skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Three points:

1. Smaller trusted computing base. That's the whole reason I'm suggesting crypo might provide a more reliable foundation than a layered social structure.

2. Open source tools will exist.

3. Verification is more feasible now than ever. The more money that's involved, the more people will want formal guarantees. The Ether "thefts" of the past few years have highlighted exactly the deficiencies that I've been pointing out in these past few comments. Already some new contract languages have been proposed that are formally verified, simpler and provide meaningful static guarantees, with little meaningful loss in expressiveness. This situation will only improve in the coming years.
The issue I had with Motley Fool and other similar services is they have too many alerts. They don't take all their alerts either. Also, it's not as transparent as to when they are in or out of a trade.

IMO, if you want to beat the markets look into options trading, that's how I do it, rather than timing stocks, as the profits in timing stocks are much smaller and you need to spend a lot more capital to make the smaller profits.

An example is ROKU doing 100% this year which is amazing, or you could have bought options at different parts and made money. For example, I took this plan and did made 60% on it, but had to exit because of earnings [1].

[1] https://www.instagram.com/p/BtuuPGeAQ_j/
Mixing Search Results with Sketchfab 3D Models
Yes, what about vesting?
There are higher level interfaces on top of it like PoWA: https://powa.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html
This is literally what the USA thought before pearl harbor
Docker Uses 3+ GB of RAM with No Running Containers
This is one of those rare cases when I want to say "Think of the children!" because there are actual dead children.

No, your hypothetical concern of authoritarian government doesn't trump dead children, because the slippery slope can go both ways. If we are okay with a few kids dying because our freedom is so sacred, where do we stop?

Sounds silly? That's because slippery slopes are mostly silly. It's basically a glorified straw-man.
It really is amazing what can be accomplished with intellect, vision, concerted effort, and funding.

Any one of the four lacking would have stopped this project cold. It’s no small feat for a small child, even with a big budget, it’s a good measure of the other 3 traits to take this project on and reach this milestone!
Make Ideas Fly. A Tool to Plan and Accomplish Your Goals
Recruiting is pretty easy. 1) pay more, and 2) be capable of recognizing good talent. (Which requires being good yourself.) Unfortunately, the tech industry fails brutally on both counts. Due to a combination of business guys suppressing wages, techies lacking courage to get better wages, and techies lacking confidence in their own abilities, hence their ability to discriminate correctly when hiring. This leads to the hoop jumping exercises that are common in tech interviews.
That's some next level daytrading.
"What you're arguing is that a perfect system of government removes the need for any alternative. But we haven't got a perfect system of government."

Yeah, but maybe something like bitcoin is a cancer on an imperfect system.

If you asked a tumor, maybe it would say, well, the infrastructure of the body I'm living in sucks! There are all these use cases that the immune system and the circulatory system and so on don't handle!
One of the things we try to filter really hard for is demonstrated interest in software, which usually means they've been learning on their own for while or sometimes it's a degree in a technical field, but not cs per se. The really big push during our time isn't going to put them into senior-level positions (for the current program) but we think the program can kickstart their life of learning.
I hope MS doesn't succumb to this kind of activism, but to put in perspective, this doesn't even deserve an article, from the first parr:

>Several Microsoft Corp employees on Friday demanded that the company cancel …

Three employees. Since when do three employees make these kinds of demands and have management take heed? This isn't some Morton Thiokol and an O-ring issue where you need management to listen to a real issue.

If I were Russia or China, this is exactly the kind of agitprop I'd like to create for a foe.
Unlikely does not mean impossible. There are global tensions with 2 world powers that are now both led by dictators and smaller conflicts happening everywhere. Hoping that another major war won't happen isn't a good plan.
Microsoft Workers Revolt Against Army's Planned Combat Use of HoloLens
> While this is true, also remember how powerful the US supreme court is. Due to a combination of common law (binding precedent) and an old, difficult to change, ambiguous constitution, the US Supreme Court is arguably even more powerful than the president.

