skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's a known fact that the digital advertising industry is rifled with lies and overpromised goals. Everyone knows it, or at least suspects it, but there doesn't seem to be a way out. One third of web traffic is fraudulent. Google tries to track it and remove it from the bottom line but what the rest of the industry does is uncertain.

As for your conclusion you can see it another way. If fraud disappears perhaps ads efficiency rates would also drop. Because ad fraud isn't only about ads that never show to their indented audience. A lot of times is about fraudulent clicks. So while you think your ad had a 2% CTR in reality it could be half that. You can never know who actually clicks on your ads. What you can know and measure is the conversion, aka how many actually bought your product. But if your product isn't sold online, like say packaged consumer products which are sold in super markets and all you aim with advertising is brand awareness you can't even track that. So you're siphoning millions to a black hole and you just pray that your analytics data are correct. Chances are, they aren't but no one will bother telling you. So eventually you might start seeing less ads because companies will realize there's no reason to keep their budgets at current levels.

And then there is the fact that there are a lot of actors involved in fraud, either directly or indirectly. Take video ads for example which have a higher CPM. It's in the platform's interest, aka the publisher, to produce as much views as possible to pocket the money. It's not like the fraud is performed from some shady character who lives in the underground. A lot of the times it's the networks themselves who will try to rob clients from their money.

Bottom line, there are a lot of angles to this issue.
Thank you! Under the hood, there are about 80 different predictions or scoring attributes being run. A lot of those are deep learning models.

A mood or a persona is really an algorithm representing a batch of those. A lot of them you can get pretty close to just by using the Power Filter directly. But there is some secret sauce.

But broadly speaking, you can think of a Hacker persona as being someone interested in Science and Tech and Education as key broad topic areas, wanting more serious content, and wanting content from credible science-based sources. They prioritise useful content, with more in-depth coverage.

An Activist might be someone with a center-left to left stance, interested in social fields, politics and psychology, but also influenced by trends and what is currently generating a lot of "heat".

If you have representations of what good quality content "within that community of personas" looks like, then you can train models and test scoring systems that try to capture them.

Content quality is a big topic. But our working thesis is that there are canonical examples with domains of expertise of what great content looks like - PG's essays, Pulitzer Prize Winning Journalism, award winning research papers. And there are similar examples of what very bad content looks like - hate speech, extremism etc.

So that's been the broad basis for the models that underly the predictions.

[edits for typos]
Cloudflare uses it in prod: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17077358

Here's a list of companies: https://www.rust-lang.org/friends.html
Combining trees and livestock has been done for centuries and is called Silvopasture:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvopasture
I like this essay, but I think it's really pointing to a narrow space, rather than a lack of space.

Bryan points out many weaknesses of unikernels, but assumes everybody needs multi-tenancy and the ability to spawn processes. And debugability is weak, but that probably depends on the application / environment you run. A lot of people want to run unikernels in a VM environment, but for me, it seems like the right application of unikernels is where you have one application that you want to expand to fill a single machine -- bare metal, boot to the application, save all the layers; there's no multi-tenancy, but if I'm running on hundreds/thousands of machines, I don't need multi-tenancy.

Debugability is important, but lots of people run without a kernel debugger, so it might not be that important to everyone. If you want it, you'll have to build it, but DTrace and friends had to be built too -- and it's easier to build it a second time, since you know it's possible and what it should look like.
LeechBlock does wonders to me. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/leechblock-ng...

Or try to switch to some CS/programming tutorial videos.
"Based on my experience in the industry, I'd say this isn't quite accurate."

I am genuinely curious, development or non development?
How do these "bots" work? Is there like a big room with lots of Android phones hooked up to some automated robotic finger for tapping and scrolling? Or are they using VMs to run some Android emulator and do everything in software?
If you have some ingredients you want to get rid of, make a bigger recipe and have leftovers. If you don't, don't.
Hey there, do you know anything about those users who have tried the demo?

We have a SaaS but when thinking about whether we would use your boilerplate, the honest answer is I wouldn’t because I’d have to learn the tech stack that you’ve decided for me. That’s a big learning curve than rolling out with something I’m familiar with.

If you have a boilerplate that limits tech to a few and simplifies the learning curve, there might be a bigger interest. Or you can go down the route of creating a UI version where non-developers can configure their own SaaS app for building an MVP, which would be useful just to validate ideas, raise funding and hire someone to fix it.
> "what was that" they often respond "I dont know, I didnt ask for it, so I closed it"

To me there's nothing wrong with that attitude though. One of the best lessons you can teach someone when they're browsing the internet is;

If some website is asking for permission to do something or wants you to download something that you didn't ask for. Then DON'T do it.
The Psychology of Selling Life Insurance[0] by Edward K. Strong might be considered something of a a classic when it comes to 'how to sell'. A bit of an oldie, but I think if you're interested in this 'genre', I would recommend to give it a go.

