skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The idea of a "free society" is a myth. Something perpetuated by neo-liberals who think all that matters is absolute freedom and money. News flash: Culture matters. At least, it matters to people whose only interest is not money.
Allow me to extend the feeling to society.

There's a increase of 'frequency' at the expense of depth.
You always write a similar comment but neither you or the page you link explain what is the advantage, or even the difference, of dual quaternions when compared to normal quaternions. However, the article linked in the site, actually gives a good explanation.

Dual quaternions work not only rotations, but also translations. They provide a natural representation of rotations around arbitrary axis (not only around axis from the origin) and can also be easily combined or interpolated.

These dual quaternions look interesting for many cases, but they do not provide any advantage with respect to normal quaternions when working with pure rotations. For more complex transformations, I know there are some approaches based on GA (and CGA) that I do not know in detail but I think (a gut feeling) that dual quaternions are just a special case.
Interesting that this got voted up. Anyway, here a few notes:

1. Mostly, the goal is not to "price options". There's a liquid market for basic calls/puts, and those prices are used to calibrate a model and then interpolate/extrapolate as well as price more exotic things. So the goal is to "fit the market".

2. Black Scholes is a well defined bijection between a Call price C(K,T) and a BS vol sigma: C(K,T) = BS(K,T,F,df,sigma). However, prices are such that calls at different strike K have different BS vol, thus the vol can't be a description of the underlying stock price. BS is just "the wrong formula to plug in the wrong number (BS vol) to get the right price". In particular, you can't evolve a stock (in Monte Carlo, going forward, or in a PDE, going backward) using BS vol and reprice all options correctly.

2b. But already, BS gives you a means to interpolate and hedge.

3. The next huge step forward was local vol (Dupire), LV. Instead of assuming fixed vol, it assume that the vol is a deterministic function of stock price S and time t. Now you can evolve a stock (in MC or PDE) and reprice vanilla options correctly, by and large. However, two problems remained:

4a. Forward smile. Take prices as they look today, fit a local vol model, and evolve it forward 2 years. You've hit all the 2yr option prices correctly, and you'll hit all the 3yr option prices. However, the 1yr options IN 2 YEARS will look all wrong (in particular, the smile will have decayed unrealistically).

4b. Very short term smile. A gaussian will basically never go more than 3 std devs from its mean, right. So, short term out of the money options should be really worthless. But they aren't, because stock prices in the real world do jump (or move 10 std devs). So, we require enormously high "lognormal" BS or local vols to reproduce observed option prices correctly.

4a. is solved with stochastic vol models, SV. Mix SV and LV and you reprice options perfectly, and go a few years forward, and your forward smile still looks reasonable.

4b. is solved incorporating jumps, JD (jump diffusion).

Mix SV, JD, LV and you get a nice model that fits the market, and evolves reasonably.

5. Most exotic products you price have additional features that preclude closed form pricing. If there's path dependency, you often just use Monte Carlo. If there's calculability, you try and use PDEs. If there's both, you have to use advanced methods: either carry state variables with you in the PDE, or use Longstaff-Schwartz like Monte Carlo methods.

6. However, in the last decade or so, after the financial crisis, all the fancy stuff receded in the background, and there was more focus on the basics: rates. Different counter parties have different credit risk, different currencies have different credit, giving rise to cross-currency basis, different LIBOR maturities are at different levels, giving rise to intra-currency basis, etc. All that stuff needs to be captured properly.
BTW, "nonprofit" doesn't mean "no profit"/"0% of the cut". There are many ways to make money as a non-profit organization, including some which can be interpreted as 'parasitic.'

Consider a non-profit charter school which licenses teaching material from a for-profit company and pays a for-profit company for the building lease - and where the owner of the non-profit is also the owner of the other two companies. Examples at https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2018/08/13/how-to-p... .

Non-profits can also take a part of the cut, as we find out with charity organizations where, say, 85% of the donations goes to running the organization. Examples at https://www.thestreet.com/story/12878005/1/you-wont-believe-... .
Static types are great because they make certain classes of bug impossible to write, but they have their limits. There are escape hatches, like casts and Object types, even in statically-typed languages, though fewer of them in languages with more advanced type systems. There are reasons to like PureScript over TypeScript, just as there are reasons to like Haskell over Java. TypeScript doesn’t give you a way to ban side effects, for example, being part of the imperative family of languages that it is. So if you are super into banning side effects you might like a language that does.

