skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I am not aware of such a (comprehensive) list but if it existed it would be
a very long one for such a relatively little known field. The few survey
papers on Computational Group Theory (CGT) focus mainly on applications
in pure mathematics and to a less extent in theoretical computer
science.

Nevertheless, CGT has numerous applications in a very wide area. I try
to list a few below, consider them just samples, this is far from being
comprehensive.

In pure mathematics CGT used as a kind of "experimental mathematics" tool.
That is finding, enumerating, constructing certain (class of)
mathematical objects.

* group theory (obviously)

* combinatorics

* graph theory

* design theory (combinatorial and statistical)

* finite projective geometries

* coding theory

* topology

* in general, where computing with automorphism group of the
mathematical structure at hand may be of interest.

Theoretical computer science, in particular complexity theory. The main
reason why computer scientist are interested in CGT is that the Graph
Isomorphism problem is not known to be either in P or NP-complete and for a
certain class of graphs the known polynomial graph-iso algorithm based
on heavy CGT machinery.

Also many problems in CGT are undecidable, the best known ones are the
word problem, the conjugacy problem and the isomorphism problem.

Here are some examples on the more applied side where CGT is heavily
used.

* Statistics: the design of statistical experiences.

* Computational Chemistry

* Computational Biology (for example protein folding)

* Computational Pharmacology (Currently there is a trending news on HN
about it titled "Virtual Pharmacology ...")

* Combinatorial Optimization

* Solving Constraint Satisfaction problems; the application of CGT here
called "symmetry breaking".

* and as a further application of the two above: Robotics

* SAT/SMT solvers (came up here a few days ago)

* finding God's Number for the Rubik's cube is pure CGT

Finally, just to avoid the impression that CGT is so esoteric high level
mathematics that it cannot be of interest for the working programmer.
Any programmer who solved a combinatorial puzzle by finding all unique
solutions but avoiding searching and listing the "basically same" ones
more than once used and invented (!) a bit of CGT without noticing.
> This "web programmers are dumb" attitude is nothing but elitist rhetoric.

I don't think that's the attitude. The attitude is that they are lazy/stubborn, not dumb. I personally believe most developers are smart enough to keep learning. Whether or not they are willing to put in the work is the question.
Shouldn't that be (s/more/less/)?
I disagree. It only displays the challenges when you're trying to comply with the letter of the law while doing everything you can to evade its purpose. Stuff like pre-selected consent boxes are not just mistakes or misunderstandings.
> ...it also lowers part complexity, because it eliminates interpropellant seals.

But it adds the whole second gas generator and turbine. No, it doesn't lower part complexity as a whole :) .

> It improves achievable chamber pressure

Yes, I'd even argue that's the penultimate goal of full-flow scheme.

1) For a rocket engine you usually (almost always) want as high Isp (which is approximately the speed of gasses flowing from the rocket engine) as possible.

2) To get that Isp, you need as high pressure in the chamber as possible.

3) To get that high pressure, you want to supply your pumps with as much power (in Watts) as possible from the given overall fuel flow (in kilograms per second) - while not melting turbines blades (so fuel:oxidizer ratio is limited).

4) To get most power to the turbines blades at fixed (maximum) gas temperature and fixed overall fuel flow, you want to use all of that flow (classical staged combustion uses only one component, which is essentially not using the whole fuel flow) and adjust ratios fuel:oxidizer at both gas generators so that total power would be maximum. You want maximum flow both because that increases turbine efficiency and because that actually provides more power to the turbine.
Personally, I like electron and web apps... the approach from TFA mentions it being lighter weight than Electron... when the actual running engine for both is still Chrome, which is the biggest complaint from detractors.

I'm a fan of the model and have used embedded browsers for UI for years, even for embedded kiosks as localization tended to be easier to handle for the translaters, etc.

I'm just suggesting that you can make assumptions when packaging against a specific version of electron, where a chrome install from a couple years ago may not have the features you are wanting to use.
The first one made me cry!
A good channel does exactly that for entertainment https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdEczn3MVkx_4PnMZ10MVFA
>HN is very liberal

>HN believes in MMT

>MMT is unproven

Not sure whats going to happen to your post.
I have a similar habit with tabs in my browser. I line up the tabs in the same order so my keyboard shortcuts work in the same manner as how you are using them in the desktop bar. I could see where attempting to close the wrong browser window would get annoying. What OS are you running? Can you drag-n-drop your apps in the bar to reorder them, or do you have to open the apps in the correct order?
"in which a person collects or makes a record... by means of the internet (whether by downloading the record or otherwise)"

Wow. From the surface, this would seem to include an email sent to you. And if so, this would be a great way for a vengeful person to cause a lot of strife for another (by sending inflammatory emails, repeatedly to them).

