skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I haven't played this game and don't intend to, since it seems dumb to me.
But that's like asking, "Does the board game prohibit intentional cheating or just cheating?"

The English rules are here: http://middys.nsv.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TheMind_GB.p...

There is no ambiguity. Don't share information. Worse, your line of thinking is not in the spirit of the game, ambiguous or not.
it's barely piracy when you are pirating publicly-funded material that should be free in the first place.
Hypothesis: the set of people who want to see loss aversion refuted intersection (sic) heavily with the set of people who want to raise taxes
How do you avoid downtime? Gmail is not going to go down out of the blue, but my own server could easily do that when my internet randomly goes out.
It's not just autism, a whole range of disorders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paternal_age_effect
Had the same problem on another site. Are you using firefox on linux? In Chromium it works.
I enjoy the Google interface and spam filtering, but don't want to be dependent on them. So I've been transitioning to a new address on my own domain, and just auto-forward the mail from my server to gmail and reply from there (using my domain). I also download my mail via IMAP monthly so I'll have a backup in case I ever lose access.

There's also a fringe benefit: I can run spam assassin on the server, set to filter out only the spammiest of spam. That cuts the quantity in gmail's spam folder down to a level I can manageably look through on occasion for false positives.
Your question is certainly interesting in an epistemological sense, in a way it is the basis of relativism.

Having read Larry Laudan recently however, I'm a big fan of his pragmatism which trumps the question a bit: just use whatever works.

In this case, we don't all need to be aware of loss aversion, and really I suspect barely anyone was using it in a practical sense. A pragmatist might say that it was only ever a theory, and this is why it thrived in largely theoretical exercises (or in the case of economics, in a context where the tangible consequences were extremely far removed from the application of the theory). But to me loss aversion still seems like an observation after the fact, though I did believe it at the time, which are the worst kind of observations ;)

In short, from where I stand there is no such thing as "correctness", only what has been successfully applied and in what context, or temporary applicability if you will. Any further interpretation is usually a case of extrapolating knowledge from a vastly incomplete picture. Being a psychology student, I look at its early history as a tragic example of why this is counterproductive. Some habits are hard to break though.
> filtering incoming spam/malware/philishing attempts

Is there not just an open-source pre-trained spam-filtering model (using whatever is the state of the art for these—guessing classical Bayesian filtering on word-tokens is no longer at all what Gmail is doing)? It’d be a nice complement to the open RBLs, no?
> This thinking is slowly beginning to change

it has been "beginning to change" for 20 years now. The fundamentals of how prestige/significance is allocated have not changed however, apart from the fact that there are a few reputable open access publishers like elife.
2018 US China Blockchain and Digital Currency Conference Announced
I would guess it makes it harder to recognize for website scraping if your email is left online somewhere.
I'd like to use it, could you guys add a license to this thing?
I strongly encourage everyone who wants to have some modicum of control over things, register your own domain and control the authoritative nameservers for it. It's fine to have route53 as an authoritative slave if you want. This lets you point the MX to another service provider rather quickly, such as in an instance where something has gone terribly wrong with your Google mail services.
There would be another guy like him then. This is a market for this kind of person. And I wish my opinions matter. LOL. Thanks for asking.
I don't think 78 is a temperature that only a vocal minority is uncomfortable at? It's not hard for people to start sweating at that temperature with even mild effort and most people don't like having sweat stains or sweaty armpits at work
I'm guessing people just ignored it because he was in Insert mode the whole time.
"I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
the km/h vs m/s argument is close to pedantic, as this is just a convenient scale of SI. but you're right on Kelvins.
It's hard to keep it updated when you don't regularly use a desktop client and also don't want someone stealing your laptop to get a copy of all your emails.
> Algo VPN runs on any Ubuntu server, but the easiest way to host your server is to create an account on DigitalOcean.

Advertorial?
I'm picking through the author's paper and I don't buy this conclusion. I have a bone to pick with his evidence: for example, he makes a comparison between "willingness to expend time to drive to obtain an accidentally left behind unused, new-condition notebook (vs. willingness to expend driving
time to obtain a new notebook at no financial cost)". The extent of the former he denotes as WTP-Retain and the latter WTP-Obtain. Even if these two values are equal in a study, that doesn't contradict the principle of loss aversion. In the case where a subject has already left behind his/her notebook, the loss has already happened. How can this measure loss aversion when the loss has already occurred? I think it's good the authors are trying to tease apart action vs inaction from loss/gain but these conclusions don't seem valid to me.
I've said this before, but:

It's not really useful to make this type of comment. The sneering at, say, European "so-called heat waves" where temperatures are comparable to an average summer day in many parts of the US fails to take into account that sustained temperatures at those levels, in places unaccustomed to them, can indeed easily be fatal, and do not represent a failure of the residents to adapt. Rather, they occur because the residents have adapted -- to the recent-historical climate of their region!

