skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The recent livereload feature on Jekyll coupled with running Jekyll locally in Docker works well me.
https://davemateer.com/jekyl/2018/01/25/Jekyll-and-Docker.ht...
Typically no, because employees 'sell' their rights to the patent to their employer when filing the patent application. It is customary for the employees to get a silver dollar as a token that has monetary value (hence the sale) and we can thank Richard Feynman for forcing there to be an actual transfer of money :)

I should also add that usually the inventor can't take the patent to their next job but if the inventor wrote super-narrow claims into the patent then that would be easy to work around at a future employer.
> Even if NiMH did not exist, not being able to operate with batteries below 1.2V wastes the majority of the capacity of an alkaline. I think that's a valid criticism of almost anything in consumer electronics. It requires a very good excuse before it should be considered acceptable.

Please unpack this a bit to make sure it's not a strawman.

1.2V is just a nominal voltage, just like 1.5V nominal. Fully-charged open-cell voltages are above 1.25V and 1.6V, IIRC, though that is, of course, irrelevant. What matters is voltage under load, at all possible loads for all consumer devices.

Even if nickel chemistries have flatter discharge curves, they still slope downward, and that voltage can drop below 1.2V.

Their voltage also doesn't bounce back when load is reduced. Engineers deal with real-world usage, not contrived benchmarks where a cell is taken from full charge to flat at constant current.

What consumers are actually saying is that real-world rechargables don't work in certain real-world devices, while alkalines do. They make no claims about specific voltages. That's on you, so it's up to you to show that a particular voltage cut-off is the problem and that the same device ends up using only half the alkaline's capacity. Otherwise, you put up a strawman to knock down.
It usually happens because they have an unbreakable rule that all sentences start with a capital letter.
So, I read this paper and was pretty unconvinced. I think the premise of using a Monte Carlo analysis is flawed because of course multiplying together wide ~iid distributions that have big near-zero components asymptotes to zero; unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is essentially the central limit theorem. (All of the parameter samples below 1e0 drag the total outcome towards zero since probabilities are bounded >= 0) Thus, the real information is still strongly dominated by beliefs about the width and centering of the distributions, which we still don't know, and as long as enough of the parameters have high uncertainty with some potentially having near-zero values, the result will always tend towards zero.

I think what this analysis tell us is that if you don't think it's possible to get better, more specific values for the parameters, the Drake Equation is just a bad tool.

Also, the Drake Equation doesn't describe the number of alien civilizations, it describes the likely number of civilizations. Thus, extremely pessimistic estimates have to somehow correct for the fact that we know N is not zero, since we are here. That seems like a highly informative update that is not addressed in an interesting way.
Read the book "The Three Body Problem" and the rest of the trilogy, it provides a very interesting and scary theory that I don't want to ruin.
a) There are only around 500 stars within the 100-or-so-light-year radius that our transmissions have reached. Does intelligent life arise on 1/500 planets? I'd say not even close.

b) Maybe they have no way to reach us. Despite sci-fi speculation, we still have no reason to believe the speed of light is not the ultimate speed limit of the universe.

c) Maybe they don't care. Aliens in movies often come here to invade us, eat us, steal our resources, etc. But, if any species had the level of technology to come all the way here with a force large enough to subjugate us, they wouldn't need to. Far more resources than they could take from this planet are already freely available floating around in space much easier to take.

d) Maybe they're so different from us that they don't even notice we are anything. Maybe we wouldn't notice them either.
> Was sitting with the frame on the ground so no way to dig it out (trust me, they had us try).

A vehicle beached at the frame on sand is a very common occurrence in the desert, and it's fairly trivial to get out if you have a shovel, brains, and are physically well. It's just some work, but sand is incredibly easy to excavate by hand, even from underneath a vehicle.
One theory I've come across (can't recall where though) is that we aren't worth contacting given how un-advanced/different we are relative to whoever else is out there. The analogy goes, when the Spanish Conquistadors arrived in the Caribbean and Americas in the 16th century they walked ashore and didn't even notice the little ants under foot as they claimed the land and killed the indigenous peoples; we're the ants in this scenario, we haven't been contacted because we aren't worth it.
Extensive discussion of the same article in the NY Times 3 days ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17362723
I'm not asking or looking for that, I'm quite happy to accept the complexity of individuals and attempt to understand them on their own terms rather than trying to categorize them into a quadrant.
I believe all nuclear weapons may have been removed from Turkey following the fallout of the 2016 Coup attempt in Turkey.
Imagine the various uncontacted tribes that still exist. Considering how many humans there are, why hasn't there been more malicious actors striving to make contact with these people?

