skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I linked you to several sources for my definitions and you haven't commented on any of them, so no idea how you could reach that conclusion. I've explained to you that even with your restrictive definition, our paper covers analogous behavior in DEXes.

Yes, it's very surprising, no, shocking, that people on Wall St. are reluctant to have behaviors like this called out publicly....

I am not Michael Lewis and cannot speak to the accuracy of his facts; our work is a scientific paper backed by a lot of data currently undergoing peer review. The views on HFT and market design in the paper are similarly informed by cited work that is quite extensive in its data analysis, and peer reviewed. I recommend you read it!
Might not even be a cheese, but how it's prepared. I have a strong aversion (often triggering a gag reflex) with gooey/melted cheese, but almost any other consistency is fine.

Pizza, for example, I cook until the cheese is browned and no longer gooey.

It's so much easier to just say I don't like cheese than try to explain this to people. Too many will cook it gooey then tell me "this way it's not burnt"...
>Signal UI used to be horrible but as of the past few months it's improved a ton!

That's funny, I've had the opposite experience. Once I got everyone I know to start using it and was completely locked-in, I started having all kinds of weird issues.

My favorite is when my phone has been off awhile. After I turn it back on, I get a notification for every message I sent/received on another device while it was off. Usually takes about 30 minutes for it to fully sync, buzzing and/or producing popups for every message along the way. I have about a dozen equally frustrating issues I could, if I had the time, enumerate.

And of course because it's free, there's no real support. Signal has been a huge disappointment for me. I'm preparing to move back to regular SMS, but now I have to untangle all of the users like my mother that I convinced to use Signal. Caveat emptor!
Tourism is the opposite of sucking money from the local populace? It's a cultural landmark that, iirc, draws in a million tourists per year.

I kind am torn about your reasoning, but I understand it myself. If science and technology was paraded XYZ years earlier, wouldn't things be so much better? Except it's not that easy. Dumping a ton of gold in a pre-medieval economy is worthless. Dumping the right ideas instead (renaissance, medicine, industrialisation) would have been priceless. Though, I wonder, what could have happened if instead people were taxed 10% they invested that in other means -- wouldn't it be nice if it had compounded over all those years...
“Big Business: A Love Letter to an American Anti-Hero” by Tyler Cowen
That's a poor substitute for exceptions IMO. Also almost all libraries including standard library use another approach via return error objects, so if one would want to use Go with panics as error handling, he would need to rewrite or wrap at least standard library. I would stick with Java at this point. Its library is terrible, but usable in the end.
Charter schools dont skirt special needs kids they take them in.

Whats really absurd is that a lot of people are against the lottery but totally fine with public schools zipcode method.

Edit: why the downvotes? My two sons are at a charter school they take special needs children. They have to by law.
no gif upload support
Yes, although pushing a firmware update to turn a horse carriage into a model Y is, perhaps, slightly less practical than adding Markdown support to a chat client.

The original comment was a blanket "much more inferior in terms of functionality and usability." I hope to elucidate that, in the context of a DARPA grant, it might be worth the effort to look to the future, and differentiate between fundamental problems and fixable issues.

I wouldn't say the same for an XMPP client, for example. But WhatsApp and signal are very, very close.

Perhaps even closer than a horse and a model Y. ;)
> From the point of view of something further away watching the thing falling in, it takes forever. I think. Time dilation is easy to lose track of.

This has always made me wonder that if this is true: "From the point of view of something further away watching the thing falling in, it takes forever." Then how does a black hole increase in mass from the pov of "something further away," as things fall into it? Is it just the light coming from the captured object that gets stopped in time, and the mass does get absorbed increasing the black hole's mass in a more normal time frame?
We all are atheists here, so nobody cares, ok?
thanks for the thought though.
You would never try to draft through 200 feet of hard suction. In fact, I'm relatively sure it would be impossible, since no matter how well you tighten the connections, there's pretty much always going to be a minute amount of vacuum loss at each coupling. In practice, few fire departments ever draft though more than 20 feet (2 sections) of hard suction, and even then it can be a challenge getting the pump primed, depending on any elevation difference between the water surface and the engine location, etc.

In real life, if you were going to draft in an environment like this, (leaving aside any reference to fire boats for a moment), you'd drive an engine to within 20' or so of the water, have it draft, and then relay water to the fire scene using (usually) 5" LDH. But sometimes even getting an engine to within 20' of the water can be a challenge, based on the geography and circumstances.

If the body of water you're drafting from is (strongly) subject to tides, that adds another complicating factor as your water source is now moving around, which could require constant re-positioning of the apparatus.

Lay people always see fires near large bodies of water and think "Why is water supply a problem, they're surrounded by water?!?" But it's often more complicated than that.

