skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Imaginary metal is akin to a bank token, indeed easy to transport but connected to people & institutions (kind of like, money). And it eventually has to be traded for real metal.

Just about everything of value has it's pluses and minuses for avoiding state scrutiny (land, cash, enterprises dealing in a lot of cash, start-ups needings lots of cash, halal banking, underground economy equivalents, etc, etc). With the interlocked problems of capital controls, drug cartels, failing states and resource economies (China, Brazil, Mexico, Afghanistan, Congo, etc), the river of dirty money is huge and goes everywhere. And efforts at control are naturally quite large too ("how much control over how dirty a flow" is what the lobbyists now place bids for, right, with the money itself coming partly from these flows. But those who've escape enough of their capital want to plug up the capital of their competitors, naturally).

Still, the advantage of turning a raw resource (energy) into money is a tremendous boon to those who control resources but don't technically own them (from bureaucrats to warlords).

And, of course, the blockchain shows the flow of tokens from account to account but it neither shows who owns the account nor the reason for the flow. Someone might guess but guesses aren't evidence in a conveniently large number of places.
Glad you tried it with an open mind....

For background, I'm a softie with over twenty years experience with embedded, desktop and server systems from microcontrollers to multi-core DSPs so I've a fair amount of experience in this area.

The last time I tried Yocto was while building a mesh router for an IoT product. When building real products, removing all cruft and only having a minimal system is very important from many viewpoints and this is crucially very difficult in Yocto.
I gave up and went the BuildRoot route.

I just find that Yocto has overcomplicated something that is essentially very simple. BuildRoot on the other hand works exactly how I expect and therefore I'm much more productive using it.
In Tesla's Q2 earnings report, in the very first part of the "Outlook" section.

"We expect to produce 50,000 to 55,000 Model 3 vehicles in Q3, which will..."

http://ir.tesla.com/static-files/7235e525-db16-470c-8dce-9ec...
> crypto currency clearly has the advantage of being transmissible weightlessly anywhere in the world.

It also provides a convenient way to pay off transactions in an obscured way, which was the main reason cryptocurrencies gained so much traction in illicit trade.
Draw.io: online diagramming
Steroid Hormone Reactivity in Fathers Watching Their Children Compete
Ha, just because Wikipedia says so doesn't make it true. People have been trying to call BMWs and such 'luxury cars' for a long time. BMW themselves wouldn't say that. They're premium cars. Luxury cars are things like Bentleys.

What you're noticing is that everyone who can't afford a Bentley or Rolls-Royce would prefer to call their Audi a luxury car ;-).
a good argument for switching to signal is that you can also use it to send sms messages, which means you don't have to switch between apps as much or at least lets you cut down on the amount of IM apps you have installed
Thanks! Seems legitimate. So that's good that they're hitting the goal!

I've still got concerns about their March 2019 bond however. I'm not sure if the M3 is reaching profitability in time to save up the $1 Billion needed to pay off the loan. But if it is profitable, then they might be able to secure good terms on a new bond offering.
They couldn't transmit such a message; the part beyond "the wall" is moving away faster than light: the data would never reach us. From our perspective, their earlier era is "frozen" in time: red-shifted to zero. We cannot receive any "new" signal from them. Therefore, the seeming "faster than light" violation is not really the case. Relativity "fixes" it by mucking around with time.

From a practical perspective, the red-shift horizon is a pretty solid "wall". The Orange Dude would love it. There could be a million Darth Vaders or run-away planet-eating nanobots on the other side, and they can never touch us. Maybe that's a good thing. The Egyption Empire lasted an extra long time largely because it was so hard to invade. It might even be the Anthropic Principle "protecting" us from really dangerous things.
No wonder the Tesla hating incumbents (ICE manufacturers, car dealerships in US/Canada, Big Oil Industry worldwide) are all out against Musk in every possible way.
Facebook reveals security flaw which allowed attackers to hijack user accounts
Does anyone else get the feeling that maybe security just doesn't scale for sites like this?

