skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The noise cancelling was excellent, but the bass was +5db overblown, boomy and drowned out most of the mids, the treble was dark to hide the NC hiss

Had pretty much the exact same experience with some noise-cancelling in-ear pair of Bose. I was actually amazed at how good the noise cancelling was, but sound reproduction even in absence of any outside noise was very sub-par. Now I can't imagine the engineers didn't measure this thing, so I'm assuming it was done on purpose, maybe aimed for pop music or so?
I'm not fully qualified to answer but from my experience in building our product, sales isn't necessarily about pitching - if you're actively listening to potential users you're able to better understand what to even build. The article actually does a great job of explaining this imo.
5 Things You Need Before Building the Product Roadmap
人在江湖身不由己
I have $2000 speakers and I use a $60 2nd-hand amp from 1999 and a $20 bluetooth dac with them. Audiophiles hate me. Bluetooth is the greatest sin, apparently.

I have AB tested my amp with newer models and while there was a difference, it was very minor and not worth upgrading IMO
Interview with an entrepreneur who founded Asia’s largest crowdfunding startup
I hear you man. This is indeed a pet peeve of mine -- outlier counter-examples, as if any general statement is supposed to cover 100% of the population (and if it doesn't it's invalid), and not just "most" or "many".
Parkinson's disease 'may' start in gut
Study: Oceans Have Absorbed 60 Percent More Heat Than Previously Thought
If this is confirmed it would mean that climate sensitivity is at the high end of estimates. Some of the implications are discussed in this BBC news article: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
I’ve heard such things. Two points to note:

1. Decent monitor headphones or speakers sound the same. That’s under $500. Even some Sennheiser HD25’s are literally up there.

2. The equipment used to record such music cost less and was lower quality. Adding $500k doesn’t add anything because there isn’t anything there.

Then again I have no problem with people who spend $500k on audio kit. That’s up to them. If it makes them feel good buying something in that range then fair play to them. It’s mostly just art.

What I object to is little bags of stones wrapped around cables, magic boxes which absorb non physical entities in the room and directional cables. Woo and such needs to be taken down.
You say it's a metaphor, but neither of us have any idea what it's a metaphor for. [..] I think what you're actually trying to argue is that it's completely meaningless marketing fluff that can be applied to any phone or tablet.

I probably am, yes. I mostly think it's silly to argue that it "can only be used literally" in the face of it being used non-literally. It's a metaphor for its literal definition - this screen is "edge-to-edge" like a screen with no borders. It metaphorically has no borders because it's so big and the borders are so small, even though it literally does have borders, but you won't notice them, you'll accept the screen is edge to edge because it very like one that is. Yes it does seem like a literally false statement to sell people on an idea.

Would you object to calling a feature phone edge-to-edge

I don't know. On the one hand I don't think it is, any more than I don't think the iPad Pro is. On the other hand, they can call it whatever they want, they will just say "the screen goes from the edge of the screen to the edge of the screen" and everyone will say "duh". Do I think it's harmful? Not so much because the screen is visible. "All day battery life" was more misleading because you can't see the contrary at a glance. "No fee" when there is a fee, way more harmful.

"Unmissable" has a second meaning, "too good or important to be missed." [1]

Well "Edge" has meanings "2.a. the line where an object or area begins or ends : BORDER" and "2.b. the narrow part adjacent to a border" and "2.c. a point near the beginning or the end" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edge

So "edge to edge" could meaninglessly but accurately be saying "from a point near the edge to a part adjacent to the other edge". :-|

(except "all powerful", did they really say that?)

Yep; top of the page here https://www.apple.com/ipad/ - All New. All Screen. All Powerful.

Meaning, presumably, "every bit of it is new, it's mostly screen, every component is high end".

It would not make sense to say "my car is a Lexus" as a metaphor to mean my Hyundai is nice.

"How is your new Hyundai?" "It's so luxurious and feature filled, it's totally .. i dunno, it's ... very Lexus! Yeah, my car is a Lexus by another badge!". You wouldn't understand that?

It wouldn't make sense to say "my car is turbocharged" to mean it's fast when it doesn't have a turbocharger.

"How is your new Tesla?" "FAST it's so fast it's turbocharged supercharged bullet train rocket engine awesome" "I don't understand, it cannot be turbocharged because there is no internal combustion engine exhaust gas to spin the turbine, why are you lying?"
We had global trade for millennia, even without something like the Roman Empire to guarantee it, so I somehow doubt that.

We also have actual laws about sea routes, and global bodies like the UN that could, if there was an actual need, do something about it.
Not in that order though, unfortunately: Unless you are using really shitty speakers, room acoustics trumps everything else pretty quickly. For anyone who has never listened to music in a well treated environment I found https://youtu.be/dB8H0HFMylo?t=355 to be pretty eye opening.
I know the shipping rates system. It’s the entire supply chain that gets me. How do they do that for £1.50 when I can’t get the parts for less than £15 here in huge volumes.
"When your username and password are entered on Google’s sign-in page, we’ll run a risk assessment and only allow the sign-in if nothing looks suspicious."

In my experience (it is already the case with gmail and outlook up and now), this means I will not be able to login to my account when in holiday in another city, country, or when I use a borrowed device, or when I am behind VPN/Tor, etc, unless I give google my phone number, and can afford to get a call / sms at that point of time and unblock the account.

It should be my choice, as it is my account that is at risk, to turn on/off such dubious security measures. It is fine to have these features on by default, but I would like to turn this particular feature off for my account. Any clever "risk assessment" thing where a computer decides without an option to turn if off/on is problematic.

I have sometimes the feeling they know this and it is on purpose. They want not only to collect data, they want to collect high quality data and these measures help to clean their data sets at time of collection.
Paraplegic patients walk again with spinal cord implants
Because there's no reliable way which you can tell if people lie or not, putting AI in front of it won't change any of that.
>That just isn't true. Game publishers and developers these days use psychological tricks to keep people engaged and paying money into them.

"Psychological tricks."

Do you use that term to describe your restaurant experience as well? "The cook used psychological tricks to make the food more delicious."

People have simply figured out what others like and made games more in line with that. Yes, they are psychological tricks, but almost everything humans create employ psychological tricks of some kind to make the experience better.

>Lootboxes are gambling no matter how you try to justify them.

Not according to the law.

>You pay money for the chance to win a prize with no guarantee you will.

There is a guarantee that you will get something every time.

>There's 2 reasons games don't have marketplaces, neither are because these companies have a heart and want to stop gambling.

A business is not supposed to "have a heart." It makes absolutely no sense to expect that. A free market doesn't actually work if you expect people "to have a heart."

The reason why most games don't have marketplaces is that most games do not have a large amount of players or it does not fit into the theme of the game. It simply is not worth the effort to implement such a system for most games.

>But they obviously don't care about the consumer when they're using the same tactics as slot machines to get them to spend as much money as possible.

Do you know what else uses the same tactics as slot machines? Almost everything that involves people. Humans seem to enjoy getting rewarded in a semi-random manner more than consistently. This even includes people interacting with one another. We grow more attached to people who sometimes treat us coldly than people who always treat us nicely.

I don't know if you use these terms on purpose or if it's simply an accident, but the way you refer to things such as "just like slot machines" or "this is gambling because xyz simplification" shows that you're trying to evoke an emotional reaction to paint something in a negative light. Those types of arguments don't work when the other person isn't emotionally invested in the same values as you.

I loathe lootboxes. I think they're disgusting, but I also understand that this kind of demand for regulation will only hurt players. If other people don't like lootboxes as well, then the market will take care of it. If the market doesn't take care of it then it turns out that some people do like lootboxes. You can then have a niche for games that have and games that don't have lootboxes.
There's a good market in how to take integrals.

Taking derivatives is easy.
(Jeff from PipelineDB / author here)

Good questions!

I would definitely suggest being straightforward and honest with the potential customers you're talking to. And ideally, it would be better to have a MVP you can demo than nothing, but the main point here is that talking to potential customers before building anything is a better strategy than building a product and then talking to customers.

If you talk to a bunch of potential customers about a product idea and discover that there is demand for the product, then building a MVP that you can demo would be a logical next step. And if the MVP is something you can build quickly, then it probably makes sense to do this sooner than later.

The trap to avoid here is building products in a vacuum, based on assumptions about what people want and will pay for. Doing the customer development (pre-sales) work to prove, or disprove, customer demand for a product before building the product is wise.
Rude Girl
A obnoxious girl with long brown hair and wearing a green shirt with the capital letter "T" is being extremely rude and prejudice towards other people. She has no manners and she is a selfish bitch.
How to Create a Single Endpoint for Your PostgreSQL Replication with HAProxy
Do you think its not going to have all the normal blocks on it just because its in the sky? A firewall is a firewall whether its in orbit or an exchange.
That’s not how software teams work unfortunately.

There’s probably three build systems and none of them work on certain days of the week and the guy who wrote it all left six months ago.
Study: Parkinson's disease could originate in appendix
Not understanding paths isn't alarming they just haven't had a need for it yet.

Teach em how to copy, delete, move, rename stuff via CMD and they'll get it fast!

Make them use cmd exclusively for playing music, opening games, deleting stuff... And the concept of Path, directory and files will simply click. Besides they'll have something cool to show off to their friends

If I only use explorer, I don't need to know . and ..

However, if I do lots of file operations via CMD, then I'll get tired of using cd\ all the time when I only want to go up one level.
Javascript can be served dynamic as well, per user/connection specific even. So an attacker would have to investigate and counter each new version of the scripts. Even if this could be done automatic it greatly increases the cat/mouse factor for Google.
>Why do you think these won't work? I would think they have a dataset that they're validating them on if they're calling it "AI".

You'd be surprised. AI is just a catch-all marketing term, see for example IBM's Watson umbrella brand, that's sold like advanced AI but has had tons of fiascos, and is shown to be different sets of often simplistic implementations.

E.g: https://www.massdevice.com/report-ibm-watson-delivered-unsaf...

https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-human-os/robotics/artificial-i...

https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/26/17619382/ibms-watson-canc...
This is a difficult issue. On the one hand, it is arrogant to sit in comfortable chairs imported to areas that live in excess and tell others to live with less so that we may appreciate their wilderness from afar; or ephemerally while we are on vacation. On the other hand, I am reminded of this letter/video which sums up an important ethos: https://vimeo.com/newmanfilm/wildernessletter. We should protect the wilderness because it inspires us to be better.

Humanity doesn't need wilderness to survive and grow (we need food and water). But we do need it to remind ourselves where we came from and how complexity can be beautiful. So what do we do?
All the lie detection methods I've seen are based on questionable science with high false positive rates, there's no known method to know for sure if someone is lying and I don't see how adding "AI" on top of it will change that.
You mean exactly how existing lie detectors claim to work? They slapped AI on an old concept (that isn't useful and has been proven to be worthless a million times over).
I always feel a bit sorry for the rubber stamp monkeys sitting at the border control in the US. They are so fucked at so many levels that isn't funny any more. For starters, their job is purely symbolic as it is unlikely anyone that shouldn't be there would get that far: it would imply multiple levels of failure in several agencies: you traveled internationally and were profiled, checked, and triple checked before you even arrived at your gate. They are bureaucratic ass coverage with little practical real life value. What little value there is has more to do with controlling migration than any security.

Domestically, many airlines already have automated checkins (including luggage dropoff in some places), automated boarding, and in some places automated passport checks at immigration. The last human hurdle is security screening, which is mostly theater at this point.

So, automated screening of travelers at the beginning of their journey makes a lot of sense. Mostly it's just confirming the obvious: are they who they claim they are (i.e. does the person showing up match the automated profile available already, are there any red flags warranting extra attention) and are they carrying anything they should not be carrying. Like AI already outperforming physicians in the job of scanning medical images for anomalies, surely state of the art luggage scanners are also outperforming humans (probably by magnitudes). Add to that some screening for clear markers that somebody's behavior is a bit off and you have basically automated away security staff likely to miss those signals because they are human beings that get tired, stressed, bored, distracted, biased, etc.

So the combined checks of identity, profiling, automated luggage scans and escalation to humans in case of any doubt should be vastly more efficient. The default case should be zero humans involved with the whole process. When it escalates, you still get the humans in the loop that are then a lot more effective because they already know there were some red flags.

This stuff will initially perform quite poorly probably. But it will still be worth it in identifying the "definitely not lying, don't waste your time on this" category of travelers.
depends on the dialect; some pronounce query with a long E
For XNU? Doubt it. It's probably all on XBS and has multiple people maintaining the build system.
Keyword Rankings Drop Diagnosis Checklist
It's going to be pirate radio all over again. How long do you think the USA will exert complete control over a privatised space industry? I'd bet the first satellite shootings will happen over copyright violations, not national security.
What we did was making a landing page somewhere, "sign up for limited beta access", and gauge interest that way. We collected a few email addresses, but it was mostly for validation of the idea, that there was a genuine audience.
In the general case no, you don't need to present an alternative theory to proove that a given existing theory is flawed or not self consistent or not consistent with observed data.
> That's why I'm siding on the LIGO side of this

Are you sure? Because then you must accept that c≠const, thus Ether exists.
To be fair, how FastMail does catch-all delivery like this is standard and easily reproduced st any mail vendor (except Office 365) that supports catch-all, which is most of them. I use a catch-all address with FastMail that is @asubdomainichose.mydomain.org and it is the same subdomain I used with my previous setup before moving to FastMail.

Using a subdomain for catch-all is great because spammers can’t easily discover and flood the subdomain.
While the read was interesting and bring solid points, I strongly disagree with the majority of the arguments.

>The biggest mistake I see developers make is assuming that they are building something that people both want and will pay a meaningful amount of money for.

Lots of projects were build with no exact plan on how to monetize them of if there would be customers to buy it. They just had a vision about how X or Y technology should be , and just created something by putting their guts in it.

