pencil in their teeth, which causes an involuntary 'smile', lessening the negative emotional response when watching sad videos, so it seemed to be reasonable.

It's not that the people become un-empathetic, but literally when shown a photograph of a face expressing the emotion of anger, they can not identify that it is the emotion being displayed. That is the most extreme extent that takes the longest to manifest as I understand it. If a person told them "I am angry" or there were other outward displays (raised voice, etc), I don't doubt they would deal with it appropriately. Issues with recognizing emotions in others based on facial expressions are not all that rare. It is very commonly found in men who abuse others that they are incapable of recognizing the expression of fear in the face of those they are abusing.

I managed to find one related study that you might find interesting reading, though I hope to find better resources eventually: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamafacialplasticsurgery/fu...

My personal view is that this paper is probably closest to being correct about the nature of emotion and the body: https://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S136...
You would need to do explicit clinical trials to look exactly at that kind of adverse events to prove the link. Nobody is going to do that.
The problem with the proposal is as you have just explained, if it would work well it would be the same as now without being clear why it is better.

That is why I and everybody I know voted against it, nobody could explain why it would be better. The only explanation was that if it was implemented perfectly it would cause additional problems.
I mostly agree, but not quite.

> abolish the corporate income tax that justifies the "double taxation" argument that justifies the capital gains rate.

I would rather see a low but nonzero corporate tax rate with very strong enforcement. Otherwise it would be too easy to create a corporation to defer taxes indefinitely.
This sentiment was quite popular around 2009-2011 with real-name policies, the "nymwars", and what have you. The idea that the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1] explained the noxious state of online discourse had taken root, and people believed, often in good faith, that peeling back the layers of anonymity from larger communities would combat bad behavior. Both Google+ and Battle.net infamously implemented real name policies during this period to very little discernible effect, and eventually reverted their policies. To this day human group interaction remains challenging to control, with or without authoritarian means.

I understand that the intended goal of this policy is likely orthogonal to the argument presented, but it's a surprisingly weak argument in face of all the previous attempts showing the contrary. You can effectively point to South Korea, where they relented on this [2], after the intended effect was shown to be practically insignificant, while simultaneously putting users at increased risk.

[1] https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19

[2] http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/12/30/2011...
Show HN: Datasets of BTC-USD history data from 4 major Bitcoin exchanges
The MIT License requires copies of the software to give attribution to the copyright holder, as well as the licence text.

Though it is a very permissive licence, this does pose some barrier to using the software. Some companies are averse to using software they need to provide attribution for, but would not mind using software that is in the public domain.

Releasing software to the public domain ensures that as many people as possible can make maximum use of it.

That's not to say it's better to release software to the public domain over using a permissive licence. It really depends on the terms under which the developer wants people to use the software.
Can we post it? I heard you cannot post the same thing again ?
Can't edit my post anymore but PG's essay "What You Can't Say" also touches on the subject of the power struggle.

[1] http://paulgraham.com/say.html
You can go far using purely Postgres full text search. I ported a site from Solr to PG full text because of strange syncing issues and it was just as fast.

Afterwards I never really saw the point of any of the search systems other than elastic search because the streaming capabilities that it gives you.
Can we avoid unnecessary politics and remove "DONALD TRUMP" from the list?
Apple has also done things to violate it (see Apple's compliance with the Chinese government). The difference between Facebook and Apple is that Facebook's primary business objective is making money off people's data, not that Apple will never violate their users' privacy.
> and then change can happen incredibly rapidly.

Problem is that fast changes in Japan has been associated with bursts of civilian violence. Pushing back what needs to be done until it's untenable is NOT a good strategy.
No they wouldn't because the law doesn't go into effect. The state would first have to debate how it would be implemented and they would not implement something insane.

Eventually they would announce how it would work and the SNB would probably just copy the way it is doing now, with a different way of accounting.
The other downside to core data + iCloud is that you yourself have no access to the data. That means that if you want to email your users or even just pull aggregate data about their usage, you're crippled.

You also don't have a database that you can use to provide data to your users or let them provide information to one another.
Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. Why was it removed? I did notice pledge(2) first appeared in 5.9 [1]

How do other Unices such as Linux deal with this issue (IIRC systrace was ported to other Unices)? Is Pledge ported to other BSDs?

[1] http://man.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man2/...
I've found that the concept of identity and its relationship to equals in OO is a confusion. And by confusion, I mean an accidental combination that creates accidental complexity. Because in the OO I've seen, you have a permanent fusion of of state and identity. Which is to say what happens to the object is the same thing as the object. Which is not true about things in the real world at all. Does this paper address this problem?
intellectual property shouldn't exist.
Porting Sweet 16 (2004)
Your conclusion doesn't make sense to me. Success is a matter of probability. Someone with a recognizable degree has a higher probability of capturing more of their earning potential. Someone who doesn't have one is more likely to lose potential money to contracting companies and landlords. Spend more time working lower paying jobs and navigating the job or housing market. And to not participate in the upside of company profits, shares, housing and investments.

That you can succeed even as a high-school dropout by being in the right places at the right time or spending effort on the right things isn't a good argument against degrees. Because a degree increases your likelihood of doing those things.

