skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
When students go to college and either thier parents spend between $40K and 120K for a four year degree or a student takes out a loan, what do you think thier expectations are?

If I have a choice between a hiring a junior developer who has a computer science degree and only knows theory and a junior whose only experience is a boot camp where they learned practical skills. I’m going to hire the boot camp graduate first. Yes I have a “computer science” degree in the early 90s from an unknown state school, didn’t learn anything and the only reason I was employable was due to my prior knowledge from years programming in AppleSoft Basic and assembly language and I fell in love with C and stayed on the comp.lang.c newsgroups.
Info about the backstory: https://jalopnik.com/this-might-be-the-craziest-lap-of-the-n...

"Observe how he never brakes, even when you're certain he should"
Police are supposed to follow the law, and if the law bans computer aids to beat the slot machines, then the police are acting correctly in investigating. The more interesting question is how gambling interests have gotten such favourable laws passed that help them maintain profitability in the face of potentially disruptive technology. In general it's not surprising that laws tend to favour entrenched interests in any area though, since that's how power works...
Show HN: NPM package: API testing with JavaScript
> there's a level of indirection which is abstracted over by the Deref trait.

There isn't, though. Box and Rc have the same number of levels of indirection as the built-in pointers: one.

The double * you see in the Box source you linked only arises because the deref method takes self by reference, the same way unique_ptr's operator* takes this as a pointer. (And further, that implementation looks circular? I believe that part of Box is still built-in.)

These are both functions that should always be inlined (in fact the unique_ptr implementation I'm looking at goes through at least four functions to retrieve the actual pointer) so any extra address-taking and dereferencing you see is merely compile-time bookkeeping.
Are you actually incapable of looking up the definitions, or are is your comment a snarky, backhanded way of pointing out the redundancy of such a label rather than just outright saying it? Andto be fair, OP said “most authoritative”.
Super interesting! I had never heard of linear logic before you just mentioned it, so my first question was, how can it be described in terms of category theory. So I googled it, and apparently there is a lot to be said. The first link (pdf) is over 200 pages!

[1] https://www.irif.fr/~mellies/mpri/mpri-ens/biblio/categorica...

[2] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~schalk/notes/llmodel.pdf
I am definitely not saying the system cannot be disrupted (heck, I started my own non-profit that aims to do that), just that it is unfair to expect people who are aiming for an academic career to do that. Changes in civilisation have also been the result of collective action, e.g. through governmental action or by people who have nothing to lose.
On the flip side, nobody is forcing the casinos to not upgrade their slot machines with this known flaw. If the casinos work by exploiting a flaw in human psychology, why can't we exploit a flaw in their machines?
Yes, we have backups. The problem with `data` is not the fact I have backups, is that at a certain scale I will have so much data that "moving providers" could take on the order weeks.

If OP happened to me, sure yes I could have my entire infra on AWS/Azure/whatever else Terraform supports in an hour, maybe more to replace some of the tiny cloud specific features we use. But if it takes me a day to me to just move the data into Azure, thats an entire lost business day of productivity.
It’s trivial to make it impossible to predict the machine output. Just source even a low quality entropy source.

But now take that machine and source code and prove to gambling authorities what its properties are. That’s now almost impossible instead. You have made a machine that may behave differently under evaluation.
Regardless, unproven theorems should not make it to publish papers. At the very least, they should be marked as "conjectures".
Immigrant toddlers ordered to appear in court alone
This reminds me I’ve only read the first three novels.

Maybe it’s time to do something about that :)
We live in a world where the rights of criminals are given more respect than the privacy of their victims.
There is now a backprop principle for deep learning on quantum computers
This advice can probably be generalized to cold contacting people with questions about their work in general. Typically people who contact you want to do little work themselves, and expect the contactee to do the real work. But even asking something of a stranger can be edifying for both parties if approaches like this are taken.
Neither do a lot of other low cost regional carriers, but supersonics are mainly aimed at long haul international business.
I wouldn't think so. Whatever random result you get, you can bound it to make sure the probability works in your favor a fixed proportion of the time, right?

`if (pseudoRandom() < 0.57) houseWins()` gives the same payout as `if (trueRandom() < 0.57) houseWins()` for all intents and purposes; the only difference is the former is more predictable to people trying to game the machine.
Most people who play slots think that the games are fair... as in completely random. They're not, though. They use specific patterns to trick gamblers into thinking they 'almost won' on the screen.
Iris Automation Is Hiring a C++ Engineer to Work on Self-Flying Drones
It is quite navigable. You can click anywhere on the table of content and it will get you right there. There is also a sidebar with bookmarks that work. You can basically skip 70 pages. Considering it is already 2000 pages, you have to use the table of contents already.