In Europe, one big killer is buildings which were designed on the assumption that, even after a rare hot day, things would cool off significantly at night and buildings could shed heat. Sustained higher-than-planned temperatures take away that ability to shed heat overnight, so instead buildings retain heat, and keep getting blasted each day, and that is when people start dying.

Even here in the US you can see this. I live in the SF Bay area, in an un-air-conditioned building. Most of the time, I don't need A/C, because I'm in an east-facing apartment that can cool off through the afternoon once the sun's no longer coming directly in, especially with windows open and a bit of breeze, and then become downright chilly at night. But sometimes we now get sustained high temperatures for days on end, and when that happens people really do start dying here (and I turn on a portable A/C unit, leave it running 24 hours, and even sleep on the couch to be in front of it at night).
Patience: The Radical New Business Model
Well, you also need backups with a "cloud" solution, so that's no difference.

As for monitoring: If you only run it for yourself or a small org, really, you can do just fine without monitoring. If the mail access side breaks, you'll notice, if the inbound side breaks, you'll probably also notice soon enough. But then, setting up a minimal monit that tells you when storage runs low or the MX is down really isn't that difficult either.

So, no, it's not a big project. It's as much of a big project as owning a car, probably less so, if you consider the amount of effort/time required (assuming you have an IT background, obviously).
It's been known since the 20's that some of the stones came from Wales, (although the the view on which quarry has recently been revised [1]), so it shouldn't really come as a huge surprise that some of the people involved in the mind boggling task of transporting them should also have originated there.

As for why, or how -- that remains a mystery.

[1] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1215/071215-stonehen...
> If you editor has a correct git support, you never need to do git status because it will show you which files had been edited since the last commit.

I prefer sticking to the Unix way. An editor is an editor. Why should it support git specifically? Git is only tangentially related to file editing, so it doesn't really make sense for an editor to know anything specifically about it.

> Every time I hear people saying how much they prefer the git command line is because they never seriously tried to leverage the git features of their IDE.

But I am! The whole OS is my IDE.

Seriously though, I've done fugitive in vim and magit in emacs. After some time of using them almost exclusively, I've decided it's better to use the shell. It's not because I haven't tried more "integrated" ways of programming, but because I find that the flexibility/power that comes with treating every feature of an IDE as a separate program in an OS environment is better.

EDIT: Added more comments.
Interesting how their review omits the paper that has conducted the most direct test of loss aversion:

https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.1070.071...

Also they claim the body of evidence doesn’t find support for loss aversion. But a meta analysis on the topic does in fact find support for loss aversion (albeit the magnitude is probably smaller than originally thought):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3189088
The real problem was that the shell got slower over time. If that was fixed, the choice of Wayland vs. X wouldn't bother me.
Redux Lifecycle – Pure and Synchronous
Whether my example was stated explicitly in the article is irrelevant.

What's important is the primary motive behind an action.

In fact, strategy in military, business and soccer is divided into two - offensive and defensive.

Offensive strategies are primarily motivated by gain. Defensive - by turf protection, prevent loss of market, or prevent a goal.

Both strategies use similar, virtually the same tools. And like loss aversion the difference is simply motive.

If China learns that Iceland is planning an attack on them and decides to attack first, it's a defensive strategy.

Again, the key is motive. It doesn't matter what the action is, what matters is why it's done.

If I kill someone for the heck of it (gain), it's called murder. If instead, it's to protect myself (loss aversion) it's called self defense.

Limiting loss aversion to just financial behavior is a myopic view of the subject.
Yes. At the moment, voice interfaces are a novelty and it makes sense that we're assuming they will use the language we use. But I wonder if that will continue?

Given one of the problems with voice interfaces is false triggering between humans and machines and humans and humans ("You want to know what?" "No, I was just talking to Alexa!" "Sorry, I can't find any results for that.") I wonder if in the far future we will have worked out a "machine language" partly for this reason.

It might be a bit like radio procedure words mixed with "machine syntax". So rather than "Alexa, give me a list of the top ten companies by market capitalisation", or "Alexa, who was the director of the Poseidon Adventure?" you'd say "Chip list market capitalisation companies ten" or "Chip, director Poseidon Adventure", where "Chip" is the universal signal for invoking voice commands (followed optionally by the name of the device you're addressing) and the grammar of the query is ordered from general to specific. This would minimise linguistic ambiguities and allows accurate but imprecise answers if necessary (eg if the machine can't order by market cap). It might also be sufficiently different for humans in earshot to screen it out. There might be specialised words too, similar the Bash and the unix utilities you mentio (eg for recalling queries and modifying them, stealth mode invocation, even piping perhaps).
I didn't mean DMCA only. Rather general dealing with law enforcement in general.

