skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is a mistake in your step 3, as it relies on an informal and imprecise "division is the inverse of multiplication". If you were to write that formally, you'd get `∀ x ≠ 0 . x(1/x) = 1`. This holds unchanged even if you define division by zero.

Even if you could come up with another formalization that does cause a problem, e.g. `∀ x ∈ dom(1/t) . x(1/x) = 1` (and I would say that this is the only formalization that causes an issue, and it requires the use of a language with a dom operator, something that is absolutely not required for theories of fields), it won't matter because the question is not whether one could come up with a formalization that leads to contradiction, but whether there are reasonable formalizations of fields where this does not happen, and there are (in fact, most of them satisfy this, as they do not rely on a dom operator).

In addition, it is not true that "by the field axioms, division does not exist if there is no multiplicative inverse with which to multiply." It's just that the field axioms do not define what the meaning of division is in that case. Defining it, however, does not lead to contradiction with the axioms, at least not a contradiction you've point out. In fact, most common languages of mathematics cannot even explicitly express the statement "x is not in the domain of f." All they can do is define f(x) for values of x in the domain, and not define f(x) for values outside it. The "exist" in your statement does not refer to ordinary mathematical existence (usually formally expressed with the existential quantifier) but to an informal notion of definedness (discussed by Feferman) that has no formal counterpart in most formal systems, because it is very rarely needed; it is certainly not needed to state the field axioms.
Holy moly! The irony is private gun ownership is illegal but all/most of the criminals have them. Two people on a motorcycle is an implicit threat of robbery, kidnapping, murder, etc.

Also, it's sad that ASP videos coming from Brazil involving off-duty police is it's own meme.

Maybe it's not gun ownership or not, but the quantity of firearms in private hands, massive income inequality and essentially a failed state... conditions, ability, motive and opportunity.
In order for that to work well, I have a hunch that they would need to do some very dirty tricks with register renaming, and add a 80-bit ("long double") mode to the SSE hardware, and I suspect that's why they are not as fast as eachother (whether that's as a result of fully separate implementation, or very conservative microcode [possibly involving fencing and swapping registers, emulation of arithmetic quirks of x87]) in practice.

Though, disclaimer: I am not even really an amateur at this level of analysis, so take what I've said with its very own salt lick.
Microglia: A Biologically Plausible Basis for Back-Propagation (2016)
If you mean this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17737661, then it contains a mistake, which I pointed out in a reply.

The references you linked to are irrelevant as they refer to informal mathematics. Of course you can't meaningfully divide by zero (in the sense that the value of division corresponds with our intuitive understanding of what division is). But when it comes to formalization you must assign some meaning to 1/0 or work out a complex system where it becomes ill-formed (i.e. a "syntax error"). The only question is whether that meaning -- that must exist in formal mathematics even though it should not in informal mathematics -- causes an actual contradiction or not, even though it doesn't "make (an informal) sense" either way.
We changed the title from "Housing hit unexpected slowdown Shares of Redfin drop 20%".

Submitters: please don't rewrite titles like that. If an article title is neither misleading nor linkbait, the site guidelines ask you not to change it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Aircraft mechanics go to technical school. If you're maintaining something it's technical. Developing something it's engineering even if it's the same basic highway bridge and their are 10,000 that look the same you need to figure out what works for this area.
I guess there’s no such thing as too many static site generators...
They're true statements about the mathematical system. They might have no relevance to reality.
| I don't trust anything Google builds anymore, they've thrown so many projects under the bus that I'm not willing to invest in anything they build.

Google's a huge company that makes a huge number of things. Of course you're going to hear about canceled projects, but there are far more that aren't canceled. But trust what you will, I can't really argue for or against that.

| But also JSX gives me an icky feeling, I'd rather use standards compliant code everywhere

lit-html is standard JavaScript. It uses tagged template literals for markup rather than non-standard syntax. But because template are expressions, they're structurally very similar to JSX expressions, and there's basically a 1-1 relationship between JSX forms and lit-html. So if you like the power and flexibility of JSX, but not the non-standard syntax.

I only suggested LitElement because of your desire for something like Vue but in pure ES6 modules and without a compiler. Since Vue is heavily inspired by Web Components, and LitElement meets your other requirements, I thought you might find it interesting.
Wonderschool – Andreessen Horowitz
Agreed. Both really.
I've actually gotten to visit the Vasa museum, and although it sounds a bit strange, it was totally worth it. Totally recommend it if you're ever in Stockholm.
China is detaining a million Uighur muslims in a secret camp
Vkvg: Vulkan vector drawing, trying to stay close to Cairo API
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152477
This study was cited in Seligman's book, "Learned Optimism", as a counterexample.
I don't know if this is really HN fodder or not, but I noticed it immediately after the announcement that Google is now moving into China and complying with everything.
I'm not speculating about this: I and thousands of daily commuters have noticed that driving a car on the Hollywood freeway in rush hour does not feel like an experience of freedom.