[0] https://archive.org/details/psychologyofsell00strorich/page/...
At this point it seems like Uber's strategy is the following:

1. Gather a bunch of PMs
2. Put them all in a room and have them put wacky ideas into a large hat
3. Pull ideas out of the hat, and go with the first one that sounds decent
http://cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/classes/223/notes.html
It's the same for every DB, like you can say MySQL to ack a write but there was no fsync(). All those settings are usually tunable for various scenarios / performance you want.
Okay, let's back up because I think you are misreading me.

I am not discussing whether or not hate speech is clearly defined. I was discussing whether "Speech that explicitly or direct line implicitly dehumanizes anyone" is a useful definition. Do you think that's a useful definition, or not?

If that wasn't the point you were arguing against, then we're going nowhere.
Interesting point re minorities.

I'm in a bigger state, I think we've basically had enough and if the subversion of democratic votes such is being attempted in Georgia right now happens, that might the thing that starts the bigger states to think about leaving. I know the current pres got elected by a situation that was unlikely, but the power majority the republicans have could keep going for a while. If it wasn't for China and Russia, the us could all go our own way right now, maybe into 3 or 4 countries.

We don't really have a solution for the people without much hope of a decent job, and hateful rhetoric like we see now won't get us anywhere. I don't feel ill will for the true believers, that somehow think dinosaurs walked the earth with people, but I would prefer we can live in separate countries and not hate each other.
I can definitely see the attraction for entrepreneurs, just not the value for anyone else.
Sorry, but I've been a iPhone user for many years, and will turn on iCloud about the 12th of Never. You totally give up all privacy for contacts, photos, appointments, etc. the moment you turn it on, and you can never undo that. Apple is NOT trustworthy enough to have that kind of insight into my life. (And Google is even worse, which is why I'm stuck with Apple as truly the lesser of two very definite evils.)
The house doesn't represent the people in the sense that the party that got a significant majority of the votes has a significant minority of the seats because of gerrymandering.
And most are helpfully marked for unit conversions as well! I have mine set for restaurant tipping by default (North America).
Fun idea - very back of the envelope math is if you could convert energy into strictly breaking CO2 bonds, the amount of energy it takes is 805 kJ/mol (from Google). WolframAlpha says this is roughly the caloric content of a biscuit, or 30 min of sports [1]. This would then separate 22.4 L or one mole of pure CO2.

There are approximately 1E20 moles of CO2 in the atmosphere (very rough math)[2,3]. This could take a while, especially considering efficiency would probably be 10% of this idealized system. However, this filtering idea isn't bad, I don't know of any filter like this for splitting CO2, but something is almost certainly being worked on for just general sequestration of CO2 from other atmospheric gasses.

[1] https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=805+kJ

[2] http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(5.148E18+kg)%2Fmolar+m...

[3] https://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/math-how-much-co...
Considering it's also one of the most expensive cities to live in, there's also a large market for the types of luxury items Dyson typically markets.

Though, I hope Dyson isn't looking to exploit Singapore's lack of labor regulations (no minimum wage or overtime restrictions) to utilize cheap labor.
> Last time I used Haskell, Applicative wasn't even a thing. I had read the McBride and Paterson paper that introduced applicative functors, but that was years ago, and I didn't remember any of the details.

In the previous post he learns how to use an Applicative.

In this post, he learns how to define Applicative for a new type he's created.

Yes, Applicative is abstract enough that it takes a few concrete examples to get a feel for it and grok what it's purpose is.

This is the work that's required to learn a new abstraction. All abstractions that are sufficiently different from previous experience require this kind of effort to make it legible to you.

Once you do, it kind of just 'snaps' and you get it.

Then, you get to leverage that knowledge in all the places it is re-used, instead of having to read the library code doing data manipulation in a bespoke way - you can just look at the type can say "yes, this is an Applicative - i know how to manipulate it and it will accord to some laws i can depend on", without having to read the source code.
Hard Drive Stats for Q3 2018: Less Is More
OK. So how does the backing of this "stablecoin" work?

Here's the website: https://www.centre.io/usdc

Here's the whitepaper: https://www.centre.io/pdfs/centre-whitepaper.pdf

There's very little about who actually has custody of the paid-in money and what guarantees it gets paid out if "stablecoin" outflow exceeds inflow. The "smart contract" machinery doesn't really do much about that part.

Tether has been vague about that, too. Tether has been trading at a discount to the dollar, lately about 3-5%.[1]

The usual failure mode is that whoever has custody of the money starts investing it. They don't have to pay the profits to the coin holders. Then they start making risky investments. Then they lose money. Then they start faking it. In the real brokerage world, they go to jail for speculating with customer funds.

