skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think all headlines should be written like this. It adds a nice distopia undertone:

Water feature near Apple’s new cupertino headquarters set to rise tens of feet over the next century, displacing engineers in low lying areas.

Political instability set to double the prices of raw materials used in domestically produced Mac Pros; iPhones largely unaffected.

Suspected cancer link discovered with cafeteria subcontractor Monsanto’s Roundup. Rumors suggest Apple will move to in house agricultural production. Monsanto down 5 points.
I thought about it a while back when it came up in my studies, and in this case I think it's easy to make the argument that it exists (some shortest program+input P+I that produces a given finite-length string S), but not computable.

Programs + Input in the K-complexity world are sequences of symbols taken from a finite alphabet.

For any finite-length S, we can definitely find a program Q that produces S: Simply write the program that literally embeds and reproduces S.

Now, Q is a program+input that has finite length. So we can always find a maximal bound for the K-complexity (length of Q).

Since Q is a finite-length symbol sequence from a finite alphabet, we can consider the finite-sized subset of all symbol-sequences of length <= Q. Every single one of those sequences describes a program + input. Every one of those programs is deterministic: it will either run to completion and produce some fixed output, or never-terminate.

We know the finite upper bound exists. We know the finite set of Program+Input sequences exist. We can even enumerate all of them (and write a program to do it). We also know that each of them will deterministically either produce S or not produce S (we can't be guaranteed that we will run them all and find the results of each, but we know each of them have an intrinsic and deterministic behaviour).

Either one or more of those will produce S or not. If there are none, then our candidate Q is the shortest. If there are one or more, then the shortest of those definitely exists, since we already have the finite set it comes from in our hand.

Overall, this and other cases (Godel's work, Halting Problem) lead me down the path of accepting the mathematical truth that it's possible for there to be truths we never "reach". Truth and knowability are linked, but knowability is not a prerequisite for truth.

It wasn't an easy idea to come to terms with, but I'm relatively comfortable with it these days.
This book is incredible, it’s hard to believe it’s 134 years old.
"You made a mistake, but look at the positive side. If all those Ph.D.’s were wrong, the country would be in some very serious trouble."

So then we're in very serious trouble?
I think the second table is more clear than the first, since it shows that Monty Hall's choice depends on your choice. The main nuance to this problem is that Monty Hall is not picking randomly. There's always some unpicked door with a goat, and he'll pick that one to reveal. So if your original choice is door #1, then when deciding to stay or switch, you're really deciding whether go with door #1 or with the better of doors #2 and #3 (since the worse of the two doors has already been shown to you).
Can this explain some of the quantum weirdness? Like some of the things quantum entanglement have is due to a forth dimension we are not aware of. Might have to do with general relativity and it is the 4th dimension in smaller scales.

Now where is my noble price?
Too light to land is something I'd never considered before today. Cool!
The information you have gained is not about the door you've chosen. It doesn't matter what door you choose, the host can always open a door to reveal a goat. So there is no information given about the door you've chosen, so the chances of that door containing the prize remain at 1/3.

But you have been given information about the door he didn't open, because he didn't open it. That's why it's possible for the odds on that door of holding the prize can change.

And yes, we do now have a choice between two doors, one with a goat and one without. The error is in believing that these are equal choices.

I roll a die, and you can choose "1" or "not 1". You have two choices, but they have unequal chances of being correct. Similarly with the doors. Just because there are two choices, they may have different odds.

In the Monty Hall problem, they do.
I wasn’t trying to imply that one is better than the other. Only an example of a new company trying to offer very similar product to an existing company.
The problem with the animations are not that they are bad, per se.

They do provide a visual guide to new users of what just occurred. That has value for the new user.

The problem is that too many systems/programs that provide these animations forget that the animation that was useful to one as a new user the first few times, becomes an irritating time sink when it has been watched the ten thousandth time. After the ten thousandth time watching it, many users already know what is going to occur, and just want it to occur and move on. But the system/program provides no "turn off animations" profile setting. So when one gets to the point that one no longer needs the animation to inform of what occurred, one is still forced to sit through its delays. That is the big problem with animations.

Real world example. My Android 7.1 phone came with all the standard android animations turned on at the outset. At some point after having it for a short time, I discovered the animation time adjustment settings inside the hidden developer menu. After I set them all to zero (i.e., do not animate) the phone suddenly felt like it was 1000% faster.

