skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is an ugly way to argue. When debunked, instead of owning anything you add new arguments, moving on as if it had any bearing on the previous points. I see now why you don't want to "fight" people here.

You do not deserve to complain about not wanting a fight when you behave in such a way.

> Peer reviewed journals do not defend or protect studies that are never published in the first place.

Obviously. That's why studies which are not published in quality journals are not considered credible by the scientific community.

You ever talk to a flat-earther? Or an Obama birther? How about a climate change denier? If you aren't willing to pay much attention all of these positions can be defended. But as soon as you ask for a credible source, you get the same thing you tried earlier "I don't want to fight, I just want to spread BS freely." If they do deploy some sort of source and you show them what's wrong with it, they just move on, exactly like you tried to do multiple times in this thread.

Nobody gets to be right all the time, so I don't blame anyone who doesn't have enough time/interest to educate themselves for falling for these ideas. Where it becomes pitiful however, is when someone is shown over and over again and they do nothing but dig in and move on, instead of accepting when they got it wrong.

If your insistence ever successfully convinces someone not to vaccinate their child, who then goes on to needlessly spread infections in their school, then you can no longer say that your ignorance is harmless.

In my meager experience most people like you will just dig in further and further until the day they die. Not all though. Continue to vigorously defend your ignronace if you want - it's your choice, but you can't say no one ever tried to tell you better. Whatever harm you manage to cause with your position, you fought hard to keep causing it.
There's also the public transport rendering on OpenStreetMap.org.

I find this more useful day-to-day, is it also shows busses and ferries, and I'm not often interested in the technical details like the exact line speeds.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#layers=T
Interesting that they actually had to tone down the "!" important boxes to get more people to read them because they've been conditioned to tune out brazen colourful boxes as advertising.

Also shows how important it is to test with real users.
If You want to do it like Silicon Valley just do LSD micro-dosing with your morning coffee combined with IF a la Jack /s

Now for a real answer, It depends and No, I don't think You'll find the answer online.

You have to do blood tests, You have to meet with a nutritionist or Dr with the results of the blood tests.

Then it's a matter of adjusting your intake According to your daily activity.

If you're sedentary you have to eat less. Every body reacts different to different diets/regimes.

Take some time for yourself and set an appointment with a specialist in the subject
> a custom modal logic

TLA, the logic at the heart of TLA+, is a linear temporal logic, which is, indeed, an example of a modal logic, but also the most ubiquitous and successful type of logic in program verification. I think that in computer science in general and formal methods in particular, temporal logic is more well known than all other modal logics combined (and probably more than even the name or concept of modal logic).

> which could also be understood as (co-)monads

This is only relevant if you're trying to represent temporal logic in some functional language, which TLA+ isn't.

> The use of model checking

TLA+ is a specification (and proof) language that's independent from how it's verified (or how the proof are checked). There is a model checker for TLA+, as well as a proof assistant.

> a glorified fuzzer

Model checkers and fuzzers are not at all alike. A fuzzer runs a program many times, while a model checker doesn't run it even once, but rather checks it. To see how different checking is from running, consider that a model checker like TLC (a model checker for TLA+) could completely check in a number of seconds an infinite (and even uncountable) number of executions, each with an infinite number of steps.

> a failure to find one does not amount to a proof of correctness!

A failure to find a counterexample most definitely amounts to a proof of correctness. It is not a deductive proof in the logic, but a proof nonetheless (one that employs the model theory of the logic as opposed to its proof theory). That's the meaning of the term "model checker": it automatically checks whether some program is a model for some formula (i.e. a structure that satisfies the formula).

> not something that gets verified "end-to-end" like in Agda or Coq

This is misleading. It is possible to do "end-to-end" in TLA+, pretty much as it is is in Coq, which is to say that it's possible only on very small programs, usually in research settings. For example, see here[1].

But the main difference between TLA+ and Coq/Agda is that it's not a research tool but a tool intended for use in industry on large, real-world systems. Now, all formal methods -- whether Coq or TLA+ -- have severe scalability limitations. Very roughly, one could verify about 2000 lines of specification -- that specification can be actual code (i.e. a ~2000 line program) or a high-level spec that abstracts 200K or even 2M lines of code. Because TLA+ is intended for use in industry, it is designed to be used on high-level specs more than code, because most programs that require verification are not small enough. But if you have a 200K-2M LOC program, it's not as if end-to-end verification is a choice. Remember that the biggest programs ever to be fully verified end-to-end were about 1/5 the size of jQuery, and took world experts years of effort -- not a feasible option for most software.