[1] https://cryptocoincharts.info/pair/usdt/usd/kraken/1-month
Based on the article it seems to be pure software emulating interaction between the apps and i guess the APIs.
Reading this is is like reading a batman comic, I picture comic bubbles with "POW!" and "BOOM!" after each sentence.

I like how you explain things, very easy to understand. Thanks for the insightful comments.
I always wonder how much of these stories comes down to people not being willing to do jobs that are "beneath" them.

Sure he applied to hundreds of jobs, but what was the range of things he applied to? Not being able to find a job making / doing what you used to is far different from actually being unemployable.
re-reading my post and I agree with you, I think I'm exaggerating. Perhaps I'm having a depressing “The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads.” moment. I feel like all this money and energy is being thrown at crap that will eventually work against our best interests as a society.
How is dual booting relevant to the hardware choice? Dual boot or not it's the same monitor and gpu.
Could you try saying this some other way? I don't grasp your meaning at all.
What in the world does having a Twitter avatar of a motorcycle have to do with anything?
Writing an Amazing Code Review Checklist – Hacker Noon
Wow now I understand, what a great way to make users squint to read grey blocks and lines...
Yeah, I found that strange. One of the things that stuck with me from reading "How Children Succeed"[0] was that violence/ crises in the household tend to make kids impulsive and short-sighted in decision making. The idea kids who grow up around criminal parents would wind up doing the same because of modeling and the likelihood of violence or other frightening events like being put in foster care makes sense to me and doesn't have to have a biological underpinning to be true.

[0] http://www.paultough.com/the-books/how-children-succeed/
"Your property" ends at 500 feet up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights#United_States
looks like no camera on the glasses? Guessing a camera will show up soon, or maybe on the loop device? (which might work ok you could preview the pic in the glasses)
Thanks. Makes sense. Then is definitely commercial opportunity I’m sure :)
Fair enough, it wouldn't be the first time I missed the point. But lets talk about how we talk about it (which is kind of meta but hopefully it will help)

The message in that CFS was pretty clear to me, it was "We aren't doing enough, and not doing anything will doom us to yet another mass extinction event." (they aren't as explicit as that but nearly all of the literature on "Phase 3" of this stuff has nearly everything dying off.

So the first thing to check is this, is that the message you heard in the linked CFS? Or did you hear a different message than what I heard?

Assuming you heard the same message, we can talk about the next place in the conversation where things may go off the rails, a comment of the form "We already know how enhance algae blooms by fertilizing the ocean." Which related to previous work on dumping ferrous material into the ocean to create an algae bloom that would capture carbon and sequester it.

And the response to that comment, the message I heard/read was (paraphrased) "How do we know what that will do in the long term? We should not make such a move without knowing the consequences of making it."

In my reading, that has been a common response to large consequential ideas such as the fertilize the ocean. So is that something you've heard as well or is the first you have heard it?

So the messages in that exchange that I've heard are

1) We understand the mechanism of phytoplankton blooms and we know how to create them, we should try that.

2) We should not try that because we don't know if creating such a bloom would generate a net positive result, and we don't know what intermediate results it might generate as well.

I combine the RFS message of "We're doomed, none of the current things people are doing to ameliorate CO2 gain in the atmosphere are working." with "We shouldn't try things if we can't predict the outcome." and come up with, "Inaction is worse than not fully understood action if inaction is leading to destruction of the world."

Now I often lose the climate deniers on that last bit. In their belief system as I understand it, it is not something we are doing that affects climate so there is no compelling call for action on human's part.

So, what part of the point did I miss?

As for "selling it" I am not sure who is being sold here.

In my response, I was making the argument against inaction, against the environmental argument of 'do no harm.' I recognize that doctor's admit that you have to poison your patient (which does great harm) using chemotherapy when they are suffering from cancer because the alternative is just watching them die. What the doctor knows is that once the risk of cancer is gone the normal processes of the body will recover the patient to a better state of health. The argument for iron fertilization is similar, which is that while it may do short term damage, by pulling the CO2 out of the air the Earth will be in a better place after its own restoration mechanisms have undone the damage.

Sadly, unlike cancer patients we can't do clinical trials on planets, we've just got the one.
Do I get this straight:
"Quantum teleportation" is like receiving a letter with four pages and then telling another receiver of the same letter which page to read?
I was under the impression that we've "done well" because natural gas generation has come online like crazy and proves more economical than coal and INCIDENTALLY cleaner to burn.

I'm not sure how long (absent intelligent policy) til we hit peak natural gas and the balance naturally shifts back towards dirty energy sources.