So, in this case Google did include a "turn them off" feature (good). But they hid it inside a normally hidden menu inside the settings app (bad). Why was this hiding of this setting bad? Because most users will never find the developer options menu (because it is hidden) and therefore will never know about the "turn off animations" settings that could make their phone feel significantly faster immediately. So most will be stuck watching animations that make their phone feel slow, even when they already know the outcome and no longer need the assist provided by the animation.
You know what they say, planes stay in the air through lift generated by physics; helicopters stay in the air because they're so ugly the earth repels them. I'm OK with flying in fixed-wing craft, but you wouldn't be able to get me into a helicopter.
Which version? Because his first version of the proof had an error that he had to go back and fix.
I knew Dan from systems hacking in high school ('72?) on the IBM 360 out at San Diego State (no idea how I got involved there). Lynn Brock was the head of the systems group there, and Henry Burgess was involved as well.

Dan went on to found Visicorp after MIT and Harvard Business School, Lynn worked with him there to make VisiOn, a much ahead-of-its-time windowing OS for the PC, which eventually brought down VisiCorp, and Henry ended up at Microsoft as Gates's right-hand man for years.

Odd group.
The shapes remind me of chemistry, molecules, enzymes, proteins, viruses.

I would add 1 thing only: physics to the interactions, so the shape will keep spinning after I swipe across it.
This is actually a good example for a problem where simulation does exceedingly help in gaining insight. I once did a webpage [1] comprising both logic and simulation to sort out a dispute. (The debating parties each had a PHD in philosophy, implying some courses in logic absolved – which apparently didn't help much with the specific problem.)

[1] https://www.masswerk.at/misc/montyhall/
In addition, optimize for dealing with those situations: secret rotation plans
> Just be honest that you've looked at it outside of work, understand it but haven't had the chance to use it professionally yet

I can confirm this is true - explained this exact thing to the place i'm working at now... also, react is just a framework. if you understand JS, then you just need to wrap your head around the way it is being used in this particular case... just build a few small sites with it and you'll be further along than a lot of other people.
I’m not convinced that they are always the most qualified to run it. I’ve seen plenty of good technologies founded by people who are terrible at executing.
* Miraculous you call it babe
You ain't seen nothing yet
They've got Pepsi in the Andes
They've got McDonalds in Tibet *

-- Roger Waters | Amused To Death | It's A Miracle | 1992
> If you've never used Visual Studio's Full IDE or Azure or the .NET framework, you're missing out on some huge productivity gains.

We recently switched from VS2017 to JetBrains Rider at $dayjob.

The productivity gains from NOT having to wait around for VS (slowest UI contender in my opinion once your project gets sufficiently complex) were off the charts.

This statement may have been true a couple years ago, but it no longer is (at least in my opinion).
Why is this getting downvoted? Current return on I-bonds is 2.52%, higher than any high-yield savings that I know of. It compounds semi-annually, tracks inflation, and there are no penalties for withdrawal. Seems perfect for an emergency fund and less hassle than a CD ladder. I'm not shilling an investment product, it's available direct from the US treasury:

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/research/indepth/ibonds...
Personally, I find that completely uninformative. Others find it helpful and I won't deny their experience, but I find that no more convincing that proper arguments about the 3 door version.

My variant was not intended to assist explaining the original, it's a variant intended to make people think again. It often exposes non-understanding in those who will blindly and automatically say "Switch".

Here's another variant. 12 doors, I let you choose 3. I then open 4, leaving your chosen 3 and 5 others.

I let you keep your original choice, or give them up to choose only one of the others. Should you switch now?
if it does not have enough mass, it will lose its atmosphere quickly. I wonder what the minimum mass and surface gravity to have a viable atmosphere is
I’m not trying to be obtuse. Some cursory searching suggests that Pichai grew up in India — which does have freedom of speech. They do have more restrictions than the US, though the US has some restrictions as well; I was familiar with the “you can’t shout fire in a crowded theater” metaphor but only recently learned that it came from a case where SCOTUS held that “Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.” My gut reaction is to find suppression of that sort of speech objectionable because it’s political.

I’m just wondering what countries you consider to be free and where you draw the line when you say one country has freedom of speech and another does not given that both have some restrictions. It seems as though you are saying that the US is free and India is not. Which side of the line do countries in Western Europe fall? Is the US alone in its freedom?
It wasn't just any woman, it was a threatening woman -- the "smartest" woman. They were so eager to prove her wrong, they didn't stop to even spend 5 minutes to brute force the problem. She seemed intuitively wrong, they couldn't even consider that the "world's smartest woman" saw something they, exalted PhDs, did not.
There's nothing inherently wrong with an opt-in coordination mechanism. It makes sense that if I trust someone to make a blacklist, I can have my node refer to that list. The problem is when an organization threatens you for "publishing" the wrong thing. That's a legal or social problem, not a technical one, and such organizations typically don't care in the slightest about how convenient it is for you to comply with their demands. If there's no blacklist mechanism, they're more than happy to demand that you shut down your node altogether.
I don't think the problem is rendering but understanding. Your brain reads a cube, as eh, a cube. If I give you this [2,4,4,6]+ and tell you rzwitserloot that is a cube in the space. You can still imagine that.