At least some of those commuters find the Metro red line to downtown, which runs on a fairly reliable schedule, arrives more quickly and does feel like an experience of freedom, by comparison.

Another non speculative observation: at least some Americans who move to NYC find that selling their car is a liberating experience.

Also, not having a car, is, in some ways a way to gain some freedom: insurance and maintenance burdens decrease, time and effort to park the vehicle are eliminated, etc
Maybe I chose poor words. Ancestral meaning “where my mother/father and grandparents, nieces, nefews etc live.

I come from a city in England called Coventry. Family ties are what keep most of the population in place- perhaps “familial” is a better word.

The idea of not being able to live close to family is distressing to many of my fellow city dwellers.

You can argue the semantics of how valuable such a thing is. You can even argue that the entire family unit should probably move somewhere cheaper, or that commuting to see your mum isn’t all that bad. But honestly; it would take a lot for me to revisit the idea that I am not able to live amongst my family. Even if I personally did not choose to.
Because then it would no longer comply with the x87 specification.
This made me laugh. Maybe I'm missing something; I don't understand the downvotes.
1/x as x -> 0 is a famously tricky expression because your statement that it "obviously increases exponentially as x approaches zero" is only true half the time, because it's only true if you approach zero from the positive side, with x being set to smaller and smaller positive values. If, on the other hand, you set x to negative values of smaller and smaller size, 1/x actually decreases toward -Infinity. This is one of the several reasons that 1/x is typically considered undefined for the Reals.
If 'free' is the problem then just legalise/decriminalise it, and sell it at a pharmacies like any other drug. The retail cost of heroin would be pretty low if legalised (around the cost of alcohol or tobacco?), so you can still solve the problem without subsidising the costs.
Exactly. Both fields have so much they can learn from each other. I'm really glad that I ended up doing a STEM major with a humanities minor (almost double major, but class fell through final semester). It taught me a lot and I'd say I definitely learned more useful skills in my humanities courses, working as a teacher now (of a STEM subject). There's just so much STEM fields can't teach, like how to interact with and understand other people; it's just not something that can be boiled down to a science.
The point of create-react-app is to get up and running quickly. When you start wanting to customize things it doesn't really make much sense to use it at that point. That's why it's a mess.
> The problem this and the other replies miss is that the standard definition of division is multiplication by the inverse.

Try to state this definition formally. The statement: ∀ x,y . x/y = xy⁻¹ is not a theorem of fields or a definition of division. However, ∀ x, y . y ≠ 0 ⇒ x/y = xy⁻¹ is, but is completely unaffected by defining division at 0. Those who think they see a problem rely on informal and imprecise definitions. Could you formally state a theorem that is affected? That would help you get around issues that are merely artifacts of imprecision.

But let's entertain you, and state that what we really mean by the informal and vague statement, "division is the inverse of multiplication," could be stated formally as:

∀ x ∈ dom(1/t). x(1/x) = 1

You are absolutely correct that this equational theorem is broken by extending the domain of division. However, there is absolutely no way to say that the formalization of this theorem isn't actually

∀ x ≠ 0 . x(1/x) = 1

because the two are equivalent. You cannot then claim that something is necessarily broken if you choose to pick a formalization that is indeed broken, while an equivalent formalization exists, that is not broken (not to mention that the formalization that is broken requires a strictly richer language). All that means is that your formalization in this case is brittle, not that laws are broken.
F# runs fine on Linux, and it compatible with dotnet core,
and have a very good emacs mode

If you have more questions on F# i recommend the community forum http://forums.fsharp.org/

I am not an expert, yet, but F# is missing several of the more sophisticated OCaml features, but on the positive side, you have the .net core ecosystem
<deleted>

Thought of another reason besides below comment why I was wrong, but thanks goes to below comment too!
That’s progress‍️
If you write a working program in BASH, it will probably work until the day you die. That's why I use BASH for any script I want to be able to forget about.

Even long scripts, I have written multi thousand line programs in BASH separated into different modules.

Some of this could be helpful, but the non standard syntax kind of defeats the purpose.
This basically implies that Musk's "funding secured" tweet was a lie. He's going to get roasted by the SEC.
Hence the question: Why is it considered good UX to make your readers switch context to do a google search and then return to reading the article?
What happens for 0 / 0? Is this also 0?
"everything in the US is "made in china""

I think people get a distorted picture of that as an artifact of labeling rules. The US exports a lot of industrial equipment, for instance. Most of the economy does not involve the final step of constructing consumer products that leads to the label "made in..." on the shelf of Wal-Mart.
At my university, the default is actually a licensing agreement.
I was under the impression that xfs was the default file system on recent versions of Redhat / Centos that's got to be a large share of the corporate Linux market.
A million.

