skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Audiences want something good. TNG added up to 130 hours of TV. Any team of writers and actors would become burned out after telling such an enormous quantity of stories. Die-hard fans might always clamour for more, but they're the first to complain when a franchise is milked dry.

There's a reason why "jumping the shark" is a trope. No matter how popular and compelling something might be, there's always a point of diminishing returns. Once you've trashed a franchise, it's very difficult to rebuild; If you end on a high note, you leave the audience wanting more.

Rick Berman and Brandon Tartikoff saw what was being attempted with Babylon 5 and recognised the future of television - deep, complex story arcs that span across seasons. They realised that while TNG still had some mileage left in it, they had an opportunity to use familiar elements in a new and exciting way. The results were, in my humble opinion, the absolute pinnacle of the Star Trek canon.
Ontario basic income recipients react to program cancellation
Not really. Private market valuations depend on the scarcity of funding sources.

If everybody suddenly has a chance to invest in a round, investors will compete on price, bidding up those early-stage valuations and compressing future returns.
Moral questions come up surprisingly often in product development. Especially for smaller companies looking to grow fast or things like how aggressive to get with opt-ins and other 'dark patterns'.

Online lending, for example, is a pretty tricky area. You have to subscribe to a pretty hardcore version of a capitalist moral philosophy to justify the %xxx percent interest those places charge. Especially as the 'ideal' customer isn't the one who pays you back, it's the desperate population who continually re-up their ridiculously expensive loans.
This is obvious, most personality traits are normally distributed and biologically driven
Call me crazy, but maybe the first step to reversing that trend is for the startup founders to stop seeking VC funding as their first major milestone in their development. After all, the biggest coup counted by the VC world was convincing an entire generation of entrepreneurs that their way was the only way.
Consolidating of political power through gerrymandering has way more to do with ideology.

Republicans can cater to business interests and throw a few bones at the populists and “the moral majority”.

Democrats - especially Black politicians - also like gerrymandering because while it dilutes the power of minorities in the overall federal government by putting all of thier votes in one district, it keeps the politicians that are elected by the big cities in power. (Before anyone replies about me being racist - I’m Black.)
On one of my previous jobs they asked to implement WebRTC session recording without recording indicator. I didn't do that.
Yep. The price went up a lot after Dodd Frank, too.
Predicting Titanic Survivors: My First Machine Learning Model
Did you empirically check your hypothesis?

What's the integral of r^2 dr?

Think about whether your claim makes sense when n = 1.
Aerodynamics.
I built campaign sites for the automotive industry. Always felt wrong. Was asked to pitch for a client in the petroleum industry and declined. That felt great.
The other thing that seems odd is that they jumped immediately to blaming Columbia prior to this previously unknown group claiming responsibility. I would think something like this would take a few days before blame could be properly assessed, especially if it was a state (or state supported) actor.
Those "few bad apples" caused the worst global recession since the Depression. Let's not minimize the circumstances that led to Sarbox.

Edit: This is wrong, see below.
From an accessibility point of view this can be more than an annoyance. If your video means I can't hear my screen reader, and I'm the sort of user not to plan for this inevitable sort of event, my computer is unusable until it finishes or until I recover sufficiently from being disoriented to remember the hotkeys to get out of there. So please never do this again. Thx.
From my perspective, at least you could stop going to the website if they did stuff like this, and TBH anyone's free to do whatever they want on their website. A lot of these other stories are doing things without informing customers, or using customer data illegally, and stuff like that.

It's sure not great if you want people to come back to your site, but it's not morally bankrupt.
This is what everyone does in person too. The people that go last tune out because they're preoccupied about what they'll say and the people that go first stop listening because the value of the information tends to be very low.
You mean if a website doesn't work without Javascript then it's a webapp?
You can not image how sad I was/am as someone comes out of that system and I love my nation from the bottom of my heart. I want to see my nation has a bit more awareness of fairness you mentioned. The part of Ai I criticize is mostly how he got away from those kind off trouble safely while collecting so many credits internationally. Sounds strange to outsiders, I know. I just have deeper understanding of what the consequence for many of his activities should've if that was someone else. Outsiders don't have knowledge of this. So as expected, I got many downvotes on this one. Some reporters lost their lives and were betrayed by their wives since they were the first to report some food/medicine quality issues affecting a lot of people (in some cases, the majority victims were very young kids) over the past 2 decades. They did what actually mattered in a massive scale but were not known to average outsiders. People like them are not very marketable in the outsider funding market (This is just a simple and blunt way of describing some fancy and socially high-profiled things. This can get many downvotes as well.). We know too many people like them. And Ai became an icon for outsiders in such a way. Hopefully, my rant can give you more information to know what I feel. There is nothing people can do. There is no party can/need collect the opposing force and combine them into something bigger. Cooperating is the way to go or you are forced to get funding from outsiders to fulfill their own agendas. And they do not know what Chinese think of. So once they live on outsiders' funding system. What they delivered associate little to what average Chinese can echo. Soon they are not relevant any more. It's a different system.
This could have been built in the 70s, and I think actually was by Disney in the 80s for park transportation (somewhere I recall had me at a very early age on an autonomous vehicle that ran a planned route and would stop for anything out of the ordinary and announce things.)