[1]: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281886818_An_Approa...
> VC's only invest in ideas that have both a high likelihood of success and a large payout

In my experience, venture capitalists are often willing to invest in ideas with a low likelihood of success as well.
The “rest periods” were ten seconds long. This doesn’t generalize into anything meaningful; when was the last time you focused on a new skill so intensely that you didn’t have ten second pauses?
They're complementary, IMO: unit tests show that your implementation works as expected, while a formal specification allows you to check that your approach is right to begin with.

That being said, TLA+ specifications have uncovered really hairy concurrency bugs which would be a nightmare to unit test - for instance, Amazon found bugs in DynamoDB which required 35 steps to reproduce [1].

[1] http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/formal-methods-amazon.p...
unit testing (and any kind of testing for that matter) shows that your code works for a set of inputs. formal verification methods show that it works for all inputs. it’s the holy grail but comes with a really high price tag to actually do it (so unless you’re writing something critical or have a lot of resources you normally get your software to the point where it’s good enough through unit/etc testing)
Mars Colony: A City on Mars Could Descend into Cabin Fever and Nationalism
Traffic Sources for SaaS Lead Generation in 2019
See my other comment on the matter, but this presents a choice where there is none. No tool that extracts or verifies actual code (and people have actually done both with TLA+) can operate on programs larger than a few thousand lines. So it's not a choice between fully verifying a 200KLOC program or just its 2000-line high-level spec. It's between verifying/extracting a 2000 line program or a 2000 line spec that abstracts a 200KLOC program. In other words, for programs of a certain size, verifying a high-level spec is the only real option for "deep" verification.
> To our astonishment, a number of users said that they wouldn’t read the information in the boxes. They likened them to advertising on news sites

Well done, ad people. I hope you didn't kill anyone.
I've taken this before for anxiety and while I do think it helps massively, it certainly isn't a single dose silver bullet. IMO you need to take it every time before the thing that causes you anxiety.
It already deploys a manned lethal force with far less than 100% identification accuracy, so what's the fundamental difference? The arguments in courts would be the same - "an honest mistake", "incident due to unfortunate circumstances" etc, wrapped up with a claim that if such broad latitude to make "mistakes" is not given, then society will descend into lawless anarchy. But it would be applied to people who deploy the robots, instead of the people pulling the trigger.

Alternatively, and more likely, measures would be taken to make it not autonomous on paper, e.g. requiring a human operator to approve any action the robot is intending to take. In practice, this would likely be one of those "moral crumple zones" with little practical meaning.
Frugality is non-linear
In the 2 comments you made to me, you're assuming my premise is to criticize her over her gender.

My comment would have remained the same if Dr. Bouman identified as male. The age of an individual when they get their PhD is somewhere around 27-29 (depends on when they start grad school.. it's usually about 5 years) People with more experience realize it's better to work and recognize the team rather than not. Kids fresh out of school just don't have that experience.
If this program is so good it should probably take equity or be structured as a loan so that society can get more out of it with its funding.
Never get distracted again by social media
But then again .. maybe truly competent developers don't get such anxiety in the first place, and if they do need to 'figure something out' in an open, shoulder-surfing environment, can reliably depend on their colleagues to assist rather than "judge them for the secret difficulties they are having"?

Unless you've experienced such an open environment, I wouldn't imagine you'd understand the advantages of not working in a state of secrecy. After all, the modern tech work place is an aggressive and hostile, often very competitive environment, right?

Well this open-screen policy puts a stop to that hostility and competitiveness at a group policy level, and as a result: folks are less competitive and more cooperative. This manifests in a much better group dynamic, and higher levels of productivity occur.

Try it! Or, if you find yourself resisting the idea, take some time to reflect what, exactly, this represents that you are afraid of ..
>The reasons WHY it was biased makes no difference to the fact that the system IS biased.