We had a few migrants in much nicer camps than this and there was moral outrage.
Google going in to China doesn't change anything in China itself. They will only be allowed back in under CCP-imposed terms. So I disagree that this is bad from that PoV.

The PoV where this does become bad is where we might see an influence in other markets seeing this capitulation by Google and then also requiring censorship in their terms. And not necessarily the Irans or NKs of the world, but the likes of India, Brazil, etc. who might see value in requiring some censorship.
The entire (expressly stared) reason to make mortgage interest deductable was to encourage more home ownership.

You may disagree that that’s a desirable policy goal (and I might agree with you), but comparing it to some other payment that isn’t deductable misses the point entirely. Especially rent. Congress wanted to create an economic dis-incentive to being a renter and push people to own the homes they live in.
> "see nothing in the article about the negative consequences of surprising users with silent failure, for example."

That's because the article is purely about the mathematical consistency of using 1 / 0 = 0. It explicitly and repeatedly mentions that it's not about real-world logistics.

> "What do you mean by objecting to you defining a function?"

The author is defining the division function with this special mapping, f, which includes 0 in the domain. Damn near everyone in this thread is confusing that definition with defining the multiplicative inverse, 0⁻.

It's an understandable confusion, but also honestly getting pretty frustrating. That's what he or she is getting at.
Extensive discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17734840
You better make sure that you personally discover the next important crypto technology then!
You have an deal to make with each other, and then some work/money to do/spend to make it legal.
I would encourage you not to engage a lawyer until the two,of,you have informally agreed, including via an exchange of emails, on the deal. You do not want to pay lawyers to negotiate the overarching deal.

Understand what you need to have to continue. Would you walk away at 50/50? How about at 60/40? What’s the highest percentage share that you are willing to let your co-founder have?

Understand how you value the business. Would you sell your share to your co-founder for $1? $10,000? $100,000? $1m? Similarly would you buy your co-founder our for any of those prices?

Understand how it might work going forward - while the technical work may be done, the hard bit now is getting sales traction. Isn’t this when the other founder starts adding her/his value?

And vice versa - the co-founder needs to understand all this too. And then have a coffee and work it out. Be generous to each other, and if there is no overlap then one person needs to buy out the other.
Helps you migrate from monolithic Ruby to services
I've used this workaround in genetic algorithms, as has John Koza, the pioneer of the field.

The idea behind this is you're never going to get the computer to program itself with exceptions, so better not to let it produce code it will not be able to execute fully without human intervention.
Is a Twitter Account an Employer’s Trade Secret? Yes, Says Media Company
That was discussed on HN a lot a few days ago - here's the main discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17660872
My university, in contrast, is pushing industry engagement like this pretty hard. I happen to disagree with that approach, but it is a thing.

There is sort of a continuum between consulting and a research contract, admittedly, but I'll also note that I have government grants with deliverables. All it really means is that there's potentially interim products that need to be delivered, or that there's things that are less vague than papers and presentations that the agency/sponsor wants to see.
European Electronic Communications Code – Developing the Future of IoT in the EU
Is anything made outside China? Well, does anyone remember the flooding in Thailand that caused a shortage of hard drives in 2011?
I completely agree. I'm a teacher in a STEM field who graduated with a STEM degree and a humanities minor. I've honestly found my humanities minor to be much more beneficial when dealing with students, and I wish we could convince them to interact with the humanities more in secondary school, as I think it would do them a load of good. Just like I think it would do everyone good.

Though, of course, that's not to say we can't incorporate STEM aspects into humanities courses as well. I'm certain there's new ways to analyze things that opens up with computers, and everyone should be scientifically literate (and mathematically literate, but that might be the math teacher coming out in me)
How many properties at a time can you flip with just cash? You also need to consider the cost of renovating the property, even professional builders need financing for those kinds of things. I guess you could do it out of pocket if the scale was small enough.
Meh... even in super hot markets like Vancouver, foreign purchases were 10% of transactions. And a lot of it was in the very expensive houses. It’s locals who are driving most of the price appreciations (and flippers).
As there should be.
The point of being a big company, not the point of running a research center.
Yeah, but you're likely at least somewhat familiar with cybersecurity. I'm less certain that's true for management at Caesar's Palace or the LVMPD.

For the record, I also understood the context of the word attack in this tweet, but I would guess we're in the minority.
3D integration of nanotechnologies for computing and data storage on single chip
Yes, exactly. I find this a major annoyance of HN, and wish it would be improved.
A Christian church in China was demolished by government not long ago for similar bureaucratic reasons as this mosque. This may not be a case of anti-Muslim discrimination as more general anti-religious discrimination. (Or anti-religious group not blessed by the party).