You have facebook being this huge target for attacks and you combine that with 10,000 engineers with likely not a lot of security training.

Even a single point of failure could compromise the whole site, what are the chances that no one makes a mistake?

Its like the bigger your company grows while still having a single product, the higher the probability something like this happens...
How much money in server costs and how much electricity could be saved if Github didn't use an interpreted language, but something like Go, C#, F#, Java etc?
There was always a level of prestige associated with certain companies even in the 80s and 90s, no?

The tech industry, despite its shortcomings, is vastly superior to Wall Street in that regard. It's still a meritocracy above all else.

Plenty of smart people break into tech after doing something else for a few years. If you want to go into investment banking, you better come from a consulting or have already been working in finance. Your only last bastion of hope is to get an MBA and then join the rat race.
> the last US car company to be founded was Ford

GM, Chrysler, Jeep, and others were founded after Ford. Dodge didn't start making cars until 1914.
Well, on the other hand the article is very light on details; indeed it doesn't even say that the proposed GPU would be massively multicore in the way Larrabee/XeonPhi was.
Have you ever seen the legal fees of priced vs convertibles be the same? I certainly haven't.
I don't think that's how food chemistry works.

The vanilla is going to interact with hundreds of volatile compounds during cooking while going through chemical changes. These things change the overall flavor. There's so many different things that can change how the end flavor comes through. Time and time again, it's been shown that the real vs fake vanilla thing doesn't matter for more complex foods (read: baked goods where maillard reactions are going to be common and the volatile aromatics present in real vanilla get destroyed)

{1}https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/real-vanilla-extrac...
{2}https://www.cooksillustrated.com/taste_tests/455-vanilla-ext...

From- a reformed professional chef.
With this and the changes to their worker caching API it's now completely possible to write a custom pull origin CDN service that you have complete control over.
Why is irrational to hate languages that are orders of magnitude slower than are necessary?
British businesses plan to move overseas amid Brexit fears
As I said in another comment, individual verifiability and non-coercion are mutually exclusive online. However, there are indeed solutions for the other properties (including global integrity), and compromises between individual verifiability and non-coercion. For instance, you can have a look at Helios [1] or Belenios [2]. Current research is looking for stronger guarantees, a better compromise, or a more interesting voting system (such as Single Transferable Vote or Majority Judgment).

[1] https://vote.heliosvoting.org/

[2] http://www.belenios.org/
Upgrading early(ish) and often, the very obvious preventative measure against terrible and failure-prone rewrite or upgrade projects, is one of the first things that falls by the wayside in the mostly short-termist logic that seems to dominate modern capitalism. It's absolutely infuriating.
Code here:

https://pastebin.com/tgS58k6Q
> Python also believes that you do not need to defend against this possibility, as long as you make it clear to other developers that they should not call your "private function".

Python has apparently never worked in a large, corporate environment with a multinational team.

Yes, in theory you can just not call private methods. And in my own personal code I don't care much about restricting variable access, because I trust myself. However, it is a tremendous amount of work to get a company culture to start respecting privates if they aren't already. I've had so many phone calls trying to explain why "yes, you can technically call this function, but in reality you can't, and I don't care that your deadline is tomorrow, you still can't. And yes, I know that technically you're on a separate team and not under my jurisdiction, but you can't just remove me from the code review and call all of my library's private functions anyway."

It's taking the path of most resistance. True privates are very helpful on large teams.
>>I don't know why. It clearly became a distraction at some point, and so the mods took a side and enforced it. I don't think that's unethical.

It was a legitimate perspective about a core issue facing Bitcoin: how to scale, and the vast majority of the subreddit's users were supportive of that perspective, given pro-large-block posts were consistently on the front page of /r/bitcoin with numerous highly upvoted comments made under it.

To label it as a "distraction", because it's not the perspective you hold, and delete all voices holding that perspective on those grounds, is highly disingenuous.