To me, this is an amazing aspect of the American justice system. Nine individuals, chosen over a broad range of years, are the last bastion of hope in keeping the current politics du jour from running amok. Nine individuals who were most likely all not chosen by the same person, have multitudinous alignments and bring their various perspectives to the table. When they come together in agreement, it is undoubtedly just given their diversty over the decades.

Or at least in theory.
"And if you were working for a company that wasn't a defence contractor...."

Do you have any idea how many decades Microsoft has been getting millions in income from the Pentagon? The whole DoD runs on Microsoft products. Windows. Office. Outlook. Sharepoint. Access. All of that stuff has expensive licenses and enterprise support contracts.

Any employee who joined Microsoft after, say, 1995 and thinks they weren't joining a "defense contractor" is just willfully ignorant.
Youtube is demonetizing here, not censoring.
Chomper: Electric Obstacle Avoiding Snowblower
There are ways to encourage vaccination, without forcing them.
The international diamond market is run by opaque cartels and criminal governments that prop up a false market.

Perfect for blockchain.
I don't hold people's data like that. I don't need your law. I don't need your regulation. Always with the slowing down of development. Ugh.
Nice copy/pasted non sequitur. Save your PR stuff for some other crowd. We all know what you are doing.
I rarely worry about tone in any established relationship. I don't feel like that is particularly unusual.
Not buying but getting people to the ISS is done with russian rockets (i.e. No space shuttle anymore)
If you were to tell a police office you were about to go into a crowded square of people rioting against a city government and announce your intention to pay one million dollars to whoever shoots the mayor first, how should that officer respond?

Should he submit a request to have the case reviewed to the DA and ask a judge to allow him to stop you from taking that option?

The courts cannot be expected to individually guide every action (although law enforcement should be cognizant of the types of speech previously ruled to be free or restricted and respect that ruling with penalties for knowingly violating that precedent).

This stuff is complicated and making blanket statements is just silly. _Most_ speech should be protected, but some speech is limited.
Show HN: Scudo, Per-Process Bandwidth Throttle (MacOS)
A successful transaction is when one party pays and the other party delivers the good/service. If one party delivers but the other fails to hold up their end, blockchain technology doesn’t help and the solution is to seek recourse via the courts. You can mitigate this via escrow but that’s no different than non-blockchain transactions.
I'm guessing that would beat the old Ford Triton V8 5.4 L (330 cu in) SOHC 2V V8 that is in my E-350 van. Extra power would be great, but it really needs AWD to avoid just spinning the rear wheels in mud or slush. Assuming AWD, moving the axles rearward to balance the weight would also help.

It all doesn't matter to me though, unless Ford brings back vehicles for humans. The only "van" now being sold is entirely missing the rear! It's a bare chassis, intended for building stuff like ambulances and short buses.

I'm going to have to buy a GMC Savana next time. It's the only 15-passenger van still on the market, and thus the only vehicle large enough to hold my family. It's weird and sort of scary to be down to exactly one vehicle choice.
Well, if ARM servers are cheaper for Amazon to run, they're going to want to incentivize customers to switch to ARM. Either by passing on some of the cost savings (even if it's only 5%), or by making the x86 option more expensive.

In the second case, Amazon is still "passing on the cost savings" in a sense, it's just that now they take a higher profit regardless.
From NVIDIA [1]

> As far as naming goes, and why 16 series instead of just using 11? Quite simply, we felt that from an overall architecture and performance perspective, TU116 is closer to the other TU10x parts than it is to prior generation GP10x. TU116 has most of the Turing architecture features, including the new dedicated cores for INT32 and FP16 operations, and it also has all of the new Turing shading features, including variable rate shading and mesh shading. And as you see, performance is closer to the GeForce RTX 2060 than it is to the GeForce GTX 1060. In fact just like you said, it performs closest to the GTX 1070, beating it in some games and losing some others. So we ultimately settled on 1660 Ti instead of 1160 Ti. ‘16’ is closer to 20, after all.