Disagree. If some process or algorithm gives biased results, there is a BIG difference if it’s because of a technical limitation like “darker people are harder to see” or incompetence like “we didn’t test enough dark people” or maliciousness as “we just don’t like dark people”.

So it does make a difference, esp when considering if it’s worth firing the the ol’ faux outrage machines.
They are many similarities and many differences, but the differences mostly stem from their goals being very different. Coq, Agda and Idris are mostly used for research. TLA+ is designed for heavy-duty, everyday use in industry by software and hardware developers working on large, complex real-world systems.
1000 seconds, I believe, is the max that ntpd will correct without manual intervention.

It also usually corrects by slewing time, so that the time correction doesn’t upset timers so much. I believe it can take several weeks to correct for a large offset.

That information is true for most linuxes, and may not have any direct bearing on iOS.
> Let's say you just finished a big campaign, promoting the new major version...

Again, this sounds like a marketing concern. A software or service need not be marketed by the technical version. As mentioned elsewhere Java famously promotes it's dot version and is famously maintains backwards compatibility to v1.0, IIRC.

Consider that a business consuming software and services is not only concerned with the market version/edition but their IT very much cares about the technical version and what each release communicates. Windows has an internal version number besides the ME, XP, Vista bullshit.
With a small script you could download the 100-odd tiles you might need[1], join them together (perhaps with montage[2]), and print the result.

This won't produce a poster-quality print, and the usual services to print OSM don't seem to have a transport theme available[3].

[1] https://b.tiles.openrailwaymap.org/standard/4/8/5.png and https://a.osm.rrze.fau.de/osmhd/4/8/5.png would work, both are for HiDPI displays; 4 is the zoom, 8 the x position ('left' origin), 5 the y position ('top' origin).

[2] https://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/montage/

[3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_on_Paper
I don't selectively cast doubts on the experience and intentions of a woman because they are a woman. That would be sexist.

The suggestion that people should avoid casting doubt/criticism due to a person's gender is sexist.
You cannot design for modern hardware and avoid bloat at the same time.
To build a globally distributed database offering as complex as Cosmos DB with multiple SLA requirements? Can you build it faster?
It is a formal method.
Cool window into an interesting epistemological model. Considering the null hypothesis: "Damodaran is no better at predicting the market than any other person.", what would be evidence that rejects it?

Presumably not being in concordance with the market is insufficient evidence based off this and sibling comments. I wonder if there is a duration where this will even work.

Does there exist any evidence that would lead one to fail to reject the null hypothesis? Or would this model always reject?

Certainly, our current conclusion must be that Damodaran has poor predictive power over the short-term.
Yeah, well if you ever traced a Win95/98 app and stepped into the OS code, one of the internal system API's was called BOZOLIVESHERE.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20031015-00/?p=42...
This isn't about customers using the cloud. His perspective is as an engineer on the Azure team building these databases and other features for you to use.

He's "inventing" the cloud so that you don't have to reinvent, as you state.
Heck, they probably saved more than that over the years just by failing to implement the compliance program. I can’t imagine such a program would cost less than 250k to implement over three years. So they broke even on this deal before you even factor in ill-gotten gains.
I attribute this to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawthorne_effect
Hm the story from the posted tweet makes sense to me. Damn that is really cool.
$6 Udemy course, unpaid intern, $250,000 kickback to federal government, $250,006 SEO strategy

Invest in your SEO strategy like Wealthfront people!
> investment in recent and modern technologies could be cumbersome on the beginning, but they will be very rewarding in forms of higher support, better UX and productivity

I'm incredible tired of this productivity phrase being thrown around at whim. These claims are rarely verified.
> Drivers use Lyft for a reason; they may have a greater bonus payment that balances out the higher commission to Lyft

Drivers use Lyft because riders use Lyft, and it's better to drive for either at a given time than neither. It doesn't mean Lyft pays equally or higher.
It uncovered an oversight in an algorithm we put together for managing distributed sessions. An invariant showed that our algorithm would accept and consider valid tokens that were ahead of the 'master' counter, which theoretically shouldn't of been a possible input in practice but now that we know we've added an additional guard. Original comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19662123
That sounds extremely hard to enforce, especially between languages that aren’t similar enough for a clear one-to-one correlation to appear. I could see this being an issue between CL and Scheme or two different kinds of shell scripting, but less so with Rust and elisp.
All x509 certificates have a “NotBeforeDate” value.

