skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Personally I’m not saying JavaScript “counts” as FP — which is why the post says “unless _you_ count”. ;-) But there are certainly FP subcultures in the JS community which only use the functional subset:

https://github.com/jfmengels/eslint-plugin-fp

https://github.com/fantasyland/fantasy-land

https://ramdajs.com/

That subculture is what I was referring to.

If you’re splitting hairs over such definitions without acknowledging the cultural aspect and use that as a hiring criteria I wouldn’t want to work with you either.
I think the idea is, you buy a bond for $98 to get $100 back on maturity in a year (as an example).
So $2 cash does get injected/"printed" when debt levels stay the same or go down.
We just issue more debt though in practice.
You’re arguing that companies should only be able to decline service after a court allows them to?
The way to really fix it would be a filesystem on a loopback device that stays inside linux territory, but that's not supported yet.
Got you: http://seenaburns.com/debugging-electron-memory-usage/
Chemical Catalyst Turns 'Trash' to 'Treasure'
Sorta, it's the right choice on iOS and macOS but conceptually filesystem paths are different than URIs even though the same information can be encoded into both. It's weird to have URIs pointing at google (technically valid by means of being the same type) being passed to file-management APIs - only to have them unsurprisingly fail. It subverts the type system by allowing invalid blobs to avoid being caught by the type system. Paths as URIs in contexts where only FS paths are valid is akin to any other stringly-typed API. A third type is more logical: URL, String and FsPath.
I wonder though if the future will turn into the Star Trek episode where people are "killed" by an AI and then voluntarily submit to suicide. If war is too non-lethal it doesn't solve the reason for the war in the first place and eventually will lead to lethality anyway. As Sherman said "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over." Perhaps more effort should go into eliminating the reason for war in the first place, which is of course easier said than done.
> This setup assumes there’s already consensus on a certain set of validators, but the challenge is arriving at this consensus in the first place.

The validator set changes as people bond or unbond coins in exchange for stake. Running a fair and secure initial distribution is a somewhat orthogonal problem; perhaps you can run an open auction. Any Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake systems has issues with low security in the beginning. Consider that until late ~2012 the total hashrate of the Bitcoin network was less than the hashrate of a single Antminer S9.

> This is the general problem of proof-of-stake: it assumes the presence of consensus in order to arrive at consensus. This is because consensus is reached by utilizing the scarce resource that is the chain’s token, but without consensus in the first place this token isn’t scarce at all.

Consensus and scarcity are tightly related. The consensus process and protocol spec are what make the token scarce, since by definition the majority agree on the token's inflation rate, supply, block reward, etc.... What happens when validators try to fork and change these parameters? They are directly incentivized to do so, yet similarly, what happens when Bitcoin miners try to change the block reward? Of course, they don't hold all the power; with sufficient cause and collaboration, users can signal a user-activated soft fork, or simply choose to follow the original unmodified fork.

> Proof-of-work uses something external to its chain as the scarce resource that determines consensus (energy), while proof-of-stake uses something internal to its chain (the chain’s token). This means that when a PoW chain forks, the two chains have to share the external resource, while the resource is copied for PoS chain forks.

Yes, this is called the "nothing-at-stake" problem, and it is solved by punishing validators who equivocate. This enforces scarcity of voting power across forks. The point is they can't exercise their voting power on both chains. As soon as they vote on one fork, they are committed. The validators on the other fork are incentivized to delete their stake if they vote on the other fork simultaneously.
Logic Noise: Sweet, Sweet Oscillator Sounds (2015)
My parents had 4 kids and didn't have much money. It simply would have been impossible without the kids helping. Chores weren't optional but sheer necessity.
If I understand correctly (which is a big if given it is quantum mechanics), any quantum algorithm can be stimulated on a non-quantum computer, but doing so has an exponential penalty.
> Some time ago science diverged from philosophy

Without epistemology there's no science. Period. Science needs philosophy because they have two complementing roles. If philosophy (or non-scientific thinking in general) doesn't define concepts, science has nothing to work with. Science's role is not to make up concepts. Sometimes a single person does that during scientific inquiry but he's stepping outside of science's responsability and ill-defined concepts created so many complications throughout science's history. Just think about psychiatry.

> and philosophy abandoned evidence-based inquiry.

Big citation needed.

> Perhaps one day we'll really understand intelligence and consciousness. Perhaps not. But if we do, I'm confident the answers will come from neuroscience, psychology, and/or AI, rather than philosophy.