Hopefully, sane and merciful implementation of these "laws" are enacted. Sadly, from other comments posted here, it's likely to be as bad as it looks!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/3/section/3/enacted
The reason Amazon doesn't make a lot of money (and thus pay a lot of income tax) is because they keep hiring people to make new stuff. What more do you want out of a company?
Airline sues passenger for not taking a connection
The “Post-Mom” Economy
I think about this every time I watch some physician friends using Epic or any Electronic Health Records system. Those things are dense as hell and packed full of data and utility. You won't see a bit of wasted space. Different problems require different solutions.
Congress is pretty much controlled by entities like Amazon.
When I see headlines like this, which isn't the rarest thing, I wonder why we even bother with a corporate income tax.

The companies that can afford to engineer out of it, will, making it oddly regressive in certain circumstances.
Taxing pollution is a much more economically efficient approach than regulation or banning.

You can't really bad pollution anyway. You and I exhale CO2, a greenhouse gas.
Is there any way of proving this? My skeptical mind says they're stockpiling a large portion of that money in banks/stocks and getting massive returns with interest/dividends.
getting rid of corporate tax would simply increase inequality, because wealthier individuals can employ corporations more effectively to gain even more advantage.

if you equalize tax treatment (not just rates, but other things like carryforwards) across people, corporations, and capital, wealthy folks wouldn't be able to game the differences like they do now.

international competition can be addressed with tariffs, which is already quite prevalent but are used for petty politics rather than to level the playing field in international trade.
The worst thing is that Cloudfare is using ReCaptcha, and it's everywhere. The internet is broken at this point.
It seems like they make that hard by mixing semi-random elements that are different each time, like user interaction data, with the user's browser fingerprint and location. This seems to be why they go to such lengths to obfuscate the algorithm they use to combine these elements. If the pseudorandom and the fixed elements were easy to separate it would make replay attacks much more feasible.
> This is why politicians say they want to help the middle class. They are always paying the majority of taxes.

87% of income taxes are paid by the top 25%; 70% of income taxes are paid by the top 10%. The middle class in the US pays an extraordinarily low effective tax rate. The US has a very progressive tax system.

The 50% to 25% income bracket, which makes up most of the middle class, has a 7% average federal income tax rate. Few other developed nations come remotely close to having something like that.

The politicians pander to the middle class out of virtue signaling (it's a great ideological sound bite) and for votes (it's still a large voting block).
Cffi 1.12 released
I wish we got rid of all taxes except for income tax on people.

Anyone versed in finance can tell me why that's a bad idea?
Reinvesting in said company for one, which is why carry over debt is deductible.
That's exactly the problem: the developer prioritizing their own convenience over the end user experience.
You can still incent corporations via taxes. You just don't have an additional "no reason" tax.

Tax the rich directly, via their incomes.
Qt is really trivial to style. That's like showing a blank HTML page without any CSS and discounting HTML because of that default appearance.
They're following the code, it's written in law. If they didn't take advantage of it, their stockholders would be pissed.
I'm not against it... just the way it was presented was supposed to be so much bigger in terms of runtime. So the biggest complaints against electron/chrome still hold.

Didn't catch the carlo/lorca naming thing. And, tbh, I'm all for it... I think electron is slightly better in some ways as I like the idea of one language everywhere, but that's less an issue.
In the US Audi is positioned alongside Lexus, BMW, etc. Those luxury brands you listed aren't the level the article was addressing.
Amazon doesn't elect politicians, voters do.

For example, Hillary outspent Trump 2:1, yet still lost.
Is there any place where I can find a comprehensive list of countermeasures to stop Google from recording and analyzing all the stuff that the article lists? According to the article:

It turns out they record and analyse:

- Your computer’s timezone and time

- Your IP address and rough location

- Your screen size and resolution

- What browser you’re using

- What plugins you’re using

- How long the page took to display

- How many key presses, mouse clicks, and tap/scrolls were made

And ... some other stuff we don’t quite understand.
I'm sure Revery does, don't know about the others.
Right, another reason to use full-flow scheme is that both components get into chamber in the gaseous form - the heated gaseous form. And fuel usually doesn't have a problem igniting in the hot oxygen flow, especially if that fuel is in gas form itself, within milliseconds.
To be clear, this isn't even necessarily about "how Google violated GDPR". This is "why the case didn't go through a country favorable to Google".

Aka, Google would've still likely been violating GDPR if they had a proper DPO in Ireland, but given how favorable Ireland is to the international companies it harbors the EU legal entities for, it's possible Google would've more successfully evaded punishment, had they been set up to ensure the case got handled in Ireland, rather than France.
Yes, that's what I'm saying. The difficulty people have is that the thought process (solution) is still procedural but the query is expressed declaratively. Once you learn how to navigate that gap you get good at SQL.
> I doubt many people would pass up a "pay no taxes this year" card if they were given one.