The scope of the PDF is to be the full documentation.
If you were used to doing something a certain way, you need to know that things changed.
> Ions entering are then propelled from the positive to the negative screen and then out beyond, while electrons are reflected. There are thus two exhausts, but because the protons are much more massive than the electrons, the thrust of the ion current is more than 42 times greater than the opposing electron thrust, providing net thrust.

Does this follow? I thought the force of an E-field on a particle is proportional to charge and field strength-- so the electrons are lighter, but will be accelerated with the same force to a much higher velocity. So wouldn't the reactive force be the same for both?
Yes, this is our experience as well, and the root cause of their many problems with GCP. Tech is nice but matters little if the account team just ignores us.
You're welcome! Yes, 'fewer controls' is probably better. Re: API/SDK, which would be more suitable for you, API or SDK? What platform do you use, unity/unreal etc., or are you talking about a web game? And would you want rendered audio or note data, such as MIDI from the API/SDK? And if SDK, what language, or maybe it's not important? Good to get ideas so I can plan the most useful delivery mechanism for the most people.
There is a difference between unproven, and the published proof contains a mistake.
Insiders?
No, doesn't seem different to me. Of course, when logged in with the corp Google account / on the corp network you can see some debugging info and there will be likely some experiments running, but pretty much the same.
I like this model, but it puts a huge workload on the TA to help with questions about the homework, since the students don't get to hear the professor explain the material until after.
> it's a tactic, not a personality trait

that seems like a false dichotomy. you behave as cruel and abusive as you do because it's within you to behave that way.
Is Snap considered a doomed failure now? It got to IPO and tanked, did early investor/owners effectively bilk the sharebuying public?
They try other things first, to probe if you're just 'lucky.'

It's kind of fun to talk to undercover casino security though, especially when they catch on.
Angular for Beginners || Angular Built in Directives
Wouldn't that be Terraform (perfect for setting up cloud infrastructure) vs. Ansible (can do all, but more geared to provisioning servers you already have)?
We've updated the title from “Engineer finds slot machine cheat. Casinos unable to fix”.
> The 'innovation' is that car companies did not (and still do not) want to make EV cars

Car companies want to sell cars that can make a profit. They're willing to wait for the technology to improve to the point that that is feasible.
This is a great article but if you need a taste:

"My first go at independent research wasn’t necessarily easy. I didn’t know independent research was a viable path, and especially not in Silicon Valley, land of builders and shippers. I didn’t know whether I was doing something useful with my time, or whether I was just a crazy person.

A few years later, I’ve realized that the answer to that question doesn’t really matter. Life is short. Do whatever you can’t stop thinking about. Documenting your findings in public (regardless of outcomes!) is a worthy contribution to society, full stop. If you’re doing something new, and you care about understanding the problem, people will pay attention. What’s more, they’ll take your ideas and make them better than you’d ever imagined. And that style of research - living in service to the public - starts to look very different from the bloated, ivory tower models we’ve been accustomed to."
There's quite a lot of people talking about how this is their own fault, that they should have expected it, that they should have been prepared. Victim blaming, some would say, even.

But even if you assign blame to the OP for not expecting this, it doesn't look good, because the lesson here is "you shouldn't use google and if you do, expect them to fuck you over, for no reason, at any time".
Good thing Send is implemented automatically for types based on their contents, then.

If you're trying to send a value to another thread, Rust will only stop you if the author of some type somewhere inside it has opted out, and none of its containers ever opted back in (as Box does).
I don’t disagree. But the more obscure tastes are usually on the margins. You will never get rid of piracy but you could take a big bite out of it by making it easier and more affordable to get the 80% of content and just ignore the long tail.
Sure it's harder than today, but you have to remember that at the time, almost no computers were "plug it in and go". Many of the 8-bit era home computers up to that point, if they were upgradable at all, might require actual solder for internal upgrades. There were exceptions, like the Apple II and the old S-100 systems, but it wasn't common. Going to the IBM, where everything was cards and cables and plugs, was a big step.

Also, the Tandy 1000 is bad example there because they were notorious for weird hardware incompatibilities and funky proprietary parts.
I would imagine similar to card counting though that if discovered you'd simply be banned from the casino, legal or not.
The discipline of research seems - historically - to be equal parts social maneuvering and scientific rigor.

Just look at the very public spat between Ian Goodfellow and Jurgen Schmidhuber about Generative Networks to get a flavor for that.

Chomsky has perpetually raised the flag when his research won't get published because he's a vocal critic of some institutional priority.

Even back to Einstein, Kant etc... in multiple fields the powers at be thought these guys were cranks until they blew everything open. If you can't get a consortium of your peers in research to even take the time to read your work, then you won't be able to make any changes.

As with all things, Institutional association (as long as it's the right institution) serve as the social proof that you're doing real important work.