That's not the point. For sure the scientific understanding of intelligence and consciousness will come from science. The role of philosophy is different: it's to define what's the intelligence your trying to make sense of, it's trying to frame the problem you want to solve with science, it's about pointing science towards the evidence you want to model and let it do its course because now the exchange is always been: "Go science, fetch there" and science replied "there's nothing there, but I've found neurons". "Oh nice, let's try there", "Still nothing, but I've found networks in the brain and processing in the visual cortex and the rest of the body", "Umh, weird. Maybe it's an emergent property". "Try there" and so on. Neuroscientists are heavily involved in philosophy in the first place because this back and forth is much more intense than in other fields and there's evidently something wrong in how the problem is framed.
So you can take someone's money and not give them a reason for it? Isn't this called theft?

This happened to a very minor account we had, reasoning was dubious.

Without any kind of transparency or due process ... (or competition) ... this is a problem.
It could be. And when I have evidence that user experience is affected, I'll care about the difference. But what if it's 1ms vs 3ms? Or 3ms vs 9ms? And the 9ms time is a much more expressive, productive, high-level language?

I'm not going to care about the difference just because "omg one number is 3x another number!?!"
On the second day of the launch, the Button has been clicked, more than 10 000 times! :D I love you internet.
I’m very confused by your post. You start off talking about desktop machines but NT was actually engineered for servers and then later ported to the desktop. You then describe a bunch of features Linux does better than Windows (eg updating drivers without a reboot).

I think a more reasonable argument is to make is just that Windows is engineered differently to Linux. There’s definitely advantages and disadvantages to each approach but ultimately it’s a question of personal preference.
My chore was always to study. Doing well in school is more important than some list of daily assigned tasks.

That said, I couldnt sit and watch tv while dad was cutting the lawn on a saturday morning.
Is your website down? We know it. Check it for free
In Russia’s Space Graveyard, Locals Scavenge Fallen Spacecraft (2018)
By the time a kid is 13, adtech companies have collected 72M data points on them
If you search "UCT imperfect information" on Google, you'll turn up plenty of articles and slide decks, including one from David Silver that discusses reinforcement learning. The catch is that they're mostly dated before AlphaZero's emergence, so there's some original work involved to extend AlphaZero to this domain. This is likely something that DeepMind is working on themselves. It's possible that tweaking the search query might turn up more recent results. Good luck!

EDIT - The David Silver lecture I mentioned actually mentions a Scrabble AI, Maven, which successfully applies MCTS. Here's a link: http://www0.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/d.silver/web/Teaching_files/g...
Haven't seen that very often. Occasionally a highway/freeway has an oddly low speed limit, but most of the times neighborhood streets and arterials are much too fast to be safe for people walking or biking. And whaddya know, there are hardly any people walking or biking around, almost as if...
No the Rick & Morty cult of Athiest pounding Dawkins books is getting tedious. I get it though, I was also once 14 years old and thought being nihilistic was cool. Do you realize human civilization is a result of religion? The first cities were built as communities around temples. No one was irrational until suddenly, magically they were; with the accidental discovery of coal. The most impressive history of human development coincides with with the worship of rationality by pure accident. That's what transitioning to a powerful new energy source to replace agrarianism will do. Not because people stopped being religious. Are you kidding me
Being a rockstar is more often a matter of being able to work in your field effectively and efficiently. He's not a savant, and he's not working in a space where knowing sorting algorithms is meaningful to his day to day activity. He's still great at how job and the space he works in, and not knowing these things doesn't heavily affect that
Is there some good resource on how this all works in reality, or is it just something you learn by working in the sector?
It's not about 'rules' and not even so much mitigating risk - it's just basic cartel/oligarchy practices.

They do it because they think it's good for them, and/or they can.

It sometimes only takes one person, doing what they think is right, for whatever reason, for a lot of this stuff to happen.

Edit: we like to think that large systems are intelligent. Sometimes they are, if there are thoughtful rules and processes. More often than not - there aren't. CEOs lean on M&A teams to buy companies for a lot of money on a hunch. Because they 'liked' someone, or something, even when the research shows otherwise. When situations are politicized especially outside the scope of clear operational guidelines ... it can just be 'one person'.

Example: the CEO or someone else could send a half-sentence email 'do this' (i.e. shut down a customer) and it will get done. Maybe there was process, maybe not. Maybe it's politics, risk aversion. Maybe it's not corporate risk aversion but individual risk aversion, i.e. a VP not wanting to create a fuss. Maybe there's an outside body putting pressure on Visa/MC and someone inside doesn't want to put up a fuss. Maybe it's favours for favours. Maybe it's avoiding the ire of the Feds. Maybe there's a specious court order that Visa/MC thinks is spurious, but they don't want to bother arguing it. Maybe a a key customer or two are complaining. Maybe the PR lead is putting up a scare, indicating that there's going to be some major press about it soon and they need to get ahead of this. Maybe the VP Legal is protecting themselves. Or is being risk averse.

Even when it's complicated, it's often not complicated in a nice, rational way.