[1] https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3445-evga-gtx-1660-ti-...
I'm pro-vaxx too, but the blowback for not wanting to go as far as forced vaccinations or debating the assertion that anti-vaxxers are child abusers is intense.

I hope we can learn from these intense political discussions that wether it's vaccinations, guns, MeToo, abortion, etc., if you skip the calm discussion of the facts and skip right to name calling, public shaming and advocating criminal prosecution, you've only succeeded in appealing to those who already agree with you.

So, what do we really want? To shame the other side or find compassion and common ground?

Unfortunately, if you look at all the anger getting upvoted, it's a very emotional discussion that probably will just alienate anyone who's on the fence or just starting to research things.
You're making a false equivalence here and assuming they're the same and your logic is incredibly irrational here but I'm going to try to address it in the best manner I can:

In the baker case, he decided that he would not support gay people. I believe gay people should be a protected group (as they are not harmful nor do they generally espouse harmful beliefs). You're right in that he felt that he would be supporting gay people, and my point is that he should support gay people, not that through some strange mental gymnastics I believe he's right to not support them (??). This is the reason why protected groups exist because if a person believes 'I refuse to offer service to women because I refuse to support women', we as a society believe that to be a net negative.

This is of course ignoring the context of the situation where we believe in free exercise of religion while also denying a man on death row access to his religion [1], which shows more the hypocrisy of the Supreme Court's decision on the baker case vs the Dunn v Ray case. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Your argument is essentially saying people should have the right to discriminate on the basis of age, religion, gender etc because to not allow so is censorship. People should not be forced into supporting something they disagree with, correct? Which then ties back into my core argument in that everyone has a line; society has reason to try and shift that line (to avoid discrimination) and communities have reasons to draw their own line as well (to signal for causes they support or to limit the scope of discussion).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunn_v._Ray
Except for Uber automated cars... but in general I agree with you. The safety critical development areas are generally wrapped in safety critical processes with extensive process checks, and I would suspect Uber now has better practices.
Yep, and China's authoritarian outlook and lack of privacy concerns might allow them to win a future AI race, because there's no western concept of rights. Sweep up as much data as you want and throw it into models. Track every citizen, every click, every purchase.

The US may fall behind simply because we believe in ideas like privacy.

Kai-Fu Lee's book goes into this in detail.

Although if we're being realistic, less scrupulous companies such as Amazon will step in and take the contracts.
It seems like he is trying to end at least a couple.

However, entrenched interests and Trump haters (both Dem and GOP) can't let that happen.
His math is correct, shifting the annual salary of $28M to lower employees would be a one time raise, if the CEO is getting a raise of $28M every year then it'd equal an annual salary increase of $3k
I have a coworker who has an uncanny ability to appear in my cube right after I fart. Does that count?
>>no reason their stock won’t hit $100 billion in total valuation over the next couple of years.

>That's got to be a joke.

Love it!
> Have you tested that it works?

Yes. I wouldn't have mentioned it if it didn't work.

Here's a screenshot showing the Apple and PayPal 2FA codes I have received through Slack via Twilio...

https://i.imgur.com/bQYSbPZ.png

I also don't have any accounts with banks that are stupid enough to use SMS for 2FA [1] so I haven't needed to use my Twilio number for that purpose.

Using SMS for Gmail 2FA doesn't make any sense when Google supports U2F.

[1] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/mbzvxv/criminals-...
> Complicated deals (hell even simple deals) require complicated concise language. If you use simple language. You will still have to go to court to argue about what 'what' means in the context of your deal.

The lambda calculus, the SK combinator calculus and Turing machines are all very "simple" languages, but suffice to describe any computable function. There is also no ambiguity in their execution. Lack of ambiguity is exactly one of the benefits of smart contracts.

> Legal documents are complicated because we live in a complicated world.