Granted this isn't a 100% proper analogy because a lot of these tribes have been contacted prior and have knowledge of the outside world. Yet it could be as something as simple as that; if there are far more advanced species we could be simply left to our own devices on purpose.
I'm curious, what would you have done downtown as a kid because pretty much everything I can think of to do downtown requires money which I didn't have as a kid.

Also, are you planning on having kids and raising them in the city?
Local network tampering (ARP etc) at registrar end, routing attacks such as BGP hijack, below-IP attacks in transit (eg MPLS hijack, malicious transit router, QUANTUM INSERT, other fiber tap approaches, ...) DNS implementation bugs in UDP spoofing countermeasures, local network tampering at domain holder end, social engineering or extortion against transit or stakeholder sysadmins, etc. It's a long list of possibilities.
A bacteria in a Petri dish somewhere is saying you don't exist because you'd have sent it messages through sugar chemical signalling by now.
> you won't get very far without them

In the workplace, I think the opposite is true. Understanding and treating coworkers as individuals gets one much further than this sort of incredibly granular categorization. You're bound to miss important things about people if you just think of them as a "disagreeable taker" here or an "agreeable giver" there. Most importantly, you'll miss that people not only fluctuate in personality day to day based on many factors, but indeed often change entirely over time. It's not that this kind of mumbo jumbo is "unfashionable", it's that it isn't useful.
Yes, every time I go to it I'm like "Did that section help me find the answer right away, or could it be better?" Then summarize more. Or reorganize, pull out a subtopic that's gotten too big, move things together that are related.
> As my Asian immigrant parents understood: money is really important. It matters so much that financial stress is a leading cause of divorce

Which is the cause and which is the effect? Financial stress may be a leading cause of divorce because money’s importance is so heavily emphasized.
This might also be very useful for stair climbing robot and wheelchair designs.
The answer to this is very obvious:

For the same reason that humans have not "made contact" with ants.

Why do you assume a higher intelligence would even be capable of making contact with us on a level we understand? The discussion would be meaningless, in the same way that an ant would not comprehend our desire to build a freeway right next to their ant hill.
Ask HN: How to become a root CA?
Is there a way to become a Root Certificate Authority, and how much does it cost and time too.
This is really disturbing. I daily use and consume instagram and whatsapp. I need to find a way to get out of these social apps.
:(
China takes surveillance of citizens to new heights with flock of robotic Doves
and why should we believe that "living in NYC" should select for "under achieving children" or "not tiger moms"?

also why is "Asian countries poorer than the US" so easily dismiss-able for purposes of parenting when almost all "Asian Countries" are poorer than the US?
I think this is a little unfair. Tiger parenting is never designed to make the child into some kind of Issac Newton figure. Tiger parents want their children to become financially successful - lawyers, doctors, etc. High-skill workers. The fundamental difference between these professions and say the sciences is that you don't have to come up with anything NEW to be successful. As a thought experiment, you can find a prominent lawyer or doctor and just work towards turning yourself into a literal COPY of that person and if you can really succeed in doing so, you will have made it. By contrast, trying to turn yourself into a literal copy of a living scientist is useless in itself, because there is no guarantee that you will be lucky enough to discover anything new.

Also, let's not forget that sometimes the reason "there is not a clearly delineated pathway to achievement" could well be because the existence of such a thing would disrupt existing social hierarchies.
I found the existing static site generators confusing and wrote my own, which ended up being equally confusing for everyone except me. Whatever works, I guess. https://github.com/sidmani/anodize
Patents take money from the poor by denying them the prosperity at low-cost that would happen if there were no patents.

Patents are government-enforced monopolies. They enable all of what anyone would expect with monopolies, namely high prices for consumers.
The author seems possessed of a fairly creative unwillingness to spell the name Sandberg correctly.
> CAs should be able to afford to make the requests from multiple sources and compare the results.

Do they actually do that in practice? Are they required to do so? (How many sources and how far distinct?)
A Beginner’s Guide to Data Engineering
Not having to worry about money eliminates a lot of sources for conflict. It’s not a big deal if my wife splurges on something that I find pointless, and paying someone to clean means we don’t have to argue about the mess in the kitchen.
certain implementations will become obsolete, but once the concept is patented and the patent expires it can be re-implemented by anyone, forever. If you don't want to wait the five years, there is an astonishing amount of prior art from the 1960's to 1990's that can be applied.
I'm currently reading Water Margin which was translated to English by the Foreign Language Press[0]. Although very simplified in tone and diction, the translation is still amazing and it comes in four volumes as well so it's around 2000 pages of text.

[0]http://www.flp.com.cn/en/
happiness comes from within. There is no sense wondering about the past since it cant be changed. The question is what will bring you happiness today to the rest of your life.

I graduated in the top 50% of my high school class and had a 3.2/4 GPA at a state EE program. I hear about high school kids studying 3 hours a day, I don't think I ever studied much more than 3 hours a week. Definitely not stellar academic credentials.