Source: was a firefighter and firefighting instructor for about a decade in a former life.
I find uMatrix+uBO (with uMatrix set to block everything by default and uBlock Origin set to it's default easy mode) to be best setup. Ads virtually never get through, and most websites don't need javascript at all to read the articles so my uMatrix whitelist is actually surprisingly small.
If you have an account on N different sites, and you want to let people identify you between each of those, linking directly requires (N-1) links per profile, or N*(N-1) links total. When you create a new profile elsewhere, you need to update your profile on each of the N original sites, plus add N links in your profile at the new site.

Or you could collect all of your identities into a Keybase profile, which all of your other profiles link to. That's a lot less to manage. Plus, proving your identity at some site (usually) has the byproduct of pointing back at your Keybase profile, so even if you come at this just from a "less work for me" angle, you're getting verifiability for free.
She did worst... but I got her back, somewhat. I just wish that ICQ would have been willing to undelete my account.

BTW, at that time, almost noone required passwords to make major changes to your account if you were logged in.
Bibliography of Scheme-Related Research
However, that's not quite front-running in the established sense.

That paper is about a side-effect based on the design of "Decentralized Exchanges" on Ethereum and similar systems. That's why people should always dive in the details of those blockchain solutions; not only you have implementation issues, but even design issues where the "solution" falls apart when game theory is accounted for all actors and interactions with the network.

Unfortunately, the complexity of such "decentralized solutions" makes it easy to miss a lot of issues. Even with audits that cost thousands of dollars per case, you still have several cases where serious vulnerabilities go unnoticed.
I think that the definition in the parent's comment is erroneous. You don't have to be a market maker in order to front run; any broker-dealer can do it.

That said, I think you're off a bit on the nomenclature, too. Market makers can indeed have clients. For example, [1] is a list of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange's market makers for equity options. Citigroup, which has clients out the wazoo, is on the list. It's (presumably) just that the market making operations themselves are not done on behalf of a client.

You're maybe conflating the concept of a market maker with that of a proprietary trading firm. It's very common for market makers to be prop shops.

Prop shops, by virtue of not having clients of their own, are perhaps some of the least-well-positioned firms to engage in frontrunning. But a player like Citigroup or Goldman Sachs (which does a fair bit of currency and interest options market making) could have a relatively easy time of it.

[1]: https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/equity-index/e-mini-equity-...
I am currently working on a compiler that emits C and have been looking for something along these lines.

I'll definitely look into this!
I guess most of those people you describe are childless minority or people too young without children mumbling idealistic phrases

any sane parent would think twice risking his life over a THING. risking life to save other (strangers) lives it's questionable, risking life to save things it's just stupid
It's interesting to understand what is happening internally in these social media companies engaging in blatantly shady and unethical behavior.

Its more than weird that inspite of HN being a place where many of these individuals are there is little to no discussion on the actual forces and pressures at work driving these decisions, are there ethical dilemmas, difficult decisions? Because there is nearly nothing on this discussion wise or whistle blowers that would suggest this is something people working inside these companies are grappling with.

If this does not concern engineers its unlikely discussion on issues being raised by outsiders and regulatory bodies are going to lead to any kind of productive discussion beyond dilution and denial.
More wealth/economic security, safe environment, conscientious and attentive parents, good community of role models, peer kids with good parents as well = decent students.

In other words - children are reared by their parents, as they always have (!) and their academic achievement is mostly a function of their upbringing. Sure, some kids hate school or are bad at at even with good parents. Some schools are better than others ...

... but if you have 'decent community, decent parents, decent regular public school' then 'the kids will be ok'.

The discussion in some ways should be more about good jobs, stabilizing dangerous neighbourhoods, flushing out gangs, giving troubled kids a place to hang out + role models, making the learning environment safe where kids can focus on learning.

I just don't believe that the solution to education has much to do with 'teacher quality' or 'competitive teaching' or some kind of new-fangled special kind of education, or even exceptional schools.

More controversially I would say that schools aren't even mostly about learning, other than some very basic mathematical, historical and geographic literacy, schools are mostly about socialization, language and communication. Effectively, kids learn how to communicate (in English, but it's more than just spoken written word), how to behave, 'how to learn something' i.e. not the knowledge, but the processing of learning/doing tasks, basic responsibilities and organization. The 'details' of most subjects are simply less important. Nobody cares if someone has memorized every state capital, but we do care that people are ready, engaged, can focus, communicate, accomplish things etc..
I haven't used it, but I've considered it for reliability when traveling. I could setup two cellular devices and have my laptop swap between them when each has signal.
I can see why you're drawing a comparison between enumerating stimulus -> response correspondences and "breaking" encryption using a lookup table. But I don't agree that the two would be comparable in difficulty a priori. First, encryption schemes typically try to complicate their linear structure by design, such that inverting the sequence of linear transformations can't be done without (ostensibly) secret information. Second, encryption schemes also approximate maximal randomness, which is entirely foreign to human activity.