The thing to realize is that at the end of the day, all you are doing is reducing bugs, and while your type system (IMO) really can help reduce bugs, it will never catch all bugs. There is still value in a function declaring that its argument is of type User (and not defensively checking it) even if it is theoretically possible, in the presence of a bug, though unlikely, that the argument is not really a User. The function has said what its precondition is, and (assuming you are validating any data that comes over the network or from an untyped source), this precondition will in practice be checked 99% of the time. If a bug happens to line up with a hole in the type system, you’ll just have to debug and fix it.
When a woman is pregnant
what to do instead? A lot of civil society predicated on keeping crowds occupied.
Check out the best free iPhone apps
Suppose you are standing anywhere on planet Earth, and you look at the horizon (not up, not down, so 360° of choice).

A normalized quaternion encodes your position on the planet + the direction you are looking at on the horizon.

It also encodes the rotation it would take to go from one such observer to another.
You're right based on the modern day thinking of what the periodic table is but you're wrong to suggest that people knew what they were doing from the very start.

The formulation of the periodic table is quite like modern day data science. Chemists even before Mendeleev observed patterns and tried to build a model to predict missing ones. The beauty is that this was done without understanding the underlying mechanism of how it all worked, ie what makes an element (protons), what makes their periodicity (electrons). That came 50+ years later when we discovered protons and electron orbitals.

So going back to the article, their approach is fine because they're just formulating some model from observed patterns. Their reasoning for the underlying mechanism could be completely wrong but that's fine too until a better model comes along.
> the city could profit from it.

This point of view is precisely the problem and why companies like Google aren't welcome in places like where they tried to open this campus. Money isn't everything.
After watching the value of values by rich hickey I've become cynical towards complex types, I think my ideal would be maps and scalar types and maybe something like clojure specs for more complex checks
It fails all with the teams opinions. It's the people not the language or tools. All these discussions of developers trying to be correct. You don't need typescript, flow, functional programming, OOP, whatever. These tools have it's place particularly because teams cannot work together and need some kind of rules. In most cases individual developers differ quite a bit from each other, especially when it comes to their opinions. It's dramatic.
When you are doing interop between languages a lot of things can go wrong. Rust is pretty much doing compile time checks too.
How Is Business Intelligence Data Becoming More User-Friendly?
This article by Data Entry India Outsource explains How the Business Intelligence Data Is Becoming More and More User-Friendly. For more info - https://www.dataentryindiaoutsource.com/blog/how-business-intelligence-data-becoming-more-user-friendly/
London is making life way too hard for mobility tech companies
> I’m about to tell you some real shit

The rest of the piece reads just like that, a black dude trying really hard to be black. Faking it. The result being unreadable.
The argumentative fallacy is called the fallacy of the false appeal to authority. For instance citing a person's Ph.D. in English literature as a reason to believe their statements on quantum mechanics is an example of fallacious reasoning. Referring to the statements about quantum mechanics of an expert in quantum mechanics is not fallacious reasoning.

You do buy arguments from authority every time you listen to your doctor's advice regarding your health. It’s perfectly reasonable to listen to consensus expert opinions on climate change and if you think they have changed their phrasing over the years by assuming the sale it’s because they no longer have doubts about the cause of climate change.
thanks for the post
US National Security Advisor the White House Has Invited Putin Visit Washington
Here's the citation from parent link seas.stratos.harvard.edu:

S. Idreos, et al., “The Periodic Table of Data Structures,” Bulletin of the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Data Engineering, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 64-75, 2018.
> There is a strange bit about being a doctor or lawyer -- you aren't allowed to for a C corp for your own practice.

1. In at least some U.S. jurisdictions (and possibly all), lawyers' practices can indeed be set up as corporations; my former firm was an example. The individual lawyers in the firm are still personally liable for their own malpractice and for that of any junior attorneys and/or staff whom they supervise. The corporate form does protect them from personal liability for the office lease, etc., unless they've personally guaranteed the lease, which is not uncommon. (Don't know how it works for doctors but I assume it's similar.)

2. "C corp" is an income-tax classification; AFAIK it has nothing to do with non-tax liability.
#2 is only false at very small scale. At some point you're going to rely on an external supplier for example.
> When we go into the world of unsolved problems that someone solved and we have to maintain them

I don't believe in this world of unsolved problems. Most codebases reinvent the wheel like they've never seen one. Most "problems" are just a problem of picking one from known solutions and gluing it all together. People don't always pick the right solution, or they start gluing at the wrong place and won't stop once they realize it, so the end result is a mess. And then you can ask, why did they do it like this? This is not good!