I ended up entering an md phd program where I washed out after 5 years. Fast forward a few years (20...) and I have my own company and will make about $800k-$1M this year.

Yet at no time was I unhappy, even when I was digging for change out of the couch to have enough money to buy food. I remember savoring the ridiculousness of the situation and reveling in it. Yet I'm no happier now than I was at that moment.

Part of life is figuring out what truly makes you happy. For most of us it ends up being bringing happiness to others in some way, not achievement and material possessions.
Define "useful". Generation ships could be a thing, we're arguably close to that level of tech right now, and that's with a relative pittance spent on space-related tech for less than a century. Given enough R&D and raw resources it's probably an easier problem than curing cancer, and no one says that's impossible.
I'm going to repost the same comment I've made on this several times already:

This is quite interesting. It certainly sounds like this does dissolve the Fermi paradox, as they say. However, I think the key idea in this paper is actually not what the authors say it is. They say the key idea is taking account of all our uncertainty rather than using point estimates. I think the key idea is actually realizing that the Drake equation and the Fermi observation don't conflict because they're answering different questions.

That is to say: Where does this use of point estimates come from? Well, the Drake equation gives (under the assumption that certain things are uncorrelated) the expected number of civilizations we should expect to detect. Here's the thing -- if we grant the uncorrelatedness assumption (as the authors do), the use of point estimates is entirely valid for that purpose; summarizing one's uncertainty into point estimates will not alter the result.

The thing is that the authors here have realized, it seems to me, that the expected value is fundamentally the wrong calculation for purposes of considering the Fermi observation. Sure, maybe the expected value is high -- but why would that conflict with our seeing nothing? The right question to ask, in terms of the Fermi observation, is not, what is the expected number of civilizations we would see, but rather, what is the probability we would see any number more than zero?

They then note that -- taking into account all our uncertainty, as they say -- while the expected number may be high, this probability is actually quite low, and therefore does not conflict with the Fermi observation. But to my mind the key idea here isn't taking into account all our uncertainty, but asking about P(N>0) rather than E(N) in the first place, realizing that it's really P(N>0) and not E(N) that's the relevant question. It's only that switch from E(N) to P(N>0) that necessitates the taking into account of all our uncertainty, after all!

[Note afterward: Over on Reddit, hxka points out that that should be P(N>1), not P(N>0). Or really it should be P(N>1|N>0)...]
Weekend Roundup: GOLD Prices JUMP, OIL Prices SLIDE, Euro Keeps Dollar at Bay
One thing I'd add about GeoMesa's use of space-filling curves is that most of the databases used are key-value stores. Given that, it is somewhat unwieldy to manage R-tree indexes.

Also, GeoMesa implements an 'XZ'-curve schema which gets around a few of the problems just using a Z-order curve runs into.

To the point about hot-spotting, there's a configurable sharding strategy that can help spread the data around more of the nodes in the cluster.

I haven't seen an easy/obvious way to apply adaptive quad-tries on top of key-value stores like Accumulo and HBase. Managing complex data structures in a cloud seems to be rather difficult.
You can look at the history of Lets Encrypt. 3 Million $ and about 4 years
It may be that an advanced civilization doesnt last long. So it is possible that we are somewhere on the very big graveyard.
Specifically: https://discourse.gohugo.io/t/coming-soon-sass-support-and-m...
I mean, of course. It is cheaper to do that anywhere in the world. The trick is to use the washing machine more than once.
You always may rightfully say you're the inventor (or one of several) of a patent issued for something you invented.

But you can't "use it" unless you own rights to the invention. Patent inventorship and ownership are different things.

Most likely, you assigned all rights to your invention to your employer at the time of invention. The patent will name you as the inventor, and your then-employer will have all rights to the invention.

Neither you nor your next employer can use the patent unless you negotiate permission from the rights holder (your former employer or whomever they sold the rights to).
> just stand around looking at plants.

Hard to overstate how good this is for one's mental health.
> Yes, give enough time and energy, we could build a technological hell on a perpetually wandering spaceship.

I think if there was a decent amount of profit to be had behind it, that "could" becomes a "would" pretty fast.

We're basically the Ferengi at this point. Possibly mixed with a bit of Cardassian.
The Humanity Star was visible only for short periods of time at dusk and dawn (which are not astronomical observing hours) and was, at brightest, approximately magnitude 2. Less bright than many stars and planets, as well as many existing satellites. In addition, it only stayed in orbit for about 6 weeks (although it was intended to last 9 months).
Roughly a century after discovering powered flight, we are pretty much capable of building spaceships that can reach Alpha Centauri in roughly 100 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion

Single digit percentages of the speed of light are not that hard to achieve, but would probably be sufficient to launch some von Neumann probes (or generation ships) and start colonies.
> Considering the terrifying energies required for launching anything useful interstellarly

A ship capable of carrying live adult humans, yes.