It's unfortunate, and I wish it weren't the case, but it seems to be intractable.
You're right, the author's analysis is incorrect. But I don't think this discredits the concept completely.
As someone who knows nothing about cars, what surprised me was just how much of this was braking right after you accelerate, which in hindsight is obvious given the turns at crazy speeds, but still.
Blockchain for sure
Absolutely.

It blows my mind that GCloud, with arguably superior tech and performance compared to AWS/Azure, can't handle support. I have my own horror stories from 2 years ago, but still they haven't fixed it.

Google just doesn't seem to be able to focus on products that requires service and customer support. Maybe they just don't care about it while they have an infinite revenue stream from search and advertising. Whatever it is, they should be humiliated.

I love the tech, and the ux details like in browser SSH (AWS hasn't improved UX EVER) but they can't get support right? Amazing.
I want to do independent (computational) research. That's pretty much the only thing I want to do. Not employment in industry, not teaching, not funding agency research (where the agency wants you to do only a restricted form of research; okay maybe I could do that but then funding is hard to come by). But independent research. And I don't care about money (as long as I can live on it, and have access to computational resources).

But I don't know how I can make time for it. I worked for a while, saved up some money, then did my own research using that money for a few months. But working to raise money is very distracting.
The reason why the running time of Grover’s algorithm involves sqrt(n) has to do with the Pythagorean theorem—or if you like, the fact that quantum mechanics is based on the 2-norm, in contrast to classical probability theory which is based on the 1-norm. Classically, each time you pick one item out of N to query, you can add ~1/N probability to the marked item—so the probability of having found the marked item after T queries goes like T/N. Quantumly, you can add ~1/sqrt(N) amplitude to the marked item with each query, so the amplitude on the marked item after T queries goes like ~T/sqrt(N), and hence the probability of observing the marked item when you measure goes like ~T^2/N.

A fundamental result from the 1990s, called the BBBV Theorem, shows that not even a quantum computer can solve the unordered search problem any faster than Grover’s algorithm solves it. I won’t prove the theorem in this comment :-), but the intuition is simply that quantum mechanics is a norm-preserving and linear theory. So you actually need to do something to gradually put more and more amplitude onto the marked item; you can’t just instantly and magically give an amplitude of 1 to whichever branch of your superposition happened to hit the marked item.

I’m not sure if there are QC meetups in SF (does anyone else?). But certainly nearby Berkeley is one of the centers of the world for QC—home to Umesh Vazirani’s group, the Simons Institute for Theory of Computing, and now also the startup Rigetti.
Yeah, well, paper sucks.

http://worrydream.com/#!/ScientificCommunicationAsSequential...

No mathematician today doesn't have access to a computer. Just fold the proof to some appropriate coarse level by default, and let the reader expand any part they want to read. It's not like our computers had any meaningful limit on how big a mathematical proof could be.
Hardy's statement was philosophical, not a scientific prediction. Encryption was already an important science by 1940
> We can produce more food than ever with less energy. Knowledge transfer is always improving...

I imagine that's what people said before the Dark Ages too. It's not as if empires and civilizations haven't ever fallen before.
I invite you to look into it. I feel like it’s the last tool I will ever need. Hit me up over email (it’s in my profile) if you want to talk more.
Well telling people to think about how the other one would think might simply add another abstraction on top of normal empathy and therefore cause inaccuracy.

Especially in direct conflict between two parties I think it helps enormously. Usually it can explain how the other does not act in malice, but out of less hurtful reasons.
I’m starting to favour buying physical rack space again and running everything 2005 style with a light weight ansible layer. As long as your workload is predictable, the lock in, unpredictability, navigation through the maze of billing, weird rules and what-the-fuckism you have to deal with on a daily basis is merely trading one vendor specific hell for another. Your knowledge isn’t transferable between cloud vendors either so I’d rather have a hell I'm totally in control of and of which the knowledge has some retention value and will move around vendors no problems. You can also span vendors then thus avoiding the whole all eggs in one basket problem.
I'm doing it for myself, and myself only.
You can pick an arbitrary contentious political topic, or even a topic that borders a political topic, and get markedly different "leanings" from bing and google on the first page. One of them at least appears to be aiming at something with the results.
I am strongly for basic income because I know for a fact that if I got UBI I would heavily contribute to OpenStreetMap and other libre projects, and I would publish the occasional paper in the field that I studied at university.