If you're a programmer, you've hopefully tried to rewrite some bit of code of yours a few times until you've arrived at something that eliminates redundant logic, is more readable and less buggy than the previous versions.. don't tell me they're all just equally bad?
This doesn't actually get money out of the system. If I sell you my WoW account, money has changed hands but none of that money has come from WoW/Blizzard.

There are some game developers looking at sanctioned RMT right now because it would be a huge selling point. "Make money playing video games" used to be a popular slogan on tacky banner ads. That could see a comeback in a different way.

Sanctioned RMT works through some official marketplace (think Diablo 3's ill-fated Auction House). Not only does the developer not pay out anything (all money flowing through the auction house is coming from buyers of items), but they even take a "transaction fee" cut. All while continuing to own all the items being traded. There's no downside for the "house".

Except perhaps suddenly running afoul of gambling regulations if they can no longer argue there's no "prize" element to the gambling?
You only have to do validation at the boundary vs having to do it everywhere.
Ask HN: How to get paid by profit you make?
So I figured out there are some jobs that pay really well if you are willing to work hard. Take a look at enterprise software sales people, it’s not uncommon to earn more than CEO of the company they’re working for if they sell enough.

I wonder if the same idea, to get paid accordingly to the profit you make for the company, is possible for SWE role. I’ve heard about quants (HFT) but really no other option seems possible. Have you ever heard about such career options?
> As I've become a more experienced software engineer, my job stopped being about making new features and switched to controlling chaos.

Isn't that funny. Get the inexperienced folk to churn out features so the experienced folk can enjoy the nightmare of perpetually repairing the monster.
It won't revert the damage it's done already, though. Youtube, being the main source of income for so many creators, plays a dangerous game with those 'beta-tests', offering apparently not-well-tested features to the creators, playing with their revenue as a result.
> Static types are great because they make certain classes of bug impossible to write, but they have their limits. There are escape hatches, like casts and Object types, even in statically-typed languages

Even those don't have to be escape hatches as such, in the same way e.g. List.head doesn't have to be partial, that was an explicit decision.

When casting from rust's Any trait to a concrete type, you get an option. There's no subversion of the type system, there is no runtime error unless you as the developer decide to generate one.
Bijective Mnemonic Phrases
Paying in games is extremely recent.
Apple: the second-best tech company in the world
360 Total Security 10.2.0.1194 Crack and Serial Keygen Is Here
php fan fiction
I instead proclaim that it brings you the best of both worlds. Finding the right mix of static/dymamic is a balance act but if you do so you get the benefits of static types (safety, documentation, tooling) and dynamic types (fast prototyping, not having to write convuluted code to please the compiler). What are the killer features that gradual types lose out on?
I don't think the part about marketing works. Number ads sucks horribly, and they are not effective.

What works is campaigns like "diamonds are forever" or stunts where your product gets on the national news.
The consensus of the Supreme Court of the United States was that Black people were not legally the same as Whites.

Your argument about doctor's advice undermines your point: are eggs healthy to eat, or not? Should a good daily diet include 6 or more servings of wheat and carbs? In both cases the consensus was strongly expressed and later debunked...
Voters on both sides hate the machines because they can be rigged. Why are they still a thing?
I am fascinated with unifying theories such as the periodic table (Mendeleev's) and the Copernican view of planets orbiting the sun. The previous, Earth-centric model had more deviations than predictive power. The periodic table is also an example of a structure with tremendous predictive power.

I think it's also interesting to distinguish between systems that reveal intrinsic order (e.g. periodic table), and systems that superimpose external order (e.g. a performance review framework).

Behavioural economics is an example of a field that desperately needs a modern-day equivalent of Mendeleev to come around and structure.

I am craving more examples of this, please, anyone, share!
>> Erm, no. Not unless they are solving the problem perfectly.

Well, yes, that's what I mean.

I gave an example here a while ago, of how a Meta-Interpretive Learning
algorithm, Metagol, can learn the aⁿbⁿ grammar perfectly from 4 positive
examples:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17837055

That's typical of Metagol, as well as other algorithms in Inductive Logic Programming, the broader sub-field of machine learning that MIL belongs to.

>> Do feel free to share an example of an algorithm that generalizes better from
less data. I'll wait.

To clarify, my claim is that there are algorithms that learn adquately from
few data and therefore don't "need" more data. Not that less data is better.

That said, there are theoretical results that suggest that a larger hypothesis
space increases the chance of the learner overfitting to noise. So what is
really needed in order to improve generalisation is not more data, but more
relevant data. Then again, that is the subject of my current PhD so I might
just be interpreting everything through the lens of my research (as is typical for PhD students).