Your attempt to rationalize eliminating an entire perspective from /r/bitcoin through comment deletion and account bannings is typical of the totally unethical behaviour behind the Core coup.
If it knows it's a pure function, it's possible. It'd have to be a very specific optimization pass though.
It's OK to not like Solr. At the same time, half of the features I listed above, are quite new (SolrCloud, docValues, LTR, Config and Schema API, JSON support, etc).

And the other half - the 'old' part you may not like - are battle-tested, multiple-times speed-optimized pieces of code. Like this one: http://blog.mikemccandless.com/2011/03/lucenes-fuzzyquery-is... Moreover, their architecture makes very clear that they are making very similar choices, it is just their implementation is much fresher.

Sure, there is crud in Solr, it is an open-source product driven by the user needs. Sure, it is possible that - for some usecases - Java is disadvantage.

I would have loved that refreshed comparison to be in the article. It is very jarring that it was not. As it is, it felt that they walked away from 2015 and have not looked since. Even though their "simpler" approach did not work out and they had to throw it away.
If the NY Times doesn't have Facebook corporate and PR infiltrated, then they aren't doing their job.
From when you would literally cut up the single coin into bits to use for smaller payments.
Building Great API Docs
And I just got the beta invite. Yay!
I didn't pin the blame on them. I place it as a cultural issue.
In the journalism world, pre-written articles are apparently quite common.

Actually, not "common" at all.

Obituaries for famous people are often done in advance, since everyone dies. It used to be one of the things that young journalists/interns did to cut their teeth.

But not every company has a massive security breach, so this was not pre-written.

It's not uncommon for big companies to fax (yes, fax) bad news to news organizations a few hours or days before posting it on their own web sites.

In the past, there would be embargoes on the information, but in the case of bad news, those are routinely ignored.
A few observations:

- on my machine, C++ is slower than C.

- I thought that in Julia, startup and compile time could be a factor, but they're pretty negligible (maybe 1 to 5% or so of the runtime, for Julia 0.7).

- Without the -O3 switch, the runtime more or less doubles for C and C++, making these languages slower than Swift, Go, Java, Dart, Julia, etc. That surprised me.
I disagree with this slightly. I've been using Ruby for a long, long time and Ruby does give you the tools to refactor safely - few people actually know how to use them though and there aren't very many high-level tools aimed at doing safe large-scale refactoring. In Ruby you can trace calls and do very powerful introspection which you can verify to make sure things like delegation happened properly

It also doesn't help when most codebases are using ActiveRecord or something in every complex class and wind up increasing the interface width and ancestor depth of their code significantly. The point is - I think the language does a pretty good job supporting the developers, but there are a lot of bad practices that are still in use and recommended. Can't fault the language because people are writing shit code
ISPs (not the US)
Cultivated meat without serum
> I do not think that the naive recursive Fibonacci is a useful benchmark in any way though, it's a way too pessimized implementation.

probably, but I would still like to see more benchmarks that use recursion. It's a fundamental technique from functional programming and so few benchmarks bother with it at all.
Some are: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=474730.0
Trivia: fiets (roughly pronounced as feats) is Dutch for bicycle. So despite the author claiming that it doesn't have anything to with bicycles, it, well, means bicycle.
> If you plug something into a centOS machine it’s not going to be able to do anything until you mount it ...

You may want to double check your CentOS desktop's defaults (you might be surprised).

My most critical machines have a file named /etc/modprobe.d/disabled.conf with entries such as these for dozens of filesystems, network protocols, and such:

install usb-storage /bin/false
install vfat /bin/false

When absolutely required, they can quickly be temporarily commented out (but not by mistake) and there's some very extensive auditing rules that keep an eye on things at that point.

It's really not that hard to lock a machine down and yet still have it actually remain usable. With the exceptions of the few security-focused distributions (Qubes OS, Tails, etc.), I can't think of any Linux distribution / desktop environment that even comes remotely close to doing anything like that (OOTB) by default, though.
I disagree. In the very least, precious metals are shiny and dont rust. You can't wear crypto.
If you reference the article in that comment thread above:

"Large technology companies and industrial conglomerates such as General Electric also take a decentralized approach. But retailers tend to favor an integrated model. That way, different divisions can be compelled to make sacrifices, such as discounting goods, to attract shoppers to stores."