In my experience with large organization, it's really the reduction of personalities, self-interest, risk avoidance, sycophantism, 'following orders' etc.. There's rarely an overall coherent, thoughtful dynamic to these kinds of things.

But maybe there is a clear story here ...
They do.
As an annecdote, the professor who formerly held the "Machine Learning" course at TU Munich left for VW's AI research group (https://argmax.ai) a few years ago. Whether that qualifies as "science" may be debatable, but the larger players in the automotive space are definitely invested in this kind of research.
I would second this: each family is different. There are many ways to raise disciplined, motivated kids, and chores and allowances are certainly not necessary.

I grew up with strong internal motivation because my parents helped me to see at an early age how hard work of others made them successful. That big mansion in a nearby neighborhood? The result of someone getting an education and working hard. (The adult perspective is that it’s not quite as simple, but it’s close enough.) So I developed a love of learning at an early age, not because of extrinsic rewards, but because it felt good to invest in myself. And it still does.

To my mom, chores took away from study time or (rare) play time, so I was never expected to help. But I did small things when asked to help. My grandmother was aghast that my mom did my laundry until I moved out, and it was pretty easy to learn when I had to. My parents just didn’t think time doing laundry was more important than time learning calculus or playing on the computer. All that unstructured computer time developed my love for technology, and now I own a software company.

They also took my young hopes and dreams seriously, rather than dismissing them since I was a kid. When at 3 years old I said I wanted a specific type of sports car, my mom opened up a savings account in my name, and we asked family never to gift me toys: only deposits into the account. By the time I was old enough to drive, I had a down payment ready to go. I learned the value of delaying instant gratification for a longer term goal.

The most important way to raise healthy, motivated kids, in my mind, is to treat them as young adults and help them become intrinsically motivated.
They do. These days, battery chemistry is probably very interesting to them. Earlier, it would have been problems such as optimizing combustion chamber shape, etc.
Founder Affirmations – Empowering Self-Talk for Entrepreneurs
Then don't use modern tools. If you want the power of modern tools... then of course you have to use them. I am just not understanding the complaint.
Federal judge finds law governing who is an ‘engineer’ violates free speech
In NW WA you might be surprised. There's a long history of utility self sufficiency with the San Juan islands, and the area and neighboring counties has a lot of dark fiber available for lease from smaller independent providers. Many municipalities and community organizations light up their own WAN links.

There was a always a tension when it comes to outsourcing and considering core competencies in the orgs I saw. Can imagine less appetite for creative solutions when critical things like 911 are involved.
What's the business motivation of this research, for VW?
I’ve noticed iCloud sync is sometimes the issue. If dropping files into/around enabled folders the sync process invokes immediately and uses a lot of CPU similar to Dropbox sync.
For the record, the concept is called Quantum Supremacy [1]. So far, there is no demonstration of quantum supremacy, but it seems like it may just be a matter of time.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_supremacy
The problem with anti-reductionist approach is that it doesn't explain anything and doesn't predict anything.

It simply says "i was wrong about all those other things, but this next thing you can't explain in principle, because reasons (many books of untestable claims here)".

Even if we assume that consciousness or intelligence cannot be explained by physics, the anti-reductionist position still doesn't add anything because we need to try to explain it with physics anyway to find out that it is not possible.
Does anyone have recommendations for node packages that perform similar client-server pub/sub or even sophisticated syncing?

Besides dop, DerbyJS/Racer seems to be dead, Apollo might be a solution but seems to require some setup, Meteor is too heavy, and Feathers with RxJS seems like a possibility. I'd be interested in any tools for getting easy client-server sync or reactivity.
The talk is structured with the same metaphors as 'traditional Christianity'. I don't know why the comment section sees such a divide. The few differences are that modern Christianity does not seek to provide metaphors for describing what the world is, only how to behave. Joscha is willing to do both.

Christianity is happy to have 'magic' leaps of faith. That's what magic is, reasoning up from truth. Joscha calling magic impossible, is in itself a trap. But overall a lot of the metaphors are the same. For example don't be a pleasure-seeking hippy like the Dude. Christian values are replaced with reward reinforcing structures, but are ultimately the same conversation. The God that Joscha thinks exists and is evil, is a god Christians wouldn't believe in. Taking in all ideas and evaluating them is the same idea across both Christian and Joscha's stories.

It's much of the sameness. For all the disdain for religion, Joscha's ideology and Christianity are both systems of metaphor. I would hope people are making up their own mind on what metaphors to use. I'm curious how many people agree wholesale with Joscha and/or Christianity without niggling disagreements.
Comments like these frequently crack me up. Paraphrasing:

> Teachers are terrible because they work at a government job. People don't learn anything good from working in a government job. The most successful teacher I knew he already knew how to be efficient so he was successful.

And where did he learn that? Oh a former Colonl? You mean from a government job?

