skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Are these the two scenarios that are being compared?

I wouldn't know, other than assuming that the subject of the article is the model for the indoor farm.

> I agree that indoor farming will likely seem more profitable even though lighting costs money.

That does answer my question, and it essentially answers (at least part of) why VCs would find it interesting.

> 1. economies of scale.

IIUC, the subject of the article is attempting to tackle a niche (of their own creation?) of urban farming, which is, presumably, at smaller scale.
Massive security hole. You could setup a bot constantly in the call and record all the conversations. It could be setup with a seemingly official name like "admin" or the name of the company, so any one looking at the live list of attendees would think it's a normal maintenance bot from either the company or the service.
> The banality of the papers is the central weakness of the whole thing. The whole point of Sokal- or SCIgen-style hoaxes is that the papers were gibberish - so when a journal publishes one, the author can legitimately say "Hey look, this journal published gibberish!".

My point is that most of them were not banal. In that line, I was responding to an isolated point of tptaceks. If all the papers were banal, i'd agree. But they were not.
haha, second line doesn't work on my android phone!

works on chrome + ubuntu though, apparently
5mil/yr on 100k/costs sounds pretty interested to me ... what exactly are you complaining of? Not enough API users? When I click your API tab, it just has a “contact for pricing” pop up. You’d probably get more interest if you had open documentation/some examples of use cases/upfront pricing.
> It seems that he only praise one language (ahem) in his comments.

So, I've seen this pop up a few times, but I'd also like to make this really clear: Patrick formally stepped down from working on Rust a year and a half ago, and was inactive for a while before then. At this point, he's the same as any other user.

That is to say nothing about my opinions about his opinions, but let's be clear, rather than insinuating things: Patrick speaks for himself, not for the Rust team.
Stop trying to bring gender into it. This isn't about believing a man or believing a women. This is about the presumption of innocense and the need for a preponderence of evidence rather then just an accusation
> (although their hosting provider doesn't appear to have switched their networking off).

I doubt that Microsoft Azure is going to switch off the networking for all of Microsoft OneDrive over this.
Even if a national security letter wouldn't compel Apple or Amazon to lie, couldn't it compel the security team not to inform the executives or lawyers? Or at least this is an argument that's been going on for a while, can't remember if that issue has been settled.
Of course not. But remember that someone else is holding their purse strings so they might care about that.
I am 100% sure omegaworks sexually assaulted me several years ago at a meetup.

So now, by your own standards you are standing accused of sexual assault and therefore your opinion is no longer valid, so please refrain from commenting until you are cleared by the FBI investigation, which I am hoping you will gladly request to clear your name.
Somewhat off-topic, but:

For the first time ever today, I got a "Sponsored (political)" tweet on my timeline, from Kamala Harris (whom I do not follow), saying: "We need just 198,248 more people to reach our new goal of 1.5 million Americans against Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. Will you add your name right now?"

When did Twitter start doing "Sponsored (political)"? This seems like a terrible idea.
HSPD-12 largely abolished passwords as authenticators throughout the executive branch.
Interesting. We already use something in our company that gives us "go/" links, but I'm not quite sure what it's powered by :)
Mostly no, they do not. PIs are typically paid little, given their worth on the market for their skills. Even though he was 'famous', he got his Nobel at ~70 years old, meaning that he spent most of his earning years 'unrecognized'. I know you can look up any University of California professor's earnings here: https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/art...

For instance Professor Vickram Chandra of UC Berkeley [0] made ~$91k in 2016 [1]. Other professors make more, like Professor Alexandrova of UCLA who make ~$146k in 2016 [2]. You can poke around the UCs and compare. Do remember that most PIs labor in grad school for ~7 years, earning barely anything.

I do not know of other databases for other universities that do this, but many US states have sunshine laws that make professor's salaries public information. I know that Colorado also mandates that all public employee's emails are public information too and I think other states do this as well, though I do not have a list of them.

[0]https://english.berkeley.edu/profiles/22

[1]https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/art...

[2]https://www.sacbee.com/site-services/databases/state-pay/art...
GM’s self-driving deal with Honda is a wakeup call for Waymo
> something as simple as an anti-tamper seal

To echo, it's actually quite trivial to bypass anti-tamper stickers with acetone and a needle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqkMIek8sqI
> On performance: SQLite has a mechanism for canceling queries that take longer than a certain threshold.

Can't it consider the complexity of the query and the actual database (indices, tables size etc) to guess how heavy the request is goign to be in advance?
Example Two:

A caretaker, and the escaped autistic man he was trying to bring back with him to their facility, was confronted by a police officer. The caretaker, immediately realizing the danger of interacting with an American police officer, lays on the ground, puts his hands in the air, and then repeatedly states the man infront of him was 'autistic' and 'holding a toy train'.