Legal documents are complicated mostly because natural language is ambiguous, thus requiring considerable verbosity. Programming languages, and specifically smart contract languages, can be designed to be unambiguous, and thus avoid one significant complicating factor.

> If it was easy to do, it would be easy to do.

First, no one said it was easy.

Second, computers haven't even been around for a century. The earliest conceptions of smart contracts were in the mid to late 90s IIRC. That's barely 20 years. Are you advancing the argument that if we haven't solved a problem in 20 years which took millennia to solve via social institutions, then it's unsolvable?
Thank you, this is probably one of the more calm, rational pro-vaxx comments on this thread.

What might also help is research about what % of kids don't respond to vaccines so people who choose not to vaxx can better understand their impact.
The neat thing about nuclear weapons is that if you only care about self defense, you don’t need anything else.
> the candidates whips Perl or Ruby or whatever out

My first thought for is_balanced_parens was something like:

while _!="" (s'()''g or reject)
#* multiple types of parentheses *#
while _!="" (s'()''g or s'{}''g or reject)
A Fix for the Freelance Publishing World
For the damage caused to communities by the implementation of racist policies ostensibly in support of the drug war? Absolutely!
> It is impossible to respectfully argue for a racist or homophobic position.

My point is that in 2019 this statement has no meaning because there are wide swaths of the audience (not just fringe elements) that will label nearly everything "racist". The main point of contention in this thread is whether you should ban unpopular opinions or let them stand on their own. Racist comments are and should be unpopular but when the definition racism is widened to include half the population then censoring "racists" and hitting a bunch of false positives becomes much more damaging that not censoring "racists" and letting actual racists expose their own ignorant thinking.
> Communities have to have a baseline stance of things they don't support

CW has this. They are very clear about their guidelines: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/a6wues/cult...

> As for the actual data relating to the CW thread, the data only tells us what people self-describe as, not necessarily the frequency of their posts, the content contained within or how closely the poll reflects the actual userbase.

Scott did a random sample of comments from CW:

> During the last few years of Culture War thread, a consensus grew up that it was heavily right-wing. This isn’t what these data show, and on the few times I looked at it myself, it wasn’t what I saw either. After being challenged to back this up, I analyzed ten randomly chosen comments on the thread; four seemed neutral, three left/liberal, and three conservative. When someone else objected that it was a more specific “blatant” anti-transgender bias, I counted up all the mentions of transgender on three weeks worth of Culture War threads: of five references, two were celebrating how exciting/historic a transgender person recently winning an election was, a third was neutrally referring to the election, a fourth was a trans person talking about their experiences, and a fifth was someone else neutrally mentioning that they were transgender. This sort of thing happened enough times that I stopped being interested in arguing the point.

This is why all the claims of "odious views", "how the Jewish people should be eradicated", and other things you've mentioned in this thread fall so flat to me. People claim stuff like that is flying around to justify their call for greater censorship and shunning. But when you dig into the details about what people are actually saying, it virtually never lives up to the labels that have been put on it.
I remember when they opened that offshore LNG port – they built it when energy prices were through the roof, and everyone expected LNG imports to remain profitable.

They built the port miles offshore because MA was banning harbor-side offloading of LNG due to concerns of accidents or attacks on LNG tankers. But by the time they completed it, hydraulic fracking had become so successful that LNG prices collapsed and no one wanted to import it anymore.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/01/23/offshore-gas...
Personally, I would call it "time" as a dual-meaning single word that references both the ability to go to a specific day and the fact that it is computed based on time spent (and maybe also "go here if you find yourself with some extra time to sink in").
Agreed. I switched when there were still G4 PPC laptops just because OS X was a usable Unix with good hardware. The switch to Intel was good, but it wasn’t because I struggled with the architecture. It was for the more powerful CPUs and battery life.
Nature is no more or less "natural" than ever. Humans (and non-human animals!) have always and forever effected the ecosystem(s) they participate in. Sometimes in drastic ways.