You work in the field? What do you do?
Now if you a non expert can think of these possibilities doesn’t seem reasonable that the experts have thought of this too and have taken into account these things?

Yes, but. Look, I'm not an expert in this area and so I have to hold my hands up and say I don't have a clue and have to defer to those who think they do.

However, in most other areas of research I find people are able to make a simple, clear case with other factors accounted for in a way that climate change seems to lack. I don't know enough about it to know why, maybe it's just the difficulty in ruling out other factors on one planet. But I feel like I've lost count of the number of times a single dataset like that from Mauna Loa is held up, questioned and then... nothing. Well, nothing but pointing out someone isn't an expert.

We should probably do a better job of addressing the questions people have given the importance. Or at least, someone who's an expert should probably do better if they want everyone to buy into the argument.
Okay, that makes two. Quite sad. Reason is likely that the EU parliament's resolution on this is non-binding; the EU parliament doesn't have the power to just revoke export permissions already granted by member state's governments.
Here's the PostScript source code to PizzaTool, which shipped with OpenWindows 3.0 and Solaris 2.0 (SVR4), which is well commented and organized so you can follow what's going on:

https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/pizzatool

And the manual entry:

https://donhopkins.com/home/archive/NeWS/pizzatool.6

More on the sordid history of PizzaTool and the Window System Wars at Sun Microsystems:

https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-story-of-sun-microsystems...

This is a taste of what multi threaded object oriented PostScript code looks like:

% Paint the pizza, forking off a processes to paint every topping.
%
/Paint { % - => -
PizzaLock { % monitor:
/reset self send
/PaintProcess { % fork:
pause
/PaintNewPizza self send

% Wait a second until things settle down ...
% If /paint is called again within the next second,
% this process will be killed and a new paint process
% will sleep for a second.
[1 0] SLEEP

% If our parent window frame isn't opened,
% then it's hiding and we shouldn't draw the toppings.
/opened? Parent send { % if:
% Draw all the toppings at once! Weeee!
4 { % Lots of cheese, repeat:
Cheese /StartSprinkle self send
} repeat
/toppings Pizza send { % forall:
/StartSprinkle self send
} forall

% Wait around for all the sprinklers to finish.
{ % loop:
Sprinklers length 0 eq { exit } if
% push one of the sprinklers, doesn't matter which.
Sprinklers { pop exit } forall
waitprocess pop
} loop
} if
/StopPaint self send
} fork def
PaintProcess /ProcessName (Pizza Painter) put
} monitor
} def
Its hard to get a person to understand something when they are paid to not understand it.
You appear to be deliberately misinterpreting the point I made. You made a claim to not buying arguments made from authority and I pointed out that you do buy some arguments made from authority. You do so every time you listen to your doctor's advice regarding your healh. Your claim about not buying arguments made from authority is false.

Your understanding of the argumentative fallacy of the false appeal to authority is false. Furthermore your conclusion about the point I made is false.

Consider this. Experts sometimes get things wrong. Their consensus opinions though are the best we can go by since they have, by definition, the most knowledge on a particular subject. So non experts are left with the cruel reality that even though expert opinions are the best available on a given subject that opinion could still be wrong. In any event it is not an argumentative fallacy to cite experts and that is what I said.
has numerous problems as an API and is fiddly and requires every app that wants to listen to do this correctly.

Look. Yes you can hack together the registry using flat files, using FS notifications, using the insane transactional FS apis, magically working out how to handle concurrent writes etc and have every process that wants to interact with it implement this correctly.

But why. In every sense it is less clean, more complex and generally worse. Wasn't the idea to make it better and cleaner?
I found the following reddit discussions to provide more detailed perspective of this war.

View from a Saudi Arabian,
https://www.reddit.com/r/saudiarabia/comments/8wnbzl/

View of an independent security analyst,
https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/8qyip8/
To help with readability but allowing for complex input checks, I typically abstract the input validation to another function, called near the top.

I think as time goes on type checking will be the least of our issues. Checking for different types of abuse (technical, social, semantic), context sensitive boundaries, setting tripwire-esque traps to control abuse etc will make any current concerns over type checking seem elementary.

We need to give up on the idea of coding 3 line, beautiful functions that look great on Twitter and realize we live in a time where defense and privacy are a priority, while (some how) simultaneously pushing innovation.

I hate it, trust me, but if you talk to typcial corporate/business clients, this is where their thoughts/concerns are currently. I realize it’s a bigger conversation than what I’m mentioning here.