Which is not to say there isn't lots of anti-Muslim/anti-Uighur repression in China.
> Selling something that is free is not a lucrative business for the Mafia

It can only be considered truly free if the supply is unlimited per person, as in an "all-you-can-eat" model.

If I gave you 100 milliliters of milk per day then you could technically make the claim that you have milk for free, but you won't be able to drink even a full glass of it.
I'd like to jump in here and point out that Pony ergonomics are unlike that if any other language; it is significantly different from any other language.

If 1/0 = 0 sounds unusable to you, Pony's garbage collection scheme (which is brilliant, by the way) is going to make you think the language is insane.
The integration of the x87 FPU (floating point unit) occurred with the 80486 series chips.
Is this the first you’re hearing of an interest only mortgage? They have been very popular in Southern California for a couple of decades. The theory is that it allows the speculator / owner to get a much more expensive home and just pay the interest for 3 to 10 years. Then sell and reap the massive appreciation. Except of course when the market goes the other way and you’re underwater and then whoops! the payment flips to fully amortized (interest and principal) and you can’t afford it.

Welcome to 2007! But don’t worry you’ll be unemployed in another year too!
Because it has the unfortunate consequence of eliminating the uniqueness property of fields.

If you allow 0 to have a multiplicative inverse 1/0, then the product of 0 and 1/0 must be equal to the multiplicative identity, which is 1. Then it follows that 0 = 0 * 0 = 1. From here it's straightforward to prove that x = y for all x, y in the field F.

A multiplicative inverse is a division. You cannot define division by x in fields without defining multiplication by 1/x and vice versa. The article is plainly incorrect in its attempt to refute this point (and in any case, shouldn't be using field theory to justify its purpose in the first place).
Musk sold a stake to the Saudis. Given his previous rhetoric bashing oil and its proponents, this is very hypocritical.
> First and foremost, paper ballots everywhere. No touchscreens.

> Second, from printing time onward, all handling of ballots, whether marked or unmarked, must be done in the presence of representatives of at least two political parties.

Australia does this at all levels of government, up to national elections. The people nominated by candidates are called "scrutineers" and every candidate may nominate at least one for every polling station and several for every counting room.

The count is done manually, thrice, again with scrutineer oversight.

Here's a photo of a close count occurring under scrutiny: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-06/counting-resumes-in-se...

At the last Federal election, 3 boxes of Senate ballots in Western Australia were lost. The matter wound up in the High Court. Because there was a very slight but non-zero mathematical possibility that those ballots could have changed the outcome, the election was voided and run again from scratch.

This stuff isn't rocket science. You just have to pretend that it's important.
Tucson. We have the University of Arizona here but most of the city is plagued with terrible sales positions and very few tech jobs. Tech jobs here are limited to Raytheon, the university itself and the small IBM office out here.
That certainly makes sense to me.

What's sobering is that we find ourselves in this situation.
Fairly straightforward in some languages (Ruby for instance).
There is relevance to state-of-the-art surveillance technologies deployed in Xinjiang:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/china-s-xinjiang-p...
I would be surprised if a javascript cryptominer was productive enough to even be worth the effort.
Sometimes limits are good. They lead to people playing it safe.

I've spent most of my life dealing with C code dating from 1986 and earlier to present day. Once you get used to the stylistic conventions one of the things that falls out is the simplicity even for huge, old legacy code bases. Often little more than grep or etags is sufficient to competently navigate and follow the flow of this kind of code. Simple things are simple: what callstacks can end up here? etc. The code often has the property that if you printed it you'd still be able to navigate it without issue. Given a random page and a line, getting to somewhere would be possible.

In comparison so many modern code bases are just completely incomprehensible without a tool in the form of an IDE (and often still quite challenging with them because even the IDE isn't sure, and so you must resort to runtime analysis). So many "tricks" used which require tools and require the tools to be bug free and robust.

The closest I have come to "pick it up and you can read and understand it without assistive technologies" is Go.
Not as secure as, say, Wikipedia. Personal data is far more secure when it's not stored anywhere at all.
I've only scanned the article but another factor that might come into play is crop nutrient content. There's some research that suggests that plants growing with more CO2 around contain less nutrient content relative to their weight - see e.g.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/24/17384110/rice-vitamin-nutritio...
Whatever you do, don't ever compare President Xi Jingping to Winnie the Pooh: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-08/winnie-the-pooh-film-c...

Don't even think about it.

There's definitely an uptick of Chinese gov't influence operations on Reddit, HN might be a bit under the radar but just in case...

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2018/62187...

If you're a connected young prince w/ a cushy party/govt job in China you're ballin' and life is goooood.

But if you're Joe-Shmoe you're kinda screwed, like with a most nightmare regimes it's the worker bees who get hit worst.
How are there not more pictures of this secret camp? How has it been kept a secret for so long?