So a 4D rendering is just more information in a 2D flat screen. Your brain can't process all of this information. So it "can't see it". But it is there.

+dunno if these coordinates translates to a cube or just some 2-3D object but I hope you get the point.
> But look at the real story here: thousands of men going out of their way to write letters- not quick 5 minute emails, but paper letters with envelopes and stamps- to tell a woman she was wrong. If it had been a man writing the article, would it have gotten the same reaction? I doubt it.

My experience with the internet is that people just can't help themselves to point out when somebody is wrong - man or woman. Sometimes going as far to write what could be considered full essays complete with citations. Its just another anecdote but I don't think its at all obvious its because of gender. People just like feeling smart.
How Genetic Differences Could Make Schools Better
>Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?
> If it had been a man writing the article, would it have gotten the same reaction? I doubt it.

Based on what? I hear this only brought up in the media reaction of "men try and prove smart woman wrong!"
That's how I got to understand it when I first heard about the problem in the early 90s. (Of course, I also wrote a simulation.)

The problem itself can be rephrased in an even simpler manner where Monty doesn't open any doors at all. Once you've picked a door, he then gives you the option of either staying with that door or changing to both of the other doors (where you get to keep the best prize behind them). Given that formulation, almost everybody would switch.
Study from 45 years ago:

Heinz von Foerster’s 1970-1971 experiment at the Biological Computing Laboratory for apprehending the fourth dimension is unique ... combining four dimensional geometry, stereoscopic vision, and joystick manipulation of objects on the screen. ... The fourth dimension was chosen as the knowledge to be acquired because there was no chance that any subjects would have attempted such knowledge before the experiment. By allowing the physical “grasping” of the visual object, where one hand coordinated movement on three axes in the 3rd dimension, while the other similarly controlled three axes of movement in the 4th dimension, subjects were able to intuitively figure out that the strange succession of transforming 3D objects they were seeing (with 3D glasses) were cross-sections of a single 4D object.

http://psychedelicsandlanguage.com/dimensionality/

Disclaimer: I studied with von Foerster years ago, and he'd mentioned this. I only today found this online reference. I want those 4D Toys. Steam, here I come.
> - .NET is "multiplatform", but clearly second-class in terms of tooling and perf on non-windows platforms.

I agree, and we found this out recently the hard way.

For example, the CoreCLR does NOT build on 32-bit Linux as of now [1]. While our software has absolutely no reason to complain (and doesn't on Windows!), we can't target 32-bit Linux users.

[1]: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/9265
The results likely have lines wider than the screen. Configure your CLI access app to display table results using the "less" pager, then configure your environment variables to include the "-S" option to less. The long lines will be clipped at the screen edge (instead of wrapping) and you can scroll around horizontally and vertically (look into the less man page for how to move around inside of less).

edit: typo
It isn't intrinsically good to reduce the physical mass of landfill. Recycling is useful if it reduces the cost of manufacturing stuff plus the cost of putting trash in landfill. "Cost" means the amount of human work, minus externalities.
"This is probably not the site you are looking for" as a site title? Is that a joke? An ill-considered one, if it is.

If you are thinking of replying with your interpretation, please include information on how you know what you think you know.

Edit: It was a serious question. If it was a joke, yeah I get it, but it could also be a mid-edit draft of a site or a hack. Or maybe nobody else is seeing what I'm seeing. It may seem dense, but I'm just trying not to make assumptions. Anyone know the answer?
Follow Peter Thiel into the future: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/11/28/no-death-no-ta...
To the end user, what difference does it make?
So you're claiming that fast food is completely uncorrelated with obesity, and fast food has no effect on lifestyles.
> Unfortunately Kalholmann was a very bad choice for a champion. In fact, they decided to post Personally Identifying Information right in full view of the arbitration committee; even after being advised not to! (this behavior is at best unethical, arguably illegal, but definitely against the rules!)

Care to provide some evidence?

Worth pointing out that Philip Cross never claimed to be using a pseudonym. In fact he claimed the opposite, right on Wikipedia: stating that he wasn't using a pseudonym. He linked his Twitter account to his Wikipedia account. None of this was exposed due to sleuthing/doxxing - it was simply what he himself stated. So there was understandably a lot of confusion around posting personally identifiable information (ie. his name) when he himself claims on Wikipedia that that is what he's called and he's not operating under a pseudonym.

Also, did you see Guy/JzG's own doxxing effort? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... (he outed someone and another admin had to revision delete his outing). Curious that you don't consider that a big offense, but are happy to accuse Kal Holmann of something without providing any links.