Competition sounds great in theory. At Sears, Lampert divided the company into 30 units, each with its own profit and loss statement.

Space in the weekly circular was farmed out to the unit bidding the most, resulting in:

-Toys for boys being advertised on Mother's day, because that department bid the most for space in the circular

-Lingerie being featured next to tools.

---

Because each unit had its own P&L, and its managers were compensated accordingly:

-One Sears tool brand choosing to use an external battery supplier, because it didn't want to pay royalties to a Sears division that made lithium-ion batteries

-Sears stores not opening early for Black Friday in 2011, despite all its peers doing so, because to do so required agreement among the 30 business unit heads

---

It is perfectly reasonable for retail buyers to consider what mix of products to use, and whether to devote shelf space to external or house brands.

It is not reasonable for the instructive structure to be constructed in a way where the company loses customers and sales because each individual unit's decision makers have a financial incentive to do so.

No other major retailer operates/operated this way, and I'd wager that no one will try doing so in the future.
It's definitely important, but we (Python shop) have "good" (85%) test coverage and we still see 500s in prod every day because of things a type checker could trivially catch. And this is just in the course of normal operation; this isn't even a migration. Having extensive experience with both Go and Python, I would conservatively estimate that Go requires ~30% fewer tests than untyped Python for the same confidence. That's more than 30% time savings; not only are you not writing 30% of the tests, but that's 30% fewer tests to have to maintain. Of course these aren't the only considerations--for certain tasks Python may be faster to develop with (although I think people forget about things like deployment, tooling, dependency management, performance requirements, etc when they make their estimations).
Here are some easy ways to prevent UEFI from tampering with your drive:

Disable UEFI. https://github.com/corna/me_cleaner

Disable the ACPI hooks that register the kernel with UEFI. http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~knuto/kernel/4.14/admin-guide/kernel...

Use full disk encryption - unlike Microsoft Bitlocker which left backdoors for LoJack, linux vulnerabilities are publicized and you can update as soon as the patch appears on the internet.

Switch to a filesystem that the UEFI malware does not understand. Or move fields and magic numbers around in an existing filesystem to create a "custom" filesystem.

Or a combination of all of the above.
Everything you say is fair. On the point about "at least 5%," this is addressed in footnote #3 to the blog post. It's true that it's a simplification, but that's partly what makes the construct easier to work with.

I think the other thing to take into account is that if you're doing a comparison of safes, notes and priced rounds, it's not just a matter of seeing if speed and cost are equal, but what else you might have to give up in terms of rights. Priced rounds can come with downround protection too (often do), as well as board seats and investor vetoes on financings, sales of the company, etc. Convertible notes are debt so the investors will have a technical right to demand their money back after a set time (maturity).
I think convertibles cost around $2k at max while priced rounds will start at $20-30k. The $20-30k is not too much money if you are raising over a million but for a $150k round, it is a little bit too much
Re. Go.

I've turned this code into a Go benchmark and run it with both the default cmd/compile (1.11) and gccgo (8.2.0).

cmd/compile:
BenchmarkFib-4	1	16530409619 ns/op
PASS
ok	command-line-arguments	16.533s

gccgo:
BenchmarkFib-4	2	776368644 ns/op
PASS
ok	command-line-arguments	2.381s

So yeah, if you are doing heavy-weight math stuff in Go, you might consider switching to gccgo. You might get up to 20x performance boost.

Here is the gist, please tell me if I screwed up somewhere: https://gist.github.com/ainar-g/1bd363d41c441d9ebf05c0c0b9f2....

EDIT: After some disassembly and experimenting, it seems like what we see here is some clever unrolling and memoisation. If I change 46 from a constant to a variable, it becomes twice as slow. Plus there is this in disasm:

/tmp/go/fibbench_test.go:13
return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)
30b9: e8 72 ff ff ff callq 3030 <command_line_arguments.fib>
30be: bf 25 00 00 00 mov $0x25,%edi
30c3: e8 68 ff ff ff callq 3030 <command_line_arguments.fib>
30c8: bf 24 00 00 00 mov $0x24,%edi
30cd: e8 5e ff ff ff callq 3030 <command_line_arguments.fib>
30d2: bf 23 00 00 00 mov $0x23,%edi
...

What puzzles me is why doesn't gcc do this for the C version. Even if I add an explicit __attribute__((const)).
No, clearly not. Take a look major components rewritten in recent years, such as Xcode code editor, new build system, Dock, those are crashing way more than their ObjC/C counterparts for whatever reason. A crash is a crash. You may claim that errors here are “less fundamental”, but the fact remains that the new software crashes more than the old.
Unforget launches social feature for sharing bookmarks, photos, notes, locations
Reservations are not necessarily for a $50k car. $35k plus a $7k tax credit is quite different from $50k and no tax credit.
Haskell is call-by-need so you get guarantees you wouldn't otherwise. It's not the same as memoization but it gives you what you want in any case.
> Passionate people push the world forward

we're talking about Facebook here
>"You are correct that their CTO has submitted 16 posts this week (not all of them from their own blog"

Aside from 1(techcrunch) they are all just posts of their own blog. I would call 15 submissions about your company in 7 days excessive.

If more people start doing this the danger is that HN gets reduced to just another marketing channel. I think that's a reasonable concern.
I'm perfectly aware it's meant to be recursive, but it's also a completely pointless test. It's not tail recursive, so you are measuring function call overhead in various languages. But various languages have options to perform much faster anyway, but solution is of course going to be language specific.
I don't see a unique human rights angel here, there are many companies doing business with China and a number of other "iffy" governments, if congress was truly alarmed by that they could sanction these companies.

This thing became about political retribution after google dropped maven.
Interesting. Personalized rejections (one worded statements given the quantity of applications) would be great.
If you miss something, the language shouldn't let it compile. Obviously the more backwards compatibility a language desires, the less likely this is to happen.
Ford were making a Liberator bomber every sixty three minutes during WW2, they built the factory and had the product rolling off the production line a year after the government requested it.

A huge amount of WW2 inventory rolled off the Ford production line with Ford and not the government finding the capital and the land for the factory. The war in Europe would have been very different without Ford supplied planes and other materiel.

Compared to other war time suppliers Ford 'aced it'. Yet despite the amazing things the original Henry Ford and Edsel did you don't get the impression that today's Ford has that same dynamism. The more out there ideas Ford had went with him. The company had shareholders in the stock market after Ford died and from then on the brakes were on as far as speculative, massively vertically integrated investments.

Ford may have a 100 year head start but it is 75 or so years since their 'Elon grade' founder left them.
That wasn't in the comment I replied to. OP asked about # or cars, not options/trim and tax incentives available. I assume Tesla will maximize for tax credits (soak up those federal dollars), and then reduce the price if necessary for their vehicles if demand is decreased by the credit phaseout.

International orders (which are still in queue) aren't impacted by the Tesla vehicle credit phaseout. There's a reason they're going to push every car they can in the US first before that credit is gone.
The hardware gives a better guarantee of botnet uptime though. If you want it to be powered on and attached to that network 24/7, you can't rely on their laptop/desktop.
>I don't like it being designed with Ponzi and Pyramid scheme structures embedded.

devil's advocate: what's wrong with Ponzi and Pyramid schemes that are clearly advertised? it's pretty much guaranteed that people will lose money on them (negative EV), but how are they any worse than say, slot machines that are also negative EV?
What happened was that VCs started sucking up all the equity and it became not worth it from a risk-reward perspective for most people to work at a startup. This, coupled with companies staying private longer meant that in the lat 5 years, you were better off working at G/FB than a small or mid-sized startup.

e.g https://www.slideshare.net/a16z/state-of-49390473/29-29Becau...