For a basic example off the top of my head, consider a hash function. A hash function h : {0, 1}^' --> {0, 1}^n is not actually* injective (it can't be, since the domain is effectively infinite-dimensional and the codomain is finite-dimensional). However, cryptographic security mandates that it should be infeasible to find a preimage message for any digest in the codomain. Moreover messages with very small differences in the domain should be mapped to digests with very large differences in the codomain. This artificial noise and complexity doesn't resemble human reactions whatsoever; it's fairly easy to say two things which will each elicit your regional-specific greeting. In general many human responses have common triggers, and I would further conjecture that you could categorically simplify this further by reducing human responses to broader equivalence classes based on language, geographical region, mood, etc.

This is not to say it isn't challenging. I would expect building a linear approximation of a human mind using input -> output mappings to be extraordinarily difficult. But it's not artificially difficult, like well-designed cryptography. Breaking well-designed cryptography is intended to be, in a mathematical sense, a maximally difficult endeavor - much more difficult than basically anything else you can possibly do in nature.

More to my original point you and I can at least entertain a coherent conversation about building a matrix representation of a human mind using finite stimulus and response spaces. We're in familiar territory, even if it's not ultimately possible or feasible. It's mathematically sound to approach this, given a few well-defined assumptions.

In contrast, I don't know (nor am I confident anyone else knows) how to 1) replicate a human mind via as of yet nonexistent direct brain-interface technology, or 2) how to upload a human mind, using even more nonexistent technology so as to preserve continuity of consciousness. Not only are there rampant unknowns unknowns involved in the engineering efforts entailed here, there are unresolved questions and rampant philosophical disagreements in the fundamental assumptions. We're not in familiar territory here.
This is an important point, and I couldn't agree more.

This idea overwhelms me when I read the newest filings and indictments of pharmaceutical companies in the opioid crisis. A corporation, fundamentally, cannot "learn lessons" like people do. It is a collection of incentives, with men inside directed or manipulated by those incentives. If gently nudging 47,000 people a year to kill themselves with overdoses would create more revenue for the corporation, after lawsuit settlements, than not, they would likely do it all over again. Even if you change the men making the decisions - "Finding more moral men" is not a plan.

Executives must have skin in the game, because the possible upside to their career at the highest levels of American business are too great to hope they'll take a moral stand. The potential upside for Richard Sackler, and John Kapoor, and Steve Jobs is so high (Massive bonuses, stock prices), and the potential downside so low (They are fired, with a generous golden parachute), they are willing to take the chance they'll get away with it. The most likely outcome is that attorneys will get rich, and nothing much else.

The only solution to †his type of white collar crime and leadership malfeasance is to make executives, the individual human beings, feel a tinge of reptilian fear in their gut that they may go to prison and the livelihood of their families could be put in danger.
Are prices in US restaurants given net, instead of gross?
I know absolutely nothing about music, but I find this to be really interesting! It makes we wonder what whackier ways exist yet.

I've always wondered if its possible to use a standard computer keyboard for this sort of thing. What are the main reasons that this wouldn't be possible or likely?
I have that same 2011, and had been using it headless as a third machine with VNC. A recent bad update screwed it up, and I was going to call it quits but then found two work arounds.

Temporary (actually fairly permanent, but if the laptop goes to sleep you run into the backlight problem where it won't turn on until you poweroff the laptop and then back on again)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=765954#c65

Permanent

https://realmacmods.com/macbook-2011-radeon-gpu-disable/
> It is one of the most prescient films ever made.

"People think I am a prophet and that Brazil described the world we’re living in now a few years ago. But we were living in that world then; people just weren’t paying attention the way they do now."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/magazine/terry-gilliam-is...
The merchant can definitely see whether a card is a debit card or a credit card. The charge structure and chargeback rules are different.
A debit card is to spend money you already own, hence why a 14 year old or younger can have one.
A credit card creates a debt - and in the UK debts incurred below the age of 18 are unenforceable in court. So no one will issue a credit card to a person under 18.
On a similar note, Hearts of Darkness (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102015/) is among my top movies of all times.
Don't forget that Windows CE was rather dominant, though. It's partly that Windows Mobile 6.x was a market leader for long enough that Microsoft somewhat seemed to ignore the iPhone in its early days.

Windows CE never had the efficiency of scale convergence quite in mind, though. Windows CE was never quite Windows at the kernel level, for instance, and it was a competing OS inside Microsoft in some ways that mattered in the old xkcd siloes pointing guns at each other fashion.