It does help with trust: if you know there was a specific date on which there was a cutoff of a vendor producing a certain type of weak certificate, for example, you can choose only to trust certificates from that provider after a certain NotBeforeDate.

All browsers will fail a certificate as invalid if your date is prior to the NotBeforeDate.
Why is using a VM not allowed? They have the Bulk Executor for large scale update/ingest: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cosmos-db/bulk-execut...

You can also use the changefeed system which is stored as an event-hub stream and then save it to another collection using Azure Functions.
You know that many SBIR grants actually go to the military industrial complex, right? There are 1000's of small-ish government / defense contractors that get some funding through this...
It’s weird, but I have a site where google has indexed tens of thousands of urls and drives hundreds of clicks from google search a day before even launching it, without any backlinks. Backlinks will obviously drastically increase both the number of urls indexed as well as the ranking for queries and give an associated click through rate and corresponding traffic increase. Kind of blew my mind traffic would start coming pre launch though, certainly unexpected. SEO is way different now than when I started getting heavily into it in 2003!
consider ocean currents
I joined a project that did that, luckily I joined by the end, but I could see the toll it had on the other developers.
I want to tell a raven from a writing desk.
Check out gandcrab:
https://sensorstechforum.com/gandcrab-criminals-affiliates-r...

It's ransomware with a commission scheme.

> It’s curious to note that the program offers a 60-40 split in profits, with 60 percent offered to the customer. However, the gang is willing to negotiate up to a 70-30 split for customers that are considered more “sophisticated”, researchers say.
Ask HN: Best resources for learning games theory
I'm looking for recommendations of materials to learn the core ideas of pure and applied game theory.
My two year old knows the alphabet and can count to 10. She can't type but only because we never let her play with tablets or phones.
This looks awesome but I can’t get the link to copy to my clipboard ( although it keeps saying “link copied”). I even tried tapping the “link copied” banner and still wouldn’t copy.

I’m on iPhone (iOS 12.2) using the Safari app.
A big difference there is that BSD covers only the core platform, while Windows covers everything from head to toe.
The author seems to be saying, in section 4, that compilers should just stop doing some optimizations (such as converting int to size_t where appropriate) and should expect programmers to do those optimizations instead, in order to reduce undefined behavior.

The problem with this argument is that it doesn't match economic reality. Compiler authors wouldn't disagree that it would be nice to not have to do these optimizations! (Chris Lattner has said as much to me, for example.) Unfortunately, there is a lot more application code out there than there is compiler code. So it makes economic sense to add optimizations to the compiler rather than to individual programs, so that the huge universe of C and C++ programs can benefit without having to be optimized by hand at the source level. This is why companies like Google and Apple employ compiler engineers: so that their large codebases can become faster automatically.

It's trendy to complain about compiler engineers because they're an easy target, and because of nostalgia for the days of Turbo Pascal when optimizations weren't done and programs were slow. It's much less trendy to analyze the complex circumstances that has led to UB exploitation in C and C++. In my opinion, if I had to assign blame to one thing, it would go to the C language itself, for e.g. encouraging use of int for array indices.

P.S. As always, Fabian Giesen's description of why compilers exploit signed overflow is a must-read: https://gist.github.com/rygorous/e0f055bfb74e3d5f0af20690759...

Note that the conclusion is not as simple as "compilers should stop doing this optimization in C". There in fact isn't a great solution precisely because int is 32 bits for popular ABIs in C; the best options are "hope the programmer used size_t right" or "use another language".
Then you don't have SemVer but some Frankenstein combination of marketing and technical versioning. One with few advantages to traditional, arbitrary versioning which still requires IT digest every releases' changes to get a sense of the magnitude of the changes.

Not saying that's wrong for everyone. But I for one prefer versioning that clearly communicates compatibility before any marketing concerns.
There is another strategy that doesn't need high quality content. Companies like Zapier created thousands of pages with little variations following the rule of "how to integrate X with Y".
If the prover provides a written proof, then verifying that the proof (of the particular theorem) is correct is a much easier problem.
hah. not github.
most services have cloudformation snippets in the aws docs. they mostly work.

also, compared to terraform, cloudformