skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I did not imply you can change the codebase, by the way.
Everyone has free will.

It just happens that free will is the effect and not the cause, output rather than input. Buddhists were right about the self being an illusion.
Don't know if it's dead now. It wasn't when Google sold it nine years ago — Radio Automation.
I don't see Songza on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songza

I miss that service.
Wouldn't that also disable other features as well (push notifications, maybe?)? Animations are something I disable permanently just to have a better user experience, I wouldn't like to sacrifice anything else.
When people mean that, they should say anthropogenic.
OP says in the comment that he _went_ to university and didn't pick it up.
People in this thread keep talking about suffering. I would like to disambiguate: suffering is not pain. Suffering is focusing on the pain and assuming that we should not have pain (and being lost in the idea that they should somehow be free of how they feel).

There is a lot of stuff about mental resiliency (and what to do with chronic pain - emotional and physical) that talks about how to deal with pain.

> quite often there is no viable solution.

There might not be a 'solution' to removing pain. Pain is a fact of life. Its what we do with it that matters.

[edit] More text. [/edit]
>> If someone has access to your codebase you've got bigger problems than plaintext passwords anyway.

You're joking, right? The context of the discussion is when your database is already leaked. Then the chance is that your e-mail database is leaked, too. You may leak code, too. It doesn't necessarily mean someone can execute arbitrary code on your server though, yet.
Or how about a single word, e.g. Emotion.
Usually, I just read HN, but I signed up to ask HN about this.

I really hope I'm not a crackpot, and would love to get my view changed.

I've been thinking that marriage and relationship-seeking as a man is just a bad bet if you aren't a "top tier" man in terms of looks, income, charisma - the "full package". I'm objectively at the middle of the bell curve (run-of-the-mill software engineer, got good grades at an average school, not short but not tall, not fat but not fit, face a "6") but with a hint of (diagnosed as a child) Aspergers that dings my "full package" rating, and I've only had one good relationship.

Statistics like this show that premarital sex and divorce are correlated.

Anecdotally, it seems the U.S. judicial system heavily favors the woman in a man-woman divorce. My father, my uncle, 2 of my coworkers - much of their assets completely wiped. I have read research indicating that this is true in general i.e. divorces tend to be a greater loss for the man.

I believe premarital (and extramarital) sex is far more easily found in these times due to the profileration of dating apps, and as a consequence of internet-scale, the sheer number of options for women (who are typically the ones with choice) are exponentially greater than any other time before this.

As another commenter mentioned, people are only as faithful as their knowledge of their options. It's now common knowledge that you have an INCREDIBLE amount of options, if you're desired.

So, with the onus of choice and the economy of scale, it seems like a woman will always be able to find a superior replacement to an average or below-average man - even if only for one night.

I can't make myself smarter or more beautiful (I can and do work out, but those improvements only do so much). I already have enough problems socially that dating is an uphill battle. Why should I try when there is a charismatic 9/10 a "swipe" away?

Cards on the table - after finally seeing romantic success after 20 years of life, saving my paychecks for a ring and marriage, and then having it all come crashing down early this year really broke me, and I found myself easily trapped into reading and studying "incel" and "red pill" ideologies to try and provide the right model to be viewing the world of human romantic relationships, and it was a good deal of work to rise out of that trap, but I'm left with wondering what parts of "the black pill" are very real and what parts are useless. It really seems like given the premises 1) as a living organism, I should be in the business of making my species survive another generation and 2) Others in my species deem me unfit to reproduce, then I can only accomplish (1) by increasing the amount of resources in the world available to those who ARE fit to reproduce, which can be done in 2 different ways...
I am super bad at interviewing — I just want to see how well the candidate can code :-(
I hate phone screenings. And that's not because I hate the interview itself, but having the interview over the telecom system. Most recruiters are using a cell phone, and cell-to-cell audio quality is pitiful in today's age. No wonder so many people in my generation don't bother calling anymore! If my ears are straining to make sure I'm hearing the fuzzy-sounding person on the other end of the line, that makes the screening a lot less pleasant.

As much as I agree that companies should be more willing to just have people come in for a quick chat, I'd like for recruiters to reach out through email or text and then setup a Hangouts chat or such. A video call would be sufficient in my book.

EDIT: One of the things that sucks about phone screenings, IMO, is when the interviewer is clearly asking a prewritten set of questions and taking notes as I speak. What I'd like instead is for the interviewer to record the conversation so they don't have to take notes, thus freeing their minds up to having a chill conversation and perhaps getting a better sense of who I am.
Alphabet Cloud?
Also Chris Eliasmith's team, especially their work on Intel's Loihi
This is an official Google Chrome Labs extension, so it is safe. The video preview is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9V6B-tOIkc
>> No. I've implemented precisely that and it doesn't prove what you think.

Well, the way I read the parent is that you can request a previously set password to be sent to your e-mail.
>i was always on the verge of the smoke point of the oil and it still took way longer than suggested.

So I used to struggle with this exact thing as well, and this is how I solved it. You have to remember that when you add the protein to the pan the temperature is going to drop by a large amount. So for me, as soon as I saw the first whisps of smoke off the oil, I would crank the heat up a bit and toss in the protein (or whatever I was starting with). You will be amazed what a difference in makes.
> The exploited weakness here was that the website could be tricked into serving a user-contributed image with an HTML MIME type by appending the right suffix to the URL file name.

This vulnerability irritates me. Does the server not even know what resources it owns? Is this practice something that is due to dynamically typed langs/practices?

It feels like the problems that plagued SQL inection before we decided to use parameterized queries
Gaphor (https://github.com/gaphor/gaphor) is an open source UML tool written in Python. The goal is to create a simple, easy to use modeling tool not a big enterprise tool like the ones already mentioned. I would like to soon support SysML which is for modeling systems design and requirements. We are finishing up converting it to Python3 and Gtk+3 now. We would love more involvement or input if there are things you would like to see supported.
When I read about rowhammer, I did analyse carefully the memory request pattern and found many similarities to a rowhammer attack on PC. It was several processes issuing small requests on alternating rows, with slowly moving indexes.

After I implemented the change and had a stable system, I went as far as implementing a switch of addressing pattern so that, all other things being equal, I could trigger the bug or not. And it worked as expected.

So yes, i am very confident in the analysis.
I'm worried that Google Voice will join this list sometime soon
In India Ashur is a Demon and gods are called Dev, while in old Persia Devs are demons and Ashur (Ahura) is a God.
I honestly think that live typing was a large part of Wave’s failure. It seemed like a great idea on the surface, but in practice what you initially type is rarely what you want your response to be. It was a really painful feature that few people seemed to like, but Google doubled down on it, eventually removing “Draft” checkbox that allowed you to disable it.

The feature was later picked up by Google Docs, where it is quite useful.
SSH Authentication with GitHub on Fly-Fi
Depends if you include individual hardware lines - remember Apple has been around for 20+ years longer than Google. If you include each individual product, Apple discontinued far more products before Google was even founded than are on the entire Google list (which is admittedly incomplete): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Apple_Inc._product...
I had something like that happened to me at my previous gig where I was Head of Engineering (in Guadalajara, México).

We hired several good developers who were more or less jr. After an average of 2 years, 4 of them left to go to Google, Facebook, Amazon and some company in Austria.

For me it was an honor, a couple of them even told me that, they had been applying to those companies before but could not get in, and it was after they got into my team and got some specific experience, that these companies wanted to hire them.

In some other fields, it is expected that a Jr person will be for a couple of years and then "fly away". For example, I know it is a normal path for a just-graduated finance/economics person, who gets into a VC fund to get experience, and after 2 years he leaves for an MBA in a "top school". I've seen it several times (with people from VC funds that invested in companies I've been). That is something expected and accepted.

Personally I don't see anything bad for that. Maybe the only disadvantage is the "know how", but it can be mitigated if you establish the right documentation and knowledge transfer processes.
Trade War Between the United States and China Are Likely to Dominate the G20
More like greatest mathematician whose work I’ve never understood. Sadly. At least I can reduce Grothendieck to algebraic topology or Wiles to number theory plus that one old problem. Terry Tao to analysis. But Langlands? Interconnectivity of all sub-fields? I’ve got nothing.
Because going to stores sucks?

Beyond just the normal having to get to a store, it's below freezing in NYC atm, sometimes with rain, not exactly pleasant weather for a stroll.

There are some things which are hard to evaluate online and a physical presence is necessary, straps, even Bassoon straps, really shouldn't be one of them.
That was a fun article, starbeast, but the most interesting part was buried at the end:

"So it seems Zharkova’s justification is based on media extrapolation of her own press release and Wikipedia, not the extensive peer-reviewed literature on the Maunder minimum itself.

I emailed Zharkova and she sent me two studies that support her views, but they aren’t representative of the literature and I don’t believe she has critically evaluated their content."
- Michael J. I. Brown, author of The Conversation article

So the author of the article is upset that the astronomer in question never thought about the correlation between reduced solar activity and a mini-ice age until hearing the connection from the media. After she decides that, yes, "We didn’t mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it [a mini ice age]." He determines that a) Zharkova doesn't know what she believes and b) even if she did, her peer-reviewed literature is inferior to his own and she obviously doesn't what she's talking about.