It's true that we've increased the scale by an order of magnitude. or two. And it's probably true that it's not going to be pretty.

But it's no more or less "natural" than ever. "Natural" is probably not that useful a concept in general, it doesn't really mean anything in general, just like it doesn't mean anything on your food label.

> Both politics and the economy remain subject to persistent re-naturalization campaigns, whether from religious fundamentalists in politics or from market fundamentalists in economics.

Indeed, the whole concept of "the natural" is arguably always a right-wing and reactionary one. Used by people generally under a fantasy about what things _really_ "used to be" like, and that it was "always" that fantasy from forever until recently. I don't think it's a useful concept, I think it's downright dangerous when the fudamentalists start thinking they know what's "natural" (and thus, they assume, "good") and what isn't. But "sustainable" might be a useful concept for evaluation. As well as simply "good for humans", which is obviously subjective and a political question (a question of values and interests), instead of the feigned objectivity of "the natural". There's values and interests in the "re-naturalization" programs of fundamentalists and radical reactionaries too, despite their protestations to the contrary.

tldr: I think things are going to shit too, but thinking there's such a thing as 'the natural' and you know what it is, tends to make it worse.
Let's save the concern trolling for another day. This needed to happen.
well that would be a lot of them.

For example, the kindle app contacts graph.facebook.com.

I really really wish apple would allow a true firewall
If the chief executive of a water company or an electricity company became a household name, my first assumption would be that there was some kind of scandal. Infrastructure is supposed to be boring.

Britain has a supreme court, but I couldn't name any of the judges. They don't tend to make particularly controversial decisions, nor are they divided along partisan lines. I vaguely recall The Daily Mail describing some high court judges as "enemies of the people" due to some sort of Brexit-related shenanigans, but it all blew over within a couple of days; the overwhelming consensus was that the headline was crass and slanderous. Other than that, I don't recall the last time the judiciary were particularly newsworthy.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this whole dev-prod hardware parity argument contradict with the rise of Docker? I don't know much about ARM or CPU architectures in general, but I have never heard companies testing their Dockerized applications with Docker on different CPU architectures just to make sure that the application works as expected; it can be because everything is on x86 already, but at this point Docker is assumed to be a cross-platform dependency that will be the same between different hosts / OS / architectures. What prevents an abstraction layer like this to be used when it comes to ARM, hence making the whole "If you develop on x86, then you're going to want to deploy on x86" argument incorrect?
His medium post said he was making that while leveled as a senior engineer.

Using levels.fyi and the sde 3 title, it looks like the average for that position in San Francisco is $482,000/year.

https://www.levels.fyi/SE/Amazon/Google/Facebook
Let me see if I understood you correctly. Let Y represent a random variable representing stationary time series data. Let g(.) be the forecast function.

1) Log-transformation: log(Y)

2) Forecast results of transformed data: E[g(log(Y))]

3) Inversion of forecast results: exp(E[g(log(Y))])

4) However, what we really want is the expectation of the transformed-forecasted-inversed results, which is E[exp(g(log(Y)))].

Jensen's inequality states that for a convex function φ,

φ(E[X]) <= E[φ(X)]

And equality is only attained if either X is constant or φ is affine. Since neither is (generally) the case here, therefore

exp(E[g(log(Y))]) < E[exp(g(log(Y)))]

An offset factor ε is needed to correct (3) to (4)

E[exp(g(log(Y)))] = exp(E[g(log(Y))]) * ε

Did I get that right? (Offset changed to multiplicative factor)
Rediscovering the World of ‘Blue Highways’
Don't complain to me, complain to all of the Facebooks that resell data to third parties, and all of the Googles who store that so that the NSA can tap into it, and all of the Equifaxes that leak all the data so the criminals can make use of it.
I always thought that was a myth. Thats's real?

I can't even imagine drinking more alcohol when I wake up with a hangover.