However, it is exactly as it should be. I applaud them for daring to be dumb and focusing on the easy parts of the problem first. I think this will catch on and get better slowly.
When the result of a decision is to kick someone out of their damned home, why the hell isn’t it someone’s job to read that family’s file cover-to-cover before pulling the trigger? That is NOT the time to rely on any auto-push-button software.
> infuriating insistence on chasing performance at the expense of developer ergonomics

It would be slightly less infuriating had that chase actually delivered, but it dramatically has not.
It's all of those things, especially when paired with many business' myopic desire to enforce arbitrary delivery deadlines, especially during the fundamental scope framing period.

Once a project has set the precedent, early, important decisions are made with an eye on the "easiest" route from A -> B, rather than decided with an eye on building a stable base to work from. This does not mean all decisions are made to build the most extensible, adaptive codebase possible--as this in itself can lead to massively complex, abstracted, and messy projects--rather to understand _why_ the project's requirements are what they are and then to select what aspects are (relatively) safe to take short-cuts in versus what absolutely must be bullet-proof and done correctly.

You rightfully wouldn't decide to build your own car without wheels, if your goal was to use it to get to places, but I'm constantly astounded by the number of commercial software projects which forgo major security items, back-end administration and monitoring tools, and end-user support resources, in an effort to "release by the end of May". You don't need to have a massively parallel, fully-enabled telemetry, and over-built redundant server farm for v1, but you should have an idea of how your v1 product will eventually become your v10 product.

Spend more time as a team thinking and collaborating on the design to reach a shared understanding of what and why you are building, and you'll find that in all but the most unique case your development is significantly faster (and with less re-work) once it begins. The people using your software will thank you for it.
That didn’t answer the question. Apple and Amazon in particular are able to be successful because they both have businesses that require a large capital outlay up front.
Certainly, but not as an active-duty officer of Starfleet. The Enterprise picked the invalid Pike up on a starbase in 'The Menagerie' for that specific story; Pike in a wheelchair suited the narrative.
Depends on jurisdiction OP operates in, but clean room reverse engineering is one technique, i.e. OP reverse engineers a piece of software, documents how it works at a high level, and hands off the documentation to legal counsel who reviews it for IP infringement etc. The doc is then handed off to a completely different team/engineer who implements the API contract documented by OP.
This fan reaction always surprises me. It strikes me as both "looking through rose glasses" and "get off my lawn". A story needs to grow. Enterprise and Discovery both kept the cute almost naive idealism of The Next Generation, but added in exciting new ways. Both of them had campy bad episodes, but that is also true of The Next Generation.
According to the author, humans need fiction to unite, and therefore persuasive fiction is far more powerful and successful than truth. So far so good.

But then the author makes one mistake after another.

First, he conflates the use of currency with fiction. Currency doesn't need fiction to function, it can be survive even if every human was completely rational and couldn't be tricked with fiction. That's because the mechanism that gives currency its value is game theoretic equilibrium / focal point.

Then he starts complaining that bad guys use fiction. Come on man, you just explained that humans are inherently wired to follow fiction, so why are you blaming people for using it?

The author also goes into political and moral arguments and starts taking sides. Given that both sides of any conflict use fiction, this seems out of place.

Finally the author encourages people to read scientific literature, without explaining how to identify the rare thoughtful writing among the tons of fiction that academics write. Academics, after all, aren't stupid, and also follow the approach of writing fiction into their papers to make their work more impressive to the outside world and more appealing to journal editors.

Overall, I'm very disappointed since the topic is important and deserves a better treatment.
That's only the case because the electorate has allowed the financial industry to purchase market failure from our politicians through deregulation and reluctance to trust-bust.

Monopolies that are too big to fail are the natural end state of laissez-faire capitalism -- but we don't have to accept that. We can insist that our government break up monopolies.
Biomedical knowledge graph-backed service: seeking collaborators
Hi HN. Please find herein a brief description of a project I've been working on and why I'm posting.