Mr. Brown then concludes by declaring there will be no mini-ice age, without any proof, drawing from the weasly "More recent studies, including those by Lean, find the solar irradiance varies less than was thought in 1997."
Goog-411 was awesome in the days before smartphones.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GOOG-411
This sounds dumb. So if my password was "something" (yes, it's a terrible password), it would just keep censoring that word every time I write that into the chat?
I remember Wave. It was terribly slow (both server-side and client-side), complex, and complicated to use.

Live typing was a horrible idea too; it looked like it was there just to show they could do it (it was somewhat impressive at the time that you could do that on a website).
I don't think it's possible to learn "mathematical notation", as a thing. This is like asking "how can I learn human language".

There's different notation per field and subfield but I would argue that the process of figuring out notation per example or per paper is generalisable and not too difficult:

- identify the field of the paper; keywords, general categorisation, etc.

- take an example and break the notation into parts

- Google each of the parts independently alongside field keywords (results of this search should also give you some contextual info alongside each component which should help your knowledge)

- compile the aggregate of your research

- reread the paper and see if your understanding has improved

- repeat

- try another paper in the same field
All depends on your taste. My .vimrc handles ensuring that I have a plugin manager installed and that it installs those plugins on my behalf if they aren't there. And I do all of that in ~10 lines of vimL config. It's totally reasonable to have your plugin/config ensure the external binaries exist as well. The popular golang plugin has a command for that.
Hmm, the jump mode issue is strange; can you please file an issue as a starting point?

As for the error message, it didn't wipe out your file; it opened a new buffer with the error message. You can switch between buffers using Tab. There's a full keymap listing available through a command called "application::display_default_keymap" that you can invoke by hitting 0 in normal mode and searching for it.
There's a long version and a short version. The long version is you have to learn to write mathematics by yourself. Start with an intro course and start deriving theorems by yourself. Do not look at the proofs. At this stage, details are very important and can't be overlooked. You need to be your own critic and keep asking why and how to every single detail and step until you can convince yourself that you would be able to naturally come up with the theorem and proof. Continue doing this to higher level courses. This is how I learned Math since middle school all the way throughout graduate school.

The short version is you have to ask the right questions. Naturally for every theorem or equation, there are 3 big questions:

1) What does the theorem/equation say? What's the intuition behind it?

2) Why is it true?

3) How does one come up with it?

One must ask these questions in the exact order. To understand what the equation really means, you should break it down further to smaller components. What is this variable? What does it represent? What is the intuition behind what it represents? What's the implication when the variable increases, decreases, etc? Do that for every single component in the equation/theorem. One should fully understand the intuition and clearly describe all quantities before trying to look at the equation/theorem as a whole.

To understand why an equation/theorem is true you need to build up a repertoire of theorems related to the quantities of interest. The bigger your repertoire, the easier you can prove or disprove something. The more advanced way is to build up intuition around the quantities of interest then come up with intuitive hypotheses. The hypotheses are often easier to prove/disprove. The process repeats.
I left after 8.5 years...sometimes you move on for more than money.
Why truth?
Thanks this makes more sense. My father's name is Anil which is another name for God of wind in India. I was surprised to find out Enlil was also god of air in that region. Such an long journey for that word.
For maths and machine learning, Khan Academy and Coursera can get you somewhere.
Shared struggle builds emotional bonds between people. Think military bootcamp.
It was like slack, but way better! I'm still sad it died, and still secretly hoping someone is working on "Wave Phoenix". My favourite feature of it was to replace/augment the comment fields on my blog posts with "waves". When anyone posted a comment on my blog, it would appear my Wave client inbox like it was a regular-ol' email thread - and I could reply in-place (and real-time).

It was a pretty exciting concept to me that ALL of my interactions for various disqus-like random posts, emails, blog comments, forum replies etc - could be handled from the Wave client.

But they realllly bodged the roll out. First it was the "developer-version" where everyone could pile-on - and it was madness. You could actually "reply all" to EVERYONE. Like sending a @everyone slack message to every slack channel! Chaos!

Then they went to the"invite-only" phase - and suddenly the whole thing became a ghost-town, and there was no incentive to open your wave client.

I wish they had have nailed it, because I'm positive there was a good idea underneath it.
Ask HN: Angellist seems to have withered out, is there a 'new Angellist'?
Looking to hire developers.
1.0 was 2015.
It predates Minecraft by about a decade, I think.
GH Enterprise pricing is $21 /user/mo [1]

GL Ultimate pricing is $99 /user/mo [2]

[1] https://github.com/pricing/enterprise
[2] https://about.gitlab.com/pricing/#self-managed
I believe they tend to over-remember, if anything.
https://smile.amazon.com/Mathematical-Notation-Guide-Enginee...
+1 for Andrew Ng's ML course.

I did the course earlier this year, and I can confirm that you don't need much more than high-school level maths knowledge. If you understand concepts like functions and summation then you're most of the way there, and if you've got some calculus then it should be easy. I came out of it with better mathematical comprehension than when I went in.

I found that I spent a lot of time on the course converting mathematical notation into code (octave/matlab), which is a great way to validate your understanding of the maths. If you're understanding is wrong then it either throws an error, or runs slowly because you failed to map summations etc onto the appropriate parallelised operations.

ML has moved on a bit since the course was designed, but it's still a good way to get familiar with the basics.
Thank you for assuming that I was assuming that, is nice of you as it would be really quite lovely if I was still so innocent, unfortunately I was just being deeply sarcastic, I'm sorry. I am from the UK you see, where policy based evidence is some kind of official standard woven throughout business and politics. As long as it looks official, that's all that matters.
>and you aren’t able to just walk up to vim somewhere else

Is this something people do? I use a handful of machines and use git+stow for managing my vimrc. I've never had this problem where I need to "walk up to vim somewhere else" where I wouldnt just clone my dotfiles and stow my vim config. Takes all of 10 seconds and I'm up and running.
Code Sandbox is great for general purpose coding. I have a whole list of Online IDEs that you might be interested in comparing.

https://github.com/styfle/awesome-online-ide
The list is missing Froogle
I'm not particularly nomadic but having been born in a country, raised in another and currently living in a third country I already feel zero loyalty towards any specific nationality or country.
>> There is no need to build airplanes with flapping wings,

As I understand it, birds don't need to flap their wings to fly. Many birds can glide for long distances, say. They flap their wings to give themselves a push and get off the ground, etc, but not to stay aloft. In other words, airplanes do work on the same principles as birds do, they just employ them in a different manner.

Similarly, the whole idea that we can reproduce human intelligence using computers is based on an understanding of human intelligence as computation, and of the brain as a computational device [1]. Without this assumption, AI would have been very difficult to justify, and I do mean AI in all its forms, from its beginnings with the Dartmouth conference and what can be called "McCarthy's project", to modern days.

For example, for most of the history of AI, the main thrust of research was on propositional and first order logic as models of human reasoning. The current wave of deep learning itself is predicated on the idea that the human brain is a kind of computer and so it can be simulated by a digital computer. The connectionists are just a little more literal in that sense, than most other AI people.

But, yes, absolutely, wa are totally trying to make artificial minds that behave just like human minds, that "flap their glia like brains" or whatever. The only problem is that we don't actually have a very good idea how human brains work- let alone the minds they produce.

_______________

[1] These are the main ideas behind cognitive science. See the wikipedia article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
And there is the problem:

It seems Russian bride distributors and few others pay best.

And media houses seems to don't care that this is intellectually and emotionally insulting to their readers.

Had they put slightly more effort into this they might have had a nice income from non-spammy ads like they have in print.
I'm still learning mathematics (I don't think the learning phase ends). I used to worry about "reading" notation. I think what's changed is that I have gotten used to not understanding unfamiliar notation. And I realize that if the notation appears unfamiliar, the mathematics may also be unfamiliar. Being able to "grok" notated mathematics is much more about understanding the mathematics than about being able to read notation.

Therefore I would be cautious about jumping to the conclusion that your problem is as simple as "simply cannot read" (unfamiliar notation). Maybe that's true in some cases, but it's also likely that the notation stands in as a kind of shorthand for elaborate, maybe even arcane, concepts that you don't understand very well (unfamiliar mathematics). Working out which concepts/theories you need to study may be a better place to start than worrying about the notation per-se. Eventually you'll drill down to some level where you do understand the notation, or it is explained in a way that you can understand. Also consider that learning to read and write go hand in hand -- reading a notation gets much easier once you start writing your own sentences in the same notation (e.g. do exercises, learn to write proofs.)

With few exceptions, don't expect the notation in one area to be useful, or to mean the same thing, in another area. However there are a couple of generally useful things to know: (1) Greek letter names (so you can recognize, write and pronounce them without being confused) -- just learn the ones that show up in your reading, and (2) set theory notation plus some basic set theory (read Halmos' Naive Set Theory book up to the point that it becomes confusing).

Others have mentioned it, but be aware that it is common for one field to have multiple notation conventions. Often the notations originate from seminal papers or widely used books. Different authors frequently use slightly different notation, even within the same field, and sometimes a single paper may contain multiple contradictory notations. I've even had lecturers who switch notation half way through a lecture. If you're studying multiple texts you may want to translate all of the key theory into one consistent notation -- but at a minimum you need to be able to keep track of the correspondence between the different notations as you're reading.
Both are much better than I would've expected to be fair, but yeah the block recognition is still slightly short of usable.

The handwriting recognition is amazing.