While the caretaker was lying on the ground, on his back, with his hands in the air, the cop fires 3 rounds at the pair, striking the caretaker in the leg.

The caretaker, understandably confused and upset, asks "why did you shoot me?". The officer's response, "I don't know."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwHJL5X97Do

Or, refer the case where a Dallas Police woman broke into somebody else's apartment, and then proceeded to execute the man she encountered inside

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/14/us/botham-jean-dallas-sho...

Or refer to Daniel Shaver being executed at point blank range while crying on his hands and knees to "please not shoot".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/12/0...

In all of these cases, the person shot was completely and obviously innocent of any sort of crime. The standard penalty for this type of officer behavior is: paid vacation, perhaps firing the officer if the murder is especially egregious.
That’s perfectly expected. It’s not a stretch of the imagination to think border checks are abused for industrial espionage. If it gives your country a major advantge nothing is off limits these days.
Sure. It seems much more ambiguous written as it is though.
> My own comment leads off by acknowledging they got a paper accepted into Hypatia --- my gripe is that it's not the lurid farce they suggest they got accepted (a paper demanding that white male students sit on the floor in chains in class) but rather a much more boring paper about the legitimacy of hoaxes like theirs.

IMO the paper they did get accepted is still quite disturbing.

> When I said "They submit approximately the same paper to multiple journals and are rejected by all but the very most marginal", I was referring to a specific paper (in fact, the Mein Kampf paper), not to all the papers. My point was: they tried that paper in several places, and the (academically) reputable venues rejected them.

Ok, but what about the others?

> Yes, I think --- I'm actually pretty confident --- that I could get a false paper accepted in a CS venue. Economists have already remarked on Twitter that you don't have to get "nonsense" papers accepted yourself, because the literature is already full of what turns out to be nonsense (do keep in mind that in large part what these hoaxers submitted was not nonsense, but rather fabricated research including field work).

False, sure. False papers get accepted all the time. That's part of the scientific process. These papers were not merely false, they were absurd. I seriously doubt you could get a truly absurd CS paper published anywhere remotely reputable.
A Look at All of the New Emoji Coming in iOS 12.1
i'm coming at this from the tech side but with an appreciation for the small scale farmers who have done this for generations. my family was all farmers and here i am now. i'd love to understand your vision if you're willing to chat. my email is in my profile.
What's terrible about it? Do you object to political advertising in general?
Here is my collection of thoughts and opinions on the topic.

First: The fascination for simulation hypothesis is another extension of us humans wanting to be something special and also being very worried that we might not be so special after all. This is the constant inner battle of our minds between the
our inferiority complex and the mediocrity principle. Like as if living a simulated but enjoyable life is not good enough. But, that is not to say that it is not at least an interesting thought experiment everybody should try once. It can even help us understand our own insignificance. (Excuse me, my nihilist got out)

Second: I do think there is no such a thing as simulation or even an inner and an outer forming a hierarchy. Imagine two astronomers looking into a telescope. One says to the other: "Wow, look I created this galaxy in there. And if I change the parameters just so slightly by adjusting this here, I get a totally different one which still has some similarities to the last one." Now, replace the telescope by a computer screen and the astronomers by two people programming a video game. What they fail to realize is that they do not "create" these galaxies or simulated universes. No, they are just observing them. And by interacting with the computer you don't change the simulation but instead switch to observing a different version. But, just like the natural numbers all of this just exists. It does not come into existence (is not created), neither does it cease to exist or change. It also needs no space or memory to be stored on and no mass to be conserved. 1+1=2 is true with and without us. It is completely independent. Concepts like time, space and mass are specific to some universes (like ours) and are not universal (pun intended).

Third: Yes, multiverse theory does not solve everything, but it solves the "trivial" questions like:
- Are we the result of an intelligent design, god, alien, simulation? Question which are just offsetting the problem by one.
- Are we just a computer simulation and thus not "real"? All universes are equally real, there is no hierarchy: Cognito ergo sum.
- Can we break out? Everything you find would just be another physical law and property of our universe. Or you get really lucky and are actually boltzmann-brained, allowing you to visit another universe while keeping your memories of the last one. At least that is what it would seem like to you.

Yet, multiverse theory lets us move on to the harder questions like:
Why does anything exist at all? Wouldn't it be much simpler for just nothing to exist?
What is qualia and how does it "emerge"?