Something carrying nanotechnology that will use raw materials at the destination to construct a colony including new humans, not so much.

Sure, the latter isn't going to be within our capability soon. But on a time horizon of thousands of years or more, it will.
They pay VAT and custom duties as much as anybody else. They probably skim on employee-related and profit taxes though.
I'm interested in what really qualifies as "Tiger Parenting", especially over whether my childhood counts as tiger parenting:

I don't remember elementary school that much. I remember getting my homework done quick because I could play the N64 or Xbox when my homework was done. Maybe that instilled in me the notion that academics come first. I also remember taking math quizzes and being pretty good at them in elementary school. It was like a game to see if I could be the first one to finish and still get 100%.

When I was in middle school and high school I was always aiming for As. Part of it was because I was genuinely interested and motivated to learn. More cynically, if I failed (or was even below average) academically it would be big blow to my sense of self-worth. Also because I desired the status and money that going to a good university would bring.

That said, I don't really think my parents ever strictly enforced academic commitment. Sure, I got As, but I also spent a ton of time playing video games, hanging out with friends, etc. I didn't have a bed time - I distinctly remember binging through a whole season of Dexter on a school night once. When my parents found a beer bottle tucked away in a closet (damn friends couldn't clean up for shit) they were more mad that I got caught rather than that my friends and I experimented with alcohol. I'd speculate that if I started getting mostly Bs or Cs they'd probably crack down on recreational time, but this was something that neither I nor my sister ever put to the test.

I don't want this to sound self-congratulatory, but I really think in retrospect my childhood was a great outcome. I had academic success because my parents instilled the principles in me at a young age, and by late childhood or young adulthood I was self motivated academically. Thus, in high school I was free to balance school and social life myself any my parents trusted me to get good grades without much input on their part.

It's also the kind of childhood I'd want to pass on to my kids. I'd want to instill in them the value of academic and professional success, but want them to be self motivated to achieve those goals beyond early childhood years.
User Guide Cydia iOS 12 Install Using [iOS 12 Jailbreak] Anzhuang
That just rephrases the question to: Why hasn't a higher intelligence built their equivalent of a freeway right through our ant hill?
The face/mask of Facebook is that they are a platform for sharing, and that FB users 'know' what they are sharing and making public. Users mistakenly assume that is the limit to the personal data that FB collects. I don't know why FB felt a need to go beyond that and start stalking everyone on the internet. They made their choice.

Point being, FB could have focused their data collection on only that information that their user's post.
Possibly, but not the way to bet. Live appeared on Earth very soon after it started to solidify. That would tend to imply that starting life was pretty easy or, life arrived by some kind of panspermia mechanism. There is a next to infinitesimal chance that life started very quickly by some kind of once in billions of years magical circumstance.

To go from life to beings like humanity it's pretty clear that intelligence tends to increase as life goes on. For example some birds so exceptional abilities and they are dinosaurs according to most current understandings. Octopus can be remarkably clever and their lineage split from the "animals with backbones" line long before there were animals with backbones. Nerves and nervous systems seem to have been reinvented by evolution several different times.

Putting this altogether, it seems there's an excellent chance that primitive uni-cellular life evolves pretty readily and multi-cellular animals tend towards increased intelligence soon there after.

There's an assumption that "advanced civilizations" will be communicating with TV and Radio because that's the best we've got. On average most advanced civilizations would have had their technology for much more than 150 years and very likely communicate with methods we are not aware of yet.

So when it's asked "Where are they?" the answer is they are out there, talking up a storm, they're just not still using electromagnetic "smoke signals" to do it.
It appears Ron Howard will make an attempt.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seveneves#Film_adaptation
Suicides Have Increased. Is This an Existential Crisis?
The ants weren't "contacted" in the sense of being asked anything, but that doesn't mean they were undisturbed. The question is not why intelligent aliens way beyond our tech level haven't tried to talk to us; the question is why they haven't just happened to crush us underfoot in the course of going about their normal business.
Because of the prime directive, of course.
I'd really like to see a YouTube demonstration & explanation. Seriously, if you can make a Raspberry Pi and Python code cook for you, you will be my hero.
I was always wondering, if it would be possible, for example, to write an SMB Client in Javascript and so get access to an open SMB server in a LAN from a Website.
(I don't know JavaScript at all)
We have "made contact" with pretty much every species that display even a little intelligence though, including ants. Ants just don't notice when they run inside some scientist's experiment. Do you propose that we're so drastically inferior that we don't even know someone is having us find the cheese in a maze?