Sure, but if that opportunity was given to everyone, it would only take a few years to make the case for taxes crystal clear to even the most selfish person. In the meantime, much damage would be done.
What about users that are locked out of being able to install apps. Web apps are a great way around that. Although, the Electron apps being discussed seemed to be developer related, so the user probably has more control to be able to install apps.
> almost every economists thinks we shouldn't have corporate taxes.

My understanding is that this issue is still robustly debated among economists. Do you have a citation for this?
> turns out that when you have 0% corporate tax you lose the ability to incentivize corps via taxes. there are externalities e.g. pollution that one can no longer incentivize via taxation.

Well, you can't incentivize via tax deductions or credits against the corporate income tax if it doesn't exist, but you can absolutely drive corporate incentives via other taxes. E.g., particularly with regard to pollution, fuel/carbon/emissions taxes, rather than corporate income taxes.
New Computer Program Aims to Reduce DNA Contamination in Microbial Samples
Sure, but not paying any taxes isn't obviously a horrible thing.

The government says, through its tax laws, that it wants amazon to not pay taxes (probably because they had a loss). The logic behind this is that because amazon provides jobs, the government doesn't want the company firing people and/or not hiring people because of an unrelated occurrence.

If you want what amazon is doing to be horrible you have to show that what they're doing is actually horrible.

Perhaps talk about how they're making use of the resources of the united states while not paying back for the maintenance of those resources. Like, delivery trucks damage roads and without delivery trucks amazon can't exist, and therefore they are externalizing their costs to the tax payer by not paying taxes.

Additionally, you'll need to explain why the jobs argument is not sufficient to excuse their lack of taxes.

And you might also need to talk about how amazon R&D also isn't a good excuse. For example, if amazon perfects drone delivery of goods then they won't damage the goods. So we should let amazon not pay taxes so that they can perfect drone delivery because it will be a good to the entire nation. You need an argument for why this sort of idea is wrong.
Amazon and other companies actively lobby to write tax laws the way they are. Amazon's voice, money, power far exceeds mine. It isn't a level playing field. In addition to voting and contacting my representatives I comment on articles like this one. My actions aren't limited to just the two you mentioned. It bothers me how rigged the system is and I'm vocal about it.

Regulatory capture is a nice phrase from economics. What we have in the U.S. (and elsewhere) is tax law capture.
Countries agree cars must have automatic braking
The simplest counterpoint is that the wealthier people are, the less their wealth relies on income and the more it relies on capital gains; using money to make more money. Squeezing the middle and lower classes while giving a free pass to the very rich seems counterproductive in terms of policy.
Which options in particular? I'm guessing Gtk or Tk might be pretty annoying to work with.
> It used progressive disclosure to hide presumably insignificant information.

This is the line that shocked me the most, emphasis on the word presumably. It comes off as a decision being made without any sort of objective data behind it.
this on so many levels.

Thankfully they'll eventually fall back to the "click the images of _object_ until there are no pictures left with a(n) _object_" in it, but those clicking block ones of a specific picture are super frustrating.
Investing $13B across the U.S. in 2019
Once healthcare and education costs (and probably housing and transportation) aren't increasing way faster than inflation, sure.
This person has it all wrong. If there are too many nobs and too much data for a person to comprehend, then it means you need more automation. The people who complained about the GUI are the people who will probably lose their jobs in the next decade to machine learning.
It's not the size of the fine. It's that there's a fine at all. It's a warning shot across the bow.

Also, this isn't a fine as "cost of doing business". Google still has to address the issues. If they don't, you can be sure the next fine will be 10x.
weird that he could trade at all in the blackout window. my brokerage won't let me execute any trades (for relevant asset) during our window
Both of those require 1+ year in business and significant revenue. So yes, this is definitely a loan and it has relatively bad terms but it's targeted at businesses with no credit.
Can you point me to the data that suggests that a majority of Amazon jobs pay welfare level wages?
What's most troubling is that these are the same companies who say things like "We need more educated workers" as if tax dollars don't help to do that. They also use it was a rationalization / justification for paying less and less taxes (i.e., "We're not getting any benefit from what we're already playing.) To the bottom we go...
My cynical view is these loopholes will only close when small/midsized companies start to aggressively apply them. However, I fear that when the little guy does this there is a real risk of prison time, and no matter how far Apple and AMZN push the bounds of the law there is no way in hell Bezos or Cook would ever get arrested.

https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-chickenshit-club-jesse-...
Read their 10-K
Im not sure it does remove the incentive. I think people are still seeing a way to get free money and subsequently everyone bid higher than they would.