But even with just DMCA to be a safe harbour you need to: have a service policy, show it to the users, have the possibility to prevent access for identified violations, and effectively keep some kind of connection record to be able to identify which users you need to terminate. I doubt anyone fulfills that at home. (I don't think shops and cafes do either)
Confused, does AWS Glacier cost $20K/TB or something? How do you get charged that much just after one night of unchecked uploading?
Why would that significantly increase risk?
> Of course, open sourcing software was never about charity - but I do think that it was always a community thing, and big companies choosing to be a part of that community are neither selfish or selfless for simply participating.

Strongly agree. And to be clear, I didn't use the term "selfish" as a pejorative - I think its pretty reasonable to expect any entity to analyze how a decision will directly benefit them and to act accordingly.
This is why I advocate against aliases. History is universal, more powerful and needs zero configuration. ^r and few keys takes me to any command part of my daily repertoire. It really shines as the commands get more and more verbose.

^rstat -> git status

^rcomm -> git commit

^rkout -> git checkout -d foo

^redit -> git commit --amend --no-edit

^rdeco -> git commit --oneline --decorate
Ah. Found the Finn.
Large enough to ignore a better option. If the US were a small country this would not be a problem.

The same happens with voltages, what side of the road you drive on and the use of imperial for building materials as well as telco standards.

Island nations and very large territories are the ones that exhibit these properties because they can.

What is worse is that as soon as the US invades some territory they push their standards.

The funny thing is that the military usually gets it right because they only care about two things: accuracy and efficiency, there is no consideration for costs to switch or legal hassles, they just choose what works best.
The more interesting question in that case, is why play it at all, if you're going to take all the life out of it only you demonstrate a hollow win.
Why would they give customer service to you? You’re not their customer, unless you bought ads from them.
Fahrenheit was invented first in 1724. The United States started using Fahrenheit. Celsius was proposed in 1742. Celsius was selected by the Metre Convention in 1875 as the international standard (mostly because France was already using it). Everyone else except the United States and Liberia has slowly switched to the international/scientific standard (now known as SI) because having multiple standards is an ongoing cost but switching standards is a one-time cost.

The United States is sentimentally attached to its pre-SI units more than they care about international inter-operability – so they continue to endure the ongoing cost of juggling a separate system of units while also using SI units in most science and some engineering work.
That is the point. Currently lots of research is taxpayer funded, and then published in closed journals where the people who paid to create it have to pay to read it. Elsevier are the only winner.

Taxpayer funded research should be open access, and this could be stipulated in the grant itself.
And the computers and displays aren’t helping - they’re little space heaters
A DOI is a bit different than a standard identifier such as a ISBN in that there are multiple 'registries'[0], and they need to be paid for
(it is as good as it gets for persistence aspirations these days)

[0]https://www.doi.org/RA_Coverage.html
For what it's worth, the concept of land ownership is a pretty fluid concept in all countries. USA for example, has the concept of Eminent domain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#United_States):

> In federal law, Congress may take private property directly (without recourse to the courts) by passing an Act transferring title of the subject property directly to the government. In such cases, the property owner seeking compensation must sue the United States for compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The legislature may also delegate the power to private entities like public utilities or railroads, and even to individuals.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently deferred to the right of states to make their own determinations of "public use".
Yes. Germany is incredibly cheap that way, claiming it's "not worth it due to short summers". Doesn't matter. If you need it only 2-3 months a year, that's still a NEED right there. Especially during 38C days.
Not sure where you get that idea. I lived in Seattle for 3.5 years. When I was a software developer there I never encountered literally any of what you said beyond whiteboards and a lot of glass. (Literally surrounded by glass since I worked on the 13th floor of UW Tower)

Your reaction is over the top.
What is this? Do you actually think you are tougher than nature? The sun? Can someone sane explain this comment to me?
> lessons learned wrt crypto agility (tl;dr: don't)"

This definitely doesn't qualify as a lesson learned. It's maybe, maybe, best current practice, if you squint.

We've even seen in other threads the WireGuard author arguing that oh, well, if there's a problem with say key exchange (it has a "conventional" elliptic curve key exchange and so an adversary with a big Quantum Computer definitely breaks that) then you can still rescue with PSKs. And as well as not addressing problems in any other primitive that doesn't stand up to a laugh test. If PSKs were fine you would already use PSKs and not have all this complicated public key dance at all.

In reality if there's any problem you have to throw WireGuard itself away. So the hope is maybe all these primitives are fine. And that hope will seem 100% on the money right up until it isn't. We will see then, I think, valuable character information about its designers and key proponents, in light of how they react to that particular lesson, for example in helping people migrate off their now fatally damaged baby.

The lesson learned wasn't "don't" it was that "more is always better" is wrong, we didn't need fifteen mediocre symmetric block ciphers without much cryptanalytic research behind them in TLS. But zero agility _definitely_ hasn't proven itself to be the right choice here either, it's just less work to implement.
The loss aversion is almost trivially explained by the marginal value theorem. The subjective value of money is around log(money), that is, a meaningful change takes an extra 0 in the paycheck or in the price tag.

So, if you have $200, getting $100 one thing, losing $100 is way worse, since log(200)=2.30, log(200)-log(100)=0.3, log(300)-log(200)=0.18. A potential loss of $100 must be rewarded by a gain of $200 to "feel" worthwhile if you already have $200, since log(400)-log(200)=log(200)-log(100).
I present you SpaceX as an amazing counterexample to "agile don't work for things that explode".

I would much rather sit in a rocket that has blown up a 100 times on the launch pad but launched succesfully a thousand times more with each time being an opportunity to improve it, than one that has been engineered with waterfall and never flown...

https://spacenews.com/pentagon-advisory-panel-dod-could-take...
Could you explain where that magical unauthorized access to my systems should be coming from?

Really, you sound more like someone who has read some FUD marketing material than someone who knows how to write an exploit or has any other serious IT security expertise. I am pretty sure I never had any unauthorized access to my mail server in the last ~ 20 years that I've been doing this. Obviously, my system isn't immnune from exploitation, but neither are Protonmail's, and you are massively exaggerating the risk.
There's irony in a site that claims to be about "ethics" using a URL shortener to hide affiliate links.
Interesting study hint by the author (Robert Plantz) . I have never thought of it this way , but it probably makes sense:

> " Do not copy and paste code. We all copy code, and we all like to see our programs work. Copy and paste is the fastest way to do that. But if you type in the program, even if you are copying it, you are forced to read every single character. This is the fastest way to learn the programming language. As you know, getting a single character wrong can mean the difference between a working and non-working program. "
That would be illegal most places. Bedrooms have to have an opening window, lest people be trapped in a fire.
Fahrenheit is great for measuring weather.

0 is roughly the temperature on the coldest series of days in most of the continental United States and Europe, and 100 is roughly the hottest.

Celsius is great for measuring water while cooking. 0 is freezing (at sea level, assuming a normal room temperature) and 100 is boiling (again, with caveats).

The metric system has everything evolving around a cubic meter of water, so Celsius is easy to grok, and feels logical.

But, having lived in the U.S. and Europe roughly an equal amount of time, Fahrenheit is much much more accurate to estimate outdoor temperature with.

And as it turns out, that's what most people are doing.

Cute asides: The meter is based on a miscalculation of the distance between the equator and North pole. The SI couldn't find anything absolute that actually matched their arbitrary size, so made it dependant on a bar in the SI building, and then realized the bar is changing sizes with time! (This is finally being rectified with some atomic measure.)

On the other hand, my sixth grade teacher taught us that 0 is the freezing point of beer, and 100 is the body temperature of a cow. So, the theory is that some drunk scientists thought a cow had fever..
So I guess this is what gentrification looks like in China. Wow.
I'm a big proponent of SI in general, and in scientific settings Celsius or Kelvin makes perfect sense; Fahrenheit wins in daily life, however. With a given degree representing a smaller change, you're able to much more accurately guesstimate and round the figures. It also more easily maps onto behavior/feeling. 0 degrees Fahrenheit? Cold as hell. 100 degrees Fahrenheit? Hot as hell. 0 degrees Celsius? Pretty cold. 100 degrees Celsius? Death.
Indeed, I've used randn() wherever a normally distributed random number is needed. This is computed using the Box-Muller method.
This is a bit on an exaggeration, it's not pleasant but it takes time and effort to overheat. At 80% perspiration and evaporation are still working so keep damp.

If you have access to a steam room at a gym you can experience a likely higher temperature depending on the room's thermometer (pour some cold water on it :)) and full condensation for yourself.

The primary issue with extreme humidity on top of extreme heat is that perspiration can become nearly ineffective. High heat, lower humidity isn't that bad provided you have enough fluids to stay hydrated.
So guests coming to your home would need to first download certificates in order to be able to trust your network. But they would then need to trust that certificate not to be used to MITM their own EAP servers... This doesn’t sound very user friendly. Am I missing something?
> The successful phase out of CFCs, despite the fact that no comparable refrigerents were available at the time, shows that political solutions can work, even in the face of adverse economics.

It actually shows exactly the opposite: That it only works when technological solutions exist. If there had been no effective replacement for CFC's, we'd still be using them now.
Platform to teach coding in developing/low resourced countries?
A platform to teach coding skills in developing countries - Lower middle income people in India for example, and then hooking them up with freelancing gigs?