There are certainly downsides to recognizable degrees, but I don't think ones chances of success in the tech industry is one of them.
I disagree with this analysis.. from a non-statistician's point of view, a "popularity" is not the same as significance, and neither term has a time-aware component.

Said differently, the number of interested questions, over certain periods of time, concurrently with adoption and use of the platforms being measured, are being measured here.

Not as simple as "correlation is not causation"
Many companies already do this. See Mobicents, which we use at my current job.
They should have presented it as the solution to removing all those pesky casino ads
It can be. I have also worked with those that are naturally good with people and sell as a part of the conversation. I can’t do that, they are rare. I have worked with those with both a network and a good product/marketing team. That works too, I agree. But it is not enough for me, I need the rest too, see other comment.
Absolutely that is what 100% reserve people don't understand.

The money supply under the gold standard was highly flexible.

Banks depending on demand (or velocity) automatically raised or lowered their reserves.

Meaning that if velocity is slow, banks would automatically lend more and create stable monetary conditions. Basically what central banks now do by having a bunch of burocrates look at statistics.
I say, do not give too much to the devil, so to speak. Hitler had charisma and was not a complete oaf.
Seriously, creating an efficient scalable search engine is among the most difficult computer science problems. From stemming, to combined queries, to word tokenization, to handling various string collations, and language issues, and caching, and parallelization of work, and handling huge numbers of writes, there are so many tricky parts. I used to work for a search startup and I can answer the OP's question: do not try to write your own search engine. That work should be done by someone with a PhD and decades of experience. Even elastic which is great software has issues, such as not being transactional, having issues handling huge numbers of writes, ect.
Waymo seems to be doing just fine on their own. I'm not sure they feel they need any partnership.

They just ordered some 30,000-ish cars, so it would seem they're entering the mass-production phase.
Is there any explanation as for why the british public is so apathetic against the increasing authoritarianism?
Senate Staffer Shares Classified Info with Press-Straight Out of Hollywood Story
Capital gains are only taxed for American investors. Foreign investors get away scott free. Their proceeds are highly unpredictable and even more cyclical compared to corporate income tax. There are too many ways to defer or never pay them. It's more reliable as a tax base to take a little of profits every year than take a bunch all at one uncertain time in the future.
These are digital assets though. Him "squirreling" them away doesn't deprive anyone else from having their own copy to play.

Maybe you're complaining that he didn't distribute copies for others to enjoy, but copyright law would make him a criminal for doing that, why should he take that risk?

It's funny that this guy would is considered a criminal for making copies of these games, but once they are old enough and lost forever by the original copyright holders he's suddenly a hero for having these old copies. Copyright law is fucked.
so the the question becomes 'why municiple bonds are not taxed?'
Of course, there are wireless VR headsets. Check out the Oculus Go. I think this might be the start of VR going mainstream.
That argument would work in an economic environment with high inflation, high interest rates, low overall rates of investment and a high capital gains tax.

The fact that we are currently operating under an environment with low inflation, low interest rates, too much capital floating around and a low capital gains tax rather suggests that it should actually be raised, and quite a lot at that.

If raising capital gain actually did bring forward consumption then that would actually act as a form of economic stimulus (on top of filling up depleted state/city coffers), none of which would be unwelcome. Unless you're extremely wealthy.
And I imagine the energy savings of such a change over billions of devices can be phenomenal in some cases. I’m glad there are still people working on these things.

I think it’s true, though, that it’s now a much narrower subset of people — it’s not really desirable or practical for most hobbyists to dive deep into assembly, the way I remember seeing back in the ‘80s.
In my experience - a car with both adaptive cruise and auto emergency braking: it handles the situation quite well, but the human driver (i.e. me) uses hints that the autonomous systems cannot, such as brake lights coming on ahead. The auto systems take a second or two longer to react.
Tech is more of a meritocracy than any other field. If you are a good developer, you will succeed.

You are correct that access to technology and learning resources has greatly increased. People who wanted it bad enough could make it work though. I couldn’t afford a computer growing up so I would find ways to access the crappy Apple IIes my school had just to get some programming time. The library had books on Basic and magazines (which I would read for free in the grocery) used to have code in them.

I don’t buy the lack of time argument though. Life is about prioritizing. Millions of poor people have substantial time to invest in football, basketball, TV, video games.. Learning to program just takes putting it above those less productive activities. The real issue (imho) is that very few people are cut out to be developers. This push to turn everyone into an engineer makes about as much sense to me as encouraging everyone to be a pro-basketball player. It’s great money, everyone should do it!
Blocklancer Review: Worth a Closer Look? – iCoin Blog
Paying for software may be moral, but it certainly isn't natural. As the game's developer, you're the scare resource. Making copies of the finished game itself costs approximately $0. Copyright makes your game artificially scarce so that you can charge for it. It's a phony concept that exists to support an unnatural business model. The real business model should be players paying you directly to develop and update the game they want to play for as long as they want to play it.
A new Golang Logrus runtime formatter which tags logs with runtime/stack info
And let's not forget Charles Babbage's Difference and Analytical Engines, both of which were decimal-based.

And mechanical :)
Show HN: Browser blockchain in 321 lines of ClojureScript