P.S: Let them do their experiments, maybe they accidentally find something useful anyways.
Polygraphs should nevern be used. An administrator can interpret the results any way they see fit. It's a perfect avenue for bigotry and other unfair hiring practices. It has no place in society.
The story of King Arthur and the Sword in the Stone is lost on many in this thread.
the double GC problem is too worrying to invest more into it.

https://github.com/denoland/deno/pull/276#issuecomment-39932...
What infringement of freedom of speech is there here? Kaplan is free to go to this event, and Facebook employees are using their free speech to complain about him.

Besides, it matters how this turns out. Supporting an innocent man wrongly accused and supporting someone who turns out to be a rapist are two different things.
People are definitely reluctant to retract that bit of gospel and it's not a good look. IIRC Flynn himself was circumspect and the memory is uncertain but I thought he pointed to the recent reversal too.

This sort of collective amnesia happens often if you look out for it and this makes me suspicious of other conventional wisdom I see peddled here and on Reddit. Is it probably true because a lot of people think so or is it true because it chimed with a story. The mind warping powers of politics are well known but maybe the conceit every person shares is that we feel there ought to be a nice coherent story like a box to put things into - meanwhile Reality/Nature/God gives zero fucks about all that.
...received a phone call from the police telling me to go pay for the gas. I figured it was just an honest mistake and didn't think anything of it

So, given that you paid-up for the gas when requested, you didn't intend to permanently deprive the owner of it which suggests that technically it wasn't larceny and could have been sloughed-off as a misunderstanding. Given you were dealing with an NSA interview, sounds like they were playing a psychological setup game to determine how calmly you would respond under pressure in the context of an intimidating polygraph test. Seems like they weren't too thrilled with the responses they elicited. Would you really want to work for an organization that plays those sort of mind games?
It's important though to make sure that your team keeps tactical advantage so that it can continue existing. Maybe someday mankind will find world peace but in our current world there are a lot of nations that hate each other still and wouldn't hesitate to take advantage of weaknesses of other nations for personal gain.
Again, it's a job appointment not a criminal trial. I'd be interested to hear what your standard of evidence would be if it's not three witnesses.
So is the Monty Python reference.
If you create a PDF and post on ArXiv, then tell me then I can post links to it on various math forums. You can make an account on mathstodon.xyz and post it there, post it on Twitter and tag a few mathematicians.

Or email me - address is in my profile.

As a quick sanity check, how have you checked it? I can possibly help with making it an accessible draft rather than trying to make it an academic paper. Being clear and engaging can be hard, but it's worth making the explanation readable rather than scholarly.

For reference, I'm going off-line now for about 12 hours, but I'll respond when I can. Take your time.
I agree that it's too complex to expect front-line abuse support to work out what's going on, but yes I did expect them to turn my networking back on after I blacklisted the hash.
Without exaggeration: Playing Descent 3 online was the most fun I have ever had in front of a computer screen. Thanks for a great time. :-)

When I was doing computer graphics research in university, I always hid a secret 6DOF flight mode into my 3D apps, with key controls corresponding to my D3 config. It was the most comfortable way I knew to navigate around in a 3D space.
Because we wouldn't even be at this point if it hadn't been for that same majority leader pocketing the nomination of another candidate during the previous administration, with no precedent or legal basis, and with no repercussions or ramifications. We have a majority in the senate that is ruling without regard for law or the voice of the people.
>Would you really want to work for an organization that plays those sort of mind games?
reply

No, I don't anymore. But at the time I was excited for the opportunity
Truer words have never been spoken.
Again, it's not about the results. But I agree it shouldn't be used for hiring, except for extremely sensitive positions.
Sorry, you're right. I've read the NYT article but had Bloomberg in my mind. My bad. But anyway: if I were holding FB stock, this would be of interest nonetheless. Either to be afraid. Or to know others will be afraid and you can "buy the dip".
Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
My spouse has a Blackberry and when it wears out he plans on replacing it with another Blackberry. Why? I dunno, something about it being Canadian and not from Apple.
I mean, if I went around sayin' I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
sure, but aren't there some things that can't calculated in advance like i/o, locked tables or priority queries just to name a few
"We just coordinated a partisan effort to accuse you of sexual assault from an incident no one can remember that occurred 35 years ago, and drag you and your family through the media mud and also call you a gang rapist for an added bonus. Why are you so upset?"

Do you expect the guy to be some sort of emotionless robot? This is classic Alisnky tactics combined with some form of infinite projected purity spiraling to raise the standard for an SC judge to inhuman levels. Thankfully, the right has finally come around to not caring about these tactics being employed by the left.
In this specific case, given the short time frame involved and extreme vitriol and division between parties and ideologies, I believe there is a non-negligible chance that even if Ford's testimony is entirely true (and I think it is), that others might have piled on accusations to help that claim be more likely to be taken seriously and investigated, and if so they likely fully believe they are patriots in doing so.