Problem space:
Improve the efficiency with which researchers / students can consume and utilise information from biomedical publications.

Background and use cases:
During my time in the biomedical industry, I have been exposed to several cases where the class of tool I'm envisaging would be productive, but have not been able to find a satisfactory solution. Some (abstract) cases:
- What are the consequences of modulating a certain biological entity?
- What biological changes could cause a certain consequence?
- What are the relational paths between process / chemical / outcome A and B, inferrable from published findings?

Solution is a system which:
- Automatically compiles relationships between biomedical concepts from publications.
- Models as a knowledge graph, allowing traversal queries to form chains of relations (inference).
- Is queryable through an interface / API, optimised for the above cases.

Status:
I have a relation extraction system that is fit for prototype (built in Python on top of SpaCy) and have experimented with knowledge graph implementation (in GraKn) and am encouraged to continue. Achieved in 3-4 months of part-time effort (relying on previous experience of "text mining" activites on scientific content).

I would like to:
- Discuss with anyone interested.
- Find potential collaborators for a proof-of-capability system demonstrate to some labs within the next 2-3 months.
- Be challenged on the thinking and made aware of related projects (if it exists, sign me up).

Desirable traits in collaborator:
- Someone to complement my skills. I.e, foremost they would have strength in front-end development / design.
- Scientific background is a plus.

Don't hestitate to hit me up for a chat and more information. Cheers!
The set of people building their own roguelike games must surely be one of the smaller subsets of humanity, but if you're in it, the r/roguelikedev subreddit is great.
Doesn’t this mean, fewer shareholders get to keep bigger profits?

Like public companies sliding the scale towards private companies to give fewer people more power and returns.
Messages are also sent between servers directly, so HN would store the full tree, if you replied to a comment your AP server would forward the message to the HN one and it would appear there.
> He specifically mentions that he is against backdoors and excludes them from the topic.

While he put backdoors in quotes, his end argument is that "differential traceability" gives just that - a backdoor that only law enforcement has access to that can be used to identify the activities of every user.

It doesn't matter who says it, or with what vocabulary used -- a backdoor is a backdoor, and I argue that tracking all netizens is going to be, as I said before, a slippery slope.

THAT BEING SAID, let me just give an example where this is not a slippery slope and we do this and all goes well and nobody does anything shady within the small "privileged" group of surveillors -- imagine this identification/"differential traceability" system gets hacked.
Well, decentralized makes the whole push thing nontrivial.

Not that I understand IM on mobile. I'd rather use email.
...available on CBS’ online subscription/original content service, CBS All Access.

Yeah, another subscription service. Sorry Jean-Luc, you've been assimilated for real this time.
NFF Likely to Run Elections September 22
Is this old XKCD [1] still true? Or have all the cell signals serving it shut down?

[1] https://xkcd.com/548/
An example is something like scheduling school classes where you’re trying to minimise clashes in the timetable.

I haven’t thought too much about how you’d solve it but you’ve got a few things to work with. There are the different classes, students, teachers and spots in the timetable. That’s a real pig to brute force but the sort of work a solver is used for.
Fortnite for Android Will Bypass Google’s Play Store
Laws and regulations are intended to create a greater good. Sometimes we have to stifle a few exceptional people for the good of everyone else.

Preventing small time retail investors from buying into high risk startups is a good thing. Unfortunately the general public has proven over and over again that they lack the financial sophistication to comprehend the difference between a scam and an investment opportunity. Remember even VCs lose money on a vast majority of deals.

The ICO mania over the last year provided an excellent reminder of why these regulations exist and why they are important.
Banks don't care about such lawsuits...after 4 years they'll settle while agreeing that lawyers take the largest slices of the pie. Cost of doing business.
The skyscraper aficionados at skyscrapercity.com
Established 1852.
Re-established in 2018.
Re-re-established in June 2018.
Re-re-re-established in August 2018.
aw3c2> Hm, then I do not understand it. "But you have been given information about the door he didn't open" was what made me comment.

aw3c2> If I chose a door before, then something happens that leads to only two doors being left, both those doors have the same probability so I could just choose the same door again.

The original said this:

CW> 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.

CW> 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.

So let's recap what's going on. There are three doors. For the sake of concreteness let's call them A, B, and C. You choose one of them. For the sake of concreteness let's suppose you choose A.