It always reminds me of the signs you see people holding, saying "The government had better keep it's hands off my medicare"
RPCS3 PS3 Emulator – November 2018 Progress Report
> As part of that, I definitely want to have new category sections on "Using Redux with a UI" (which would include both how that works in general, and specific pages for use with React, Angular, Vue, Ember, etc), and "Real World Usage" (which could cover things like app structure, code splitting, choosing a side effects approach, and so on).

Those new sections sound awesome! Kudos for thinking about adding them to the docs.
I think it's more illustrative to think of atoms/molecules per cubic meter. If I remember correctly, 1 or 0.1 µbar is proportional to around 1 atom per cubic meter.
Master Your People Skills
Computing with High-Dim 10K Vectors (Holographic Reduced Representation) [video]
A coworker praised https://pouchdb.com

Apparently a client for CouchDB.

Edit: Not affiliated with PouchDB, it's FOSS
> The article doesn't contain a concise pseudo-code description of the algorithm but instead sneaks up on it by throwing in lots of python that implements various graph operations.

True, that's really a lot of code while failing to outline the simple algorithm or concisely describe the basic idea. It doesn't mention complexity either, which is linear.

It might also help beginners to mention the image analogue, i.e. connected components of a regular grid graph, which is called 'flood fill'.

> In case people are wondering, the algorithm is 'connected clustering'

FWIW, I've always heard the algorithm called 'connected components', and a quick Google search on both terms gives me more relevant hits for 'connected components'. In fact, I don't get a single directly relevant hit that describes this algorithm on the first page for 'connected clustering'.
The local government seems to disagree: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article214062219....
Do you use google drive? I experience the same file issue on my work laptop where I can’t uninstall the drive daemon.

https://piunikaweb.com/2018/03/01/google-blames-apple-for-dr...
I disagree with CRA because it promotes developers avoiding and fearing configuration files. If you are a full time front end developer and your shop uses it you NEED to learn Webpack/Babel/NPM/etc because it is a short up-front investment, will save significant amounts of time, and will lead to a noticeably better product.

We're talking about hours of study leading to a long-term hundreds of hours of time saved.
Isn’t that the job of a product manager, though? To figure out what the product should actually do?
This is interesting, and to some extent, expected. I'd expect that emulating one OS on top of another is going to have performance challenges and constraints in general.

But the deep dive into aspects of Windows and Linux I/O reminded me that I'd love to see a new generation of clean sheet operating systems. Not another Unix-like OS. Not Windows. Something actually new and awesome. It's been a long time since Unix/BSD, Linux, and Windows NT/XP were introduced.

A few years ago, Microsoft developed a new operating system called Midori, but sadly they killed it. MS, Apple, and Google are each sitting on Carl Sagan money – billions and billions in cash. Would it hurt MS to spend a billion to build an awesome, clean-sheet OS? They could still support and update Windows 10 for as many years as they deemed optimal for their business, while also offering the new OS.

Would it cost more than a billion dollars to assemble an elite team of a few hundred people to build a new OS? Would Apple, Microsoft, or Google notice the billion dollar cost? Or even two billion?

If you think there's no point in a new OS, oh I think there's a lot of room for improvement right now. For one thing, we really ought to have Instant Computing in 2018. Just about everything we do on a computer should be instant, like 200 ms, maybe 100 ms. Opening an application and having it be fully ready for further action should be instant. Everything we do in an application should be instant, except for things like video transcoding or compressing a 1 GiB folder. OSes today are way, way too slow, which comes back to the file access performance issue on Windows. Even a Mac using a PCIe SSD fails to be instant for all sorts of tasks. They're all too damn slow.

We also need a fundamentally new security model. There's no way data should be leaving a user's computer as freely and opaquely as is the case now with all consumer OSes. Users should have much more control and insight into data leaving their machine. A good OS should also differentiate actual human users from software – the user model on nix is inadequate. Computers should be able to know when an action or authorization was physically committed by a human. That's just basic, and we don't have it. And I'm just scratching the surface of how much better security could be on general purpose OSes. There's so much more we could do.
If you renice the UI processes to a higher-than-normal priority, it should work more like it does in Windows. (This used to be somewhat risky, but today Linux UI is not going to hog your system resources.) The underlying problem is that when memory is tight, Linux starts evicting "clean" pages from the page cache that actually will need to be accessed shortly afterwards (i.e. they're part of the working set of some running process), and thrashing occurs. There's no easy solution to this issue, other than making user programs more responsive to memory pressure in the first place. (This could extend as far as some sort of seamless checkpoint+resume support, like what you see in mobile OS's today.)
AI Training Chips: How to speed up algorithms and improve performance[video]
TI and Fairchild make a 6 pin “tiny logic” part that can be configured for any gate. I use them frequently for glue logic.