Windows 10 mobile, especially towards the end (Redstone 3) was so very similar to Desktop Windows under the hood. It was still a fork, but it was a converging fork.

(UWP still sometimes gets unfavorably compared to the .NET CF, but UWP has always been more powerful and capable than CF and CE-era C++/MFC, even at its "worst" when Windows 8 launched. Especially now that .NET Core is open source and "leading" the .NET Framework/.NET standards rather than vice versa, UWP is much stronger than .NET CF ever was.)
That applies to a lot of things in life not just this so that feels like reaching imo. Sure parents need to be stable not the least financially but they need that to be good parents, good spouses, citizens etc.
There will be some amount of regression to the mean then. It would be best to compare these kids to the students who "lost" the lottery rather to all students.
> it's still running Unix underneath, because no one ever came up with anything better.

That gave a good chuckle. I'm delighted to give that book a go.
Thanks, that makes sense. I still think that enough people don't read documentation carefully and might unintentionally introduce vulnerability into their database systems, but probably they would find enough ways to shoot themselves in the foot anyway.
I am not as familiar with the crypto trading industry but I did work in equity markets for a number of years and for a while on short term, high volume strategies. I still have a hard time trusting any article that uses Flash Boys. I still find that book to be one of the worst representations of the electronic markets. It paints this evil picture similar to a chemtrails kind of conspiracy where a single entity is causing harm. In reality it is a complex organism where each entity is try to gain an advantage.

Since a lot of comments are talking about the equity markets I figured I would add my thoughts.

There is definitely a need for regulation. No we don't need to get rid of electronic trading, frontrunners or algs but we do need to pay attention to whats happening. I remember that window of time where the NASDAQ was selling order information subseconds before it happened. This is bad. Or the exchange (forgot which one) that was creating special order types for just big clients that were unpublished, this is also illegal and was stopped.

I love frontrunning. People seem to forget the era pre computer market making where there was a guy that made the market for a specific stock. Or how slowly information traveled. People on the floor would know the moment something happened and be able to trade on it right away compared to everyone else. We had dollar size spreads. Today we have penny or even sub-penny level spreads. Sure someone is making money off of me when I make a tread, but their margin is A LOT less than what it once was. Is someone manipulating my order...probably not, I am too small of a fry. Is someone manipulating Vanguards orders, people are probably trying but I suspect based on literature that firms like Vanguard have put out...they overall like it, cost of trades are drastically lower than historically.

TLDR if someone has a way to trade across markets faster than the rest...thats great, they are serving a useful job in making prices across markets even and if they are doing it well they are earning their money for the risk and cost associated with it.

Edit: I highly recommend the book Dark Pools. Its a much more unbiased book about electronic markets and how they came to be. I feel that it paints a much more realistic picture compared to Lewis' hype.
Sure but that applies to any school and a lot more situations bo?
Unfortunately, the Android app requires Play Services to compile even if not to run, which means F-Droid can’t include it by their own free software requirements. See the forum thread: https://forum.f-droid.org/t/signal-discussion-about-google-p...

Building it reproducibly and with 100% FOSS is very hard and you can’t fork it, otherwise they’ll stop you from using the official servers.
At least in my state charter schools must accept any student that can attend a regular public school, and there's a lottery for everyone.

Conversely, there's some charter schools specifically for kids with special needs. There's one in my city specifically for autistic kids.
The big difference is that you need rigid tubing, colloquially known as "hard suction" hose to draft from a static source. Typically soft-walled hose would collapse if you applied suction to it. At least in the US, most engines carry hard suction tubing, but I believe some urban engines may forgo it, opting to use that space for something they use more often. And even if they do have it, the engineers may not have a lot of experience setting up a drafting operation.
No way this would happen in the USA (I guess time will tell if I'm wrong).
Yeah, I agree. This is one of the worst slides I've ever seen. A few things I'd add to the above.

- The title is extremely unclear: are they supposed to be conservative in their beliefs about the risks (i.e., to not believe that the tile got penetrated), or are they supposed to be conservative in their behavior about the consequences (i.e., reduce risks by not re-entering the damn shuttle)?

- wtf does "overpredicted" mean? That's the second largest font, and it has no visible meaning?

- They don't even attempt to estimate the speed that the foam was traveling. They just said that it depends on speed and mass, but they make no suggestion of the speed.

- Nor do they attempt to draw boundaries on the possible speeds. Could they have fit a line on the test data and at least given a range of speeds that were clearly dangerous?

I don't think this is merely bad presentation design, however. This feels like someone was afraid to stick their necks out in a bureaucracy, and hence didn't give the managers enough information because there were some error bars around it.