The idea that you should marketize something before starting to build is coherent but not true for tech especially when Innovation sometimes requires to educate the customers about how to use a technology , Serverless and Docker are good examples of that I think.

>The best way to do this is by asking good questions, and then listening carefully and taking notes

Again I strongly disagree here. This pattern pushes entrepreneurs to create a version++ of something already existing because the customers told them :

"We are using [Insert Tech Name] and it doesn't support feature X"

So the entrepreneurs would rush to it's keyboard create a clone of the Tech and add the feature X.

This is usually called consulting in my opinion and they are already lots of people doing that... Being a "Founder" of something involve taking risk and not just adding a tiny feature because it can brings money on the short term.

It's about having a vision.

As a result , we could quote the hundreds of email startups we have today who basically do the same thing with often one tiny feature of difference...

> that does not mean that you have created enough incremental value for customers to make them willing to pay you a meaningful amount of money for your product

I agree on this one.
"Because there is no plausible existing technology by which it would"

And how do you know that?
The "Burden of Proof" lies on the entity making a claim [0]. Besides, we do know that polygraphs don't work [1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/inside-polygraph-job-screening-b...
Have you used ranger, Linux's command line visual file manager? You might like it. Navigate directories/files with arrow keys, space to open/view, ton of shortcuts for eg copy/paste/move/rename etc.
> In my experience (it is already the case with gmail and outlook up and now), this means I will not be able to login to my account when in holiday in another city, country, or when I use a borrowed device, or when I am behind VPN/Tor, etc, unless I give google my phone number, and can afford to get a call / sms at that point of time and unblock the account.

That's exactly it, there's already two Gmail accounts from high school I can't access despite knowing the passwords.
Employees take Silicon Valley to task
FxSound Enhancer Premium 13 Full Patch
A balrogs description comes to mind- a demon in the image of a verdun artillery barrage.
So what about a opt-out at account level? Something in the account settings, like this:

[check] Allow sign-in from javascript disabled browsers. WARNING etc. (usual warnings about security etc.)

Edit: because users who know to use long passwords and 2FA do exist and don't need all that extra security stuff ...
The fantasy product in their mind is often a more compelling product than the actual product. See: Kickstarter.
How does this interpretation error result in the actual finding of an optical counterpart to the gravitational wave in the region it was supposed to be in? (see GW170817)

Or are they only trying to weigh in on the first detection?
Yeah, it struck me as extremely disingenuous; while I like the other benefits, I disable JS mostly because I hate being tracked and noticed that many (most?) browser exploits require JS to run.
Symptoms of well functioning, high-perfoming teams
4 Ways to Pressure-Test Strategic Decisions, Inspired by the U.S. Military
I think this is a smart strategy, and is essentially using marketing in the same way that this post suggests using sales, to gauge customer interest in a potential product. The extent to which manual sales outreach or the kind of marketing technique described here should be used likely depends on the kind of product in question. B2B products with higher contract prices and a smaller number of total potential customers will likely require a sales strategy, where B2C products with lots of users and lower contract values may be better served with this kind of marketing tactic.

Great point, though! This is an important topic to consider with marketing and sales strategy development. Thanks for the comment.
So young relatively poor users or those that do a lot of travelling the free ATM withdrawals is a big plus.

I prefer the traditional physical bank only for security I only do online banking with my secondary bank which I only keep 100 quid in.
48 hours left to save on early-bird tickets to Disrupt Berlin 2018
Defending Your Organisation in the Age of Phishing with Training and Technology
State of the Art: How Mark Zuckerberg Became Too Big to Fail
I have no idea with what nationality Andrew Jackson identifies with, but as an immigrant myself, your comment puts my back up a bit. How much of one's life must be spent in a country before being considered "from" that country in your philosophy? If you are born in one country does it indelibly mark you for life? Do you have to be raised in a country in order to identify with it? If you move somewhere, live many years there, have a family there, speak the language, follow the customs, have citizenship there and have no intention of every living anywhere else are you still cursed with your original nationality? Do you feel that such people who have not spent the entirety of their life in a single location need some sort of asterisk next to their nationality? Not a "real" Danish person. Can never become one.

I can understand your question: are they really Danish physicists, or simply physicists working in Denmark. Personally, I don't care but I suppose if you are thinking that Denmark is claiming something they don't deserve, then I suppose it's not a crazy question. However, I hope you can see that the way you put it could be pretty insulting to someone who literally is Danish, but just happens not to be born there.
Sears is dead. But how can your business avoid this?
But how far back in history do you want to go? Why is it that pre-US owners are the real ones and not the pre-pre-US ones?
Well I am derisking and taking money out of my PtP other wise I could get 4% with zopa
The murder is always the janitor