So now there are two doors, B and C, remaining unchosen by you. Currently those two doors, B and C, each have probability 1/3 of having the prize. The door you chose, door A, has probability 1/3 of holding the prize.

Now the host opens a door, taking care to open a door that does not hold the prize. So the pair {B,C} still has total probability of holding the prize, but you are being shown that one of them certainly does not. This doesn't affect the probability that your chosen door, door A, holds the prize -- the probability that the prize is behind door A is still 1/3.

The pair {B,C} still has total probability 2/3 of holding the prize. You're now given the choice of staying with A, or switching.

Quoting you again, you said:

aw3c2> something happens that leads to only two doors being left, both those doors have the same probability ...

That turns out not to be the case. Just because there are two doors they don't have to have equal probability of holding the prize, and in this case they don't. The probability that your door holds the prize has not changed and is still 1/3. The probability that the door neither chosen by you nor opened by the host holds the prize is now 2/3.

Does that help?
This has always been Star Trek's dichotomy. Many ships called Enterprise have been blown up (in a permanent, non-time travel magic way), and it happened in the movies.

The movies are action. The series are where the characters and universe are built.
A Dynamic Programming Tutorial
Honestly those ‘features’ of trains have all been achieveable on pneumatic tires for decades. The advantages of trains are all limitations actually. On the other hand, limitations are good from a design perspective, improves focus and prevents feature bloat.
Orville is clearly made by someone who loves star trek. It's a comedy but it has good stories that could have been TNG episodes.
Your superiors thought this was a good thing? Funny how people do t realize that makes your product insta-toxic. Or am I naive?
Overall this should t be a huge surprise. What’s shrinking is the # of public companies, not the combined market cap of public companies.

If you make it harder to be a public company (Sarbanes-Oxley) then you have fewer of them, and the benefits to being public accrue to fewer firms. This is an unintended consequence of a well meaning attempt to root out fraud. (Similar to rent controls having the unintended consequence of reducing the housing stock)

I don’t buy the “Woe into us who can’t invest in Uber and Theranos” argument. The amount of venture backed companies waiting to go public pales in comparison to the total market size. In addition, value stocks overpeform growth stocks over long time horizons.
The best niche communities on the internet would get worse if attention was drawn to them. They're good because they're hard to find and membership is self selecting and/or invite-only. This is true, as far as I can tell, for communities on nearly any topic/subject matter.
Julia is usually ran with LLVM -O3. Is LLVM just missing that optimization then? This sounds like something the optimizer wouldn't due without fastmath flags enabled.
I present security research in big conferences. This means that I find a serious security threat that affects many systems, and then I do not say anything to anyone for 6 months so that, when I do, I can get more publicity.
To be honest I think it's great news. I would much rather trust Cloudflare to handle my (encrypted) DNS than my ISP. I'm based in the U.K and there are very few ISPs that have private DNS - you often hear stories of (U.K) ISPs selling data out the backdoor to comply with things like the Investigatory Powers Act[1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investigatory_Powers_Act_2016

But besides Mozilla's efforts, I am careful not to browse anything political using a vanilla ISP. Anything sensitive is browsed with Tor for anonymity. I only use a VPN for routing traffic over hostile networks like public wifi hotspots / Starbucks wifi. A VPN is not inherently private but a VPN does have its uses, like for viewing geo-locked content (Like the 'This video is unavailable in your country' scenario).

Also for further research if you want to know more about 'trusted' Internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4UXnZaunJQ
Losing money makes you a loser, gaining money is normal, so beyond the actual event, there are identity things at play. In their terms, spending more on a product or less, is not actually touching that identity, because both are just being a spender. I agree about the consequences part: losing equals no roof vs winning equals extra vacation. I think the rest is about the identity that comes with losing.
It's like a graveyard of problems.
It’s hard to imagine that Sarbanes-Oxley alone is a reason why a company wouldn’t go public. You just throw a bit of money and time at lawyers...
It’s quieted down a lot in the last few weeks, but I set up https://hackerforums.co to compliment this site for longer running/traditional bulletin board style forum conversations.
First project sounds like Coinbase.
Perhaps it is determined by the fact senses are bound to body and body is limitary. Our 2d vision could grasp entire Flatland (if it fitted into single view), but sight of similarly finite Flatland inhabitant could grasp just his immediate surroundings, i.e. the sum of closest opaque objects in his 1D sight.
The “beautiful mess” effect
You don't have to put down one concern in order to draw attention to another. Commercial and government surveillance are both serious problems.
Thank you for sharing. This is why I never sign up for any fintech services. The amount of data I hand over is never worth the "benefits" they provide.