I.e. policy helps, but economics had as much to do with it
Good. More and more, reducing GHG gas emissions politically or through any sort of international agreement looks like a pipe dream.

I think Kyoto is a good example. Take (liberal and environmentally enlightened) Canada -- their Kyoto target was 6% reduction (compared to 1990 levels) in emissions by 2012. Did they come close to meeting it? No, instead they were on track to be 25% over their 1990 emissions and dropped out in 2011 in order to avoid paying billions in fines.

It's even more depressing when you consider that even if Kyoto HAD been fully implemented (by every country), it wouldn't have done enough actually stop global warming.

IMO, basically any political/collective effort is doomed to fail, even if the alternative is disaster. It's going to take something like this -- carbon/albedo reduction/capture technologies that can be implemented by smaller groups of people (not nation states) and probably will be if things get really bad.
There is no "settled science" establishing a genetic determinant for crime. The person speaking in absolute terms and "waving away" thing is you, with your invocation of an absolute "blank slate theory".
Well, I'm now concerned that they'll kill of Atlantis.
Right. And that charity is https://www.coolearth.org/. They don't buy land but they protect trees.
In this capacity, network engineering and operations -- mostly non-development.

But you don't need to be a network engineer to observe these problems out in the wild. Have you ever bought a dedicated server from a small ISP, asked for IPMI connectivity and they replied with a public IP address? Or the BMC was able to mount ISOs hosted externally on public shares?
I definently think the end of a presidency is the most likely time it will happen. But, I do not see our current president doing it, which means waiting until at least 2024, and probably 2028 (assuming Trump is 1 term and his successor is 2). We don't know who the next president is yet, so the odds of this are still a toss up

It looks like neither party is gearing up to make civil liberties or defence corruption a political issue this cycle, so it really will be up to the whims of the next president.
Hopefully by the time Autodesk goes under, we'll have good understanding of how it behaves.
Also, no need to dramatize, we have bridges without sensors. I guess surveyors would have to include this one as well.
Are there any crowd funding efforts out there for carbon removal?
Anyone else find it weird when people talk about "carbon removal" instead of "CO2 removal?" Maybe it's just me but "carbon removal" evokes "eradication of life" in a sci-fi way
What if we would make such an advanced filter, and then make it mandatory in cars. That way cars would 'clean' the air. You'd need to find a process that scales though, so that the 'dirty' filters are processed in a way to get out the carbon and use it somewhere.
I'd like to point out that there is a unikernel called IBM's TPF which is something everybody is interacting with daily. It's used in the payment card network by Visa, as well as the airline and hotel industry for reservations. This is typically run under the hypervisors z/VM or PRSM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transaction_Processing_Facilit...

A few years ago someone trying to spin container technology did a lot of damage to other attempts at unikernels with marketing dogma, not reality. Claims of non-debugability and other FUD. It's long been standard operating procedure to trace and debug systems from outside the system's view. This is how people do bringup of new chips as well as OS ports. On hardware there is usually a dedicated debug and trace facility as part of the CPU or board support package or a firmware monitor. In a virtualized environment like a unikernel this is way easier because you can run code above the guest's ring 0 supervisor privilege against its RAM/pagetable root. Modern systems like POWER even allow debugging from the BMC, with a plan to allow full gdb sessions over that out of band interface https://github.com/open-power/pdbg.

There's nothing implicitly wrong with unikernels, or other systems software ideas like microkernels, just because they are less popular technology at the moment. I'd encourage people to continue exploring this space.
Was the carbon not already sequestered when it was in the form of a tree?
Land isn't that cheap compared to the (not that large) effect, especially if we want that effect to be meaningful in the short term.

Buying land and planting trees there will cost something like $2000 per acre and retain something like one ton of CO2 per acre per year (an order of magnitude estimate - depending on details both the cost and CO2 effect can be very different).

Industrial carbon capture at power plants can do that for something like 70$ per ton. That's much cheaper than forestry, but that's still not good enough. ycombinator is obviously looking for technologies that scale better than these existing approaches, something that might achieve large scale carbon removal at maybe $10/ton or less, at which stage the option "just pay a lot of money to reverse the effect of our emissions" might be plausibly considered affordable to our society.
You would also have to coat them in something to prevent decomposition. Assuming that worked, over time you would take a ton of nutrients out of the system and the primary forest would eventually become grassland.

Maybe if you were growing trees specifically for this purpose on degraded land it could work.
Have you ever tried editing answers as not-Jeff? It's rarely a pleasant, rewarding experience, and usually a waste of one's time. Rep-farming wonks run the place and will mindlessly shoot down thoughtful edits.
I really like the idea.

However, I get the impression that gas centrifuges are really high-maintenance. Is that right? Or does that only apply to the Uranium enrichment case?