I do not want Kavenaugh confirmed, but I can't pretend that the Republicans are the only ones willing to play dirty pool. They seem willing to go further, but both sides of the aisle have fallen considerably in the last few years, and they weren't that high to begin with.
That hiring practice sounds terrible when you frame it like that. It seems like a great way to build a terribly aggressive, pressure-driven monoculture.
That Go concurrency is threads is the point of the article. It says this explicitly: "You can think of goroutines as threads, it's a fairly good mental model. They are truly cheap threads". If OS threads become as cheap as userland threads then the implementation of userland threads becomes unnecessary, but the conceptual model stays the same.

In other languages, asynchronous APIs return futures or have explicit callbacks, whereas synchronous APIs return the type directly, thus creating a type level distinction between asynchronous and synchronous code. Go's model eliminates that distinction even though it calls asynchronous OS APIs under the hood.

Go isn't the king of cheap threads, though. Some cilk style task parallelism implementations have figured out clever tricks to make threads and synchronisation even cheaper. They're so cheap in fact, that a recursive fibonacci function that spawns threads for its recursive calls is almost as fast as one that doesn't. This is achieved by spawning those threads lazily: if a core is idle it looks at the call stacks of other cores and retroactively spawns threads for some of the remaining work on those stacks. It steals that work by mutating that call stack in such a way that if that other core returns to the stack frame it will not perform that work itself, but it will use the result computed by the core that stole the work. This not only avoids thread spawning cost unless the parallelism is actually used, but it also avoids synchronisation cost, because synchronisation is only necessary if work was actually stolen. Cilk style task parallelism traditionally focuses on parallelism rather than concurrency, but there's no reason why the same implementation strategies couldn't work for concurrency. OS threads have no hope of beating this.
NSL-type deals are explicitly denied. E.g. Apple wrote:

> Finally, in response to questions we have received from other news organizations since Businessweek published its story, we are not under any kind of gag order or other confidentiality obligations.
How ‘Sesame Street’ surrendered in the culture wars
Totally agree. Everybody is out to be angry and punish somebody.
Thanks for the link, yes I do not know these kind of studies before, and I skim read it just now, however I also see claim of non reproducibility and different results from other studies in this page.

Personally I notice that force me to read difficult fonts does not help at all my understatement or my memory. In the end my idea, without statistical proof of course, is that such contrasting observation are simply noise. Perhaps due to a sample size not big enough, perhaps due to tested individual itself but still noise.

Also IMVHO such studies exist for a reason: teacher's mean quality is getting lower and lower due to various schools reforms and since admit errors it's not a thing these days someone try a sort of "montecarlo test" in the desperate search of a solution to stop the bleeding. Other find such tentative nice for their business because new stuff means new sales for someone.
Oh, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
>I think comparing this to slavery, the Indian wars, Jim Crow, etc. more than a little hyperbolic.

>There's a big difference between [...] systemic disenfranchisement and [...] healthcare being affordable to a big chunk of the population.

I edited your post a bit. Frankly, I don't see the difference unless you don't classify healthcare as a right. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights would disagree with you, but that's okay.

If that doesn't float your boat, we can look at outcomes instead. In both cases, people are forced to live without dignity regardless of whether or not that end is achieved by systemic financial coercion, by strapping someone to a board and pouring water on their face, or by bludgeoning them.

All are inhumane.

Healthcare is not a 'we can't find a solution' problem. It is a 'a lot of people are making a lot of money off this combination of inelastic demand and opaque pricing for technical service' problem. Call a spade a spade.
"him" is his friend FTA. I feel like there's a gap between appearing at these hearings at surface level and showing up because its your friend giving testimony.

Maybe I'm being too nuanced and applying too much of the human element by looking at it like so but it's that very gap between supporting Kabanaugh the nominee who lost his temper in a SJC hearing and supporting Kavanaugh his friend accused of sexual assault and the focus of a Senate confirmation and FBI investigation that makes me take the position I have here.
Yes, undoubtedly there are good candidates who are weeded out due to false positives, but there are probably many bad candidates who are weeded out due to true positives (or don't apply at all because they fear the test). It will lead to bad actors who study the test and pass it, but that's why it's critical that law enforcement agencies do not use a passed test as indication of trustworthiness; merely an initial barrier to entry to be passed. The trustworthiness has to come from a thorough background check and normal interviewing.

As long as the examiners, recruiters, interviewers, and higher-ups fully understand polygraphs are a trick and nothing more, I still think they serve a useful purpose for three-letter agency hiring.