As it is, I already do those things, because as a digital nomad I only have to work 2–3 days a week – I make a Western salary but I stay in cheaper countries. By why should the ability to make those alternative contributions only be available to "rich" people like me? It isn’t fair that other nerds who want to contribute like that are instead forced to take energy and time-sapping jobs, jobs that arguably contribute less to humanity in spite of purely economic arguments.
Could you explain in a bit more detail what's wrong about notebook-style interfaces? I'm interested in them, but haven't used them extensively.
For sure, Apple users will loose their way soon again
I agree not to put too much weight on the end-of-class course evaluations, although some universities use them formally so you might not be able to avoid caring about them. I do think student feedback is useful, but end of course feedback is often too myopic, primarily influenced by student perceptions of grading: easy classes without much work tend to get high ratings, even if nobody learns much.

I personally had very different opinions about my university courses even 1-2 years after graduation vs. right at the time of taking them. Wish there was some more systematic way of collecting that kind of student feedback with a little more hindsight.
Seriously, who cares?

When you publish the proof for a theorem, you're generally the first to do so. Aren't you? If there is an error in the only published proof ever, your theorem is unproven. QED.

Edit: to downvoters: please explain my error. I thought I was only telling the obvious here.
The math functions are statically inlined for performance. Wrapping them in another level of function/var will have a significant impact on performance even if assertions for preconditions are turned off.

Spec assertions (not pre/post checks) can actually be compiled completely out of production code so those can really be nothing (but not if you're adding them in wrapper layers).
Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN.
I've doubted for long about learning Vim or Emacs.

I like the default vim keybindings, but I don't like having to install plugins in order to make my editor usable, I like the batteries-included concept.

But when I try to learn Emacs I can't accept the fact that I have to press M-v to go up one screenful. It must become really uncomfortable really fast.
I agree entirely.

Furthermore it's fairly trivial to build a good entropy source into these machines if they wanted to, rather than relying on a PRNG. ChaosKey [1] immediately comes to mind as one example.

[1] https://altusmetrum.org/ChaosKey/
That's one of the key things I learned when I read the Getting Things Done book. If I'm stressing out about the number of different tasks I need to get done, capturing them (whether writing them down, putting them in Trello, etc.) helps me to not dwell on them, allowing me to more easily focus on a single task.
Git submodules handle that for me, also allows me to easily rollback.
Well Ofcause casinos have a right to be profitable. Just like tech startups, as soon as the government is reaping in money through that company they want to keep it alive. Even if it is no net benefit to society or even profitable at all on its own. Look at the current “unicorns” serving subsidized taxi rides and subsidized movie tickets. It doesn’t matter if you provide anything at all as long as you manage to stamp you logo on large enough cash flows everyone benefitting from that cashflow will work to keep you alive.
Very good talk by Bozhidar Batzov at PartialConf 2017 that covers this point as well.

Clojure, The Bad Parts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YCkOo5Y4Oo
downvoted? to those that did, have a nice death. and your family too.
You don't need to implement Send for POD types – it is automatically implemented. Almost all types implement Send. There are only a few exceptions that I know of: Rc (the non-atomic reference counted pointer) doesn't implement Send because it doesn't support atomically updating the count. Also raw pointers don't implement Send.
Lamborghini=Audi=Bugatti=Bentley=Porsche=Italdesign=Skoda=Seat=Cupra=VW, with various levels of independence.
> effective vim users ^z out of vim and use Unix as their IDE.

As someone who used to do this, I can tell you it's not very effective. For example, build systems. I work with a lot of C++ code, and after making changes I used to ctrl-z to the terminal and then `make` manually ... only to get blindsided by lines and lines of error messages, many due to a lot of trivial syntax errors. Using YouCompleteMe may not be very minimal or "Unixy", but having error messages inline with my code and being able to correct them as I work is invaluable. Maybe your experience is different, but I couldn't get it to work for me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People are downplaying this saying well the track has changed, the asphalt has been relaid, the conditions are different, of course someone could beat that time.

I see it as, Porsche have just laid down a new benchmark to beat
More importantly, there is a wealth of competent labor in the relatively stable area of maintaining physical servers (both on the hardware and software side). The modern cloud services move fast and break things, leading to a general shortage of resources and competent people. As a business, even if slightly more expensive initially, it makes more sense to start lower and work up to the cloud services as the need presents itself.
DownloadSoho Premium Graphic Design Resources
If anything like that turned out to be true, and fundamental (rather than just an engineering limitation), I’d regard it as a shocking discovery that would overturn our current understanding of QM. After all, physics is local—each particle couples mostly to its near neighbors—so there doesn’t seem to be any inherent reason why noise per qubit needs to keep increasing as you integrate more and more qubits.

For more, see my other answers on this thread about QC skepticism.
We're kind of like rats.
I use Google Plus in a similar way, except as a link blog. Hardly anyone is listening. At first that was a concern, but I've come to enjoy it.
do you think that anyone should be killed remotely just because they happen to be in village that some fuckers in Virginia or Maryland think is somehow related to the (by many accounts fictional) "Al Qaeda" or whatever else? How does that fit in with motherfucking "American Values"?