> In practice, the ironic fact is that JzG turned out to be more effective for your cause than Kalholmann!

It's hilarious that you're still attempting to defend JzG. How can we know he was more effective? We can't see how this would have turned out had JzG not interfered. So why speculate? But there's plenty he did wrong, and faced no consequences for, which we are attempting to highlight.

> I guess I'm just surprised that you're still sticking with your old story, even despite the added clarity of 20/20 hindsight.

You've done little to bring clarity here.
Your children are going to resent the shit out of you for forcing your interest on them
Um so if I’m a great assassin, that’s ok? Or maybe I’m a really good burglar? Perhaps I’m a really good organised crime lord? It’s a lot of work to run the mafia, I really should get a good salary right?
There's actually some ambiguity here (I'm sorry, I'm a really pendantic person). What it doesn't say is that he always picks the door with the goat. What it says is that in a single trial, he picks the door with a goat. I assumed that in half the trials, he'd pick the door without a goat. I see now that was a wrong (and dumb) assumption.

This is why, rather than reading text, I think people should describe these problems with code. Unambiguous code. With test cases. Then everybody can inspect the unambiguous code rather than having to parse human text.
You can distill the disconnect down to one question.

Does Monty know where the car is? (The original article says he does, but this often gets lost in the version people read.)

Suggest Monty doesn't, and he opens door #3 to reveal a goat only because it wasn't the door you picked (and it was merely luck the car wasn't there). In that case, it is genuinely a 50/50 shot between the remaining two.

Now if Monty did know where the car was, and he wouldn't have opened door #3 if the car had been there, then the 2/3 percentage to switch is intact.

To many this seems like a minor (or incorrect) distinction but it's little assumptions (Monty knows) that underpin these gotcha questions. That's one reason why Google-style interview questions irritate me so much. In many of them, there's an implicit assumption that is necessary but never stated.

Many of the responses Marilyn got seemed to come from this form of irritation, even if some of the people writing in couldn't express a logical or justifiable basis for their irritation.

It's an interesting puzzle, but it's too easily rephrased like a con.
Oracle has cursor expressions that returns a resultset inside a cell from the parent resultset. The whole resultset could then be serialized to json, xml or whatever

I wish there was an equivalent function in PostgreSQL. I've even asked a question about that on stackoverflow:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/8637050/cursor-inside-sq...
Look at the development of chain gangs in the 1870s US and you'll see it was an explicit mechanism for restoring slave labor to the southern economy.

Specifically look up Parchman and Angola which are hardly the only instances, merely the most famous ones.
The article states:

>"This delivery will cost the owner about $20,000 (£13,000)."

I am curious why not put the light craft on a cargo ship to cross the Atlantic? How much more could it be? Or is the ferry piloting of light aircraft really steeped in tradition?

I would think that anyone buying a plane is maybe not on such a tight budget.
But you have to let them out at some point. The longer they’re in the more likely they’re going to be to commit crime when they do leave.
Can you elaborate? A lot of the reasons in the article are weak at best; such as the timing attack/off-curve attack FUD for NIST curves.

There are a handful of good things in here (I commented elsewhere with a list), but nobody should be setting ciphersuites in their ssh config.
I specifically changed my mind when one of the writers-in said they wrote a simulation and it matched what Vos Savant said.

That made me realize: code is a better way to describe problems than human text.
I thought google was pretty explicit about this when they announced AMP.
Ask HN: Know of any place to buy UI templates for SaaS websites?
I can do the backend/databases etc, but I can't make a website look nice for the life of me.

I've been looking through the usual places like themeforest etc. Something or the other is missing - for example, most have landing pages only.

Know of any HTML templates (bootstrap, plain html/CSS, foundation...whatever) that I can buy and customize? Landing page, features page, testimonials page, pricing page, forms, about page and maybe an admin page? Nothing fancy, no flashy graphics - just well written HTML/CSS, nice typography, clear navigation that can be easily customized (if it is just black and white, even better!)
I had a low hours Piper Chieftain ferried to Australia from the UK about eight years ago. Availability of Avgas was the major limiting enroute factor. I have some great pictures of the aeroplane being refueled by hand in India - not a hand pump, really by hand. They were emptying 10 litre buckets into a funnel stuck in the wing fuel tank cap.
Yep, there is no point in generating a new key if you can't get the other end to trust it. You could generate a new trusted key every time you log on (and encrypt with password), and invalidate the old key, making sure to copy it to your USB. That would roll the keys, and cause you to be locked out with that key if anyone used it. But a bit involved.

Single use login codes on paper probably the easiest way around the problem. https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/install-and...

Also, you can configure the google-authenticator TOTP module to request key and token IIRC. GA also has OTPW backup codes.