I think a better way to do this would be to randomize payouts and randomize people. Offer 200 to quit facebook to one person, 100 to another, 700 to another. The auction skews the results I believe
another clickbait article from this organization. "${TechCo} paid X% in taxes but it should have paid Y% * Current Year Net Income".

What specifically is ITEP arguing for? GAAP profitability is not Taxable income is not Net Cash flow. The IRS has different multi-year schedules for various asset amortizations/depreciation than GAAP so of course the tax rates can be significantly different if the company is investing in growth.
The implication here seems to be that the seal is the part that is either most likely to fail or hardest to manufacture or both. But I would have thought that manufacturing a high rpm turbine blade exposed to extreme temperatures and concentrated oxidizers isn't exactly child's play either.

So for the layman, are you saying that they've got a simpler turbine, use more of them, but not twice as many, because the design means you need fewer engines to lift the same payload?
Tyler, I've been very interested in this development and I have a somewhat fundamental question to you.

I've seen a number of VCs and other pundits recently say things of the form "there's a reason why for decades, there were only bank loans and VC and not much in-between". Eg Jerry Neumann (a NY based solo investor) has a nice twitter rant about it here: https://twitter.com/ganeumann/status/1093961051425697794

If I follow the math in his linked blog posts well (eg [0]), he's basically putting down the hypothesis that there's 3 categories of companies (determined by the alpha value of the power-law distribution they're in):

1. Companies where the risk and the upside potential are small. This is where bank loans are focused.

2. Companies where the risk is enormous but the upside potential is "meh".

3. Companies where the risk is enormous but the upside potential is also enormous. This is where VC is focused, and it's why they're all about finding those few big hits because this covers all the losses (or mediocre performance) of the rest.

Neumann appears pretty confident about this hypothesis; not because he can explain the underlying phenomenon, but simply because until now he's not seen much successful funding for companies that's neither VC nor bank loans. And if his hypothesis is right, then you're targeting companies of type 2: investments with enormous risk (comparable to that of a high-growth startup) but at the same time you're hard-capping your upside at 5x. That seems madness.

I don't think you're mad, however, so you must believe that his hypothesis is wrong. If so, why now? What changed in the world, or in the investment landscape, or in technology, that suddenly multiple people (you, indie.vc, etc etc) believe that a low-capped profit sharing scheme for startup investments is a good idea, when nobody did before? Did the risk go down? How did it? Why? Why now and not 10 years ago?

Super interested in any insights you might have on this. Great job, hope you succeed (i.e. I hope to be proven wrong)

[0] http://reactionwheel.net/2019/01/why-do-vcs-insist-on-only-i...

* disclaimer: I'm a founder, not an investor and I don't spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. Ergo I probably misinterpreted a lot of what Neumann is saying. If someone (or Jerry himself) reads this and thinks they know better, I'll be happy to stand corrected.
Personally, I don't like the service, and hate the company, but I would've had to be paid a huge amount of money to close my account because there's tonnes of people I interact with and create plans to meet up with through messenger.

Move everyone I want to interact with to some other messaging service, like telegram or signal, and I'd jump on it in an instant.
Yes, Autosar enables the carmaker to develop code in house for their cars, but it still needs the suppliers for the HW and the controls of specialised parts like injectors, rpm or lambda sensors.

The trend is for the carmaker to develop vehicle functions like start stop or cruise control, and give the object code to the supplier for integration.
Ok so which illegal acts are they committing exactly?
They could use a memory-hard hashing function, like ARGON2 for proof of work, it would make spamming much harder.
"The future is already here, it's just unevenly distributed." Stuff like that will come, eventually. Like any cutting-edge R&D, there's a long valley of death from a lab demo to a globalized real-world product. It's a lot of work to package things up so reliably & cleanly that harried game devs can easily & usefully incorporate them into games.
DoorDash (YC S13) reveals how much it relies on customer tips to pay its workers
The exact same way as mentioned in the next paragraph:

"In February of last year, FCC investigators used a mobile direction-finding vehicle to trace rogue transmissions to a Brazilian immigrant in New Jersey."
I find it interesting that (some of) this community complains about companies taking advantage of the same deductions that many of it's members I'm sure are take advantage of. That is the capital loss after their stock/options for their startups fall below the value they were issued or the deductions from losses they incur while gaining momentum in their startup.
Misunderstanding or not, that's the reason.

With most software developers and most managers not moonlighting as lawyers, misunderstandings are to be expected.
Which songs stick in your mind?
> Well in excess of 90% of traffic coming out of TOR is spam, bots, malicious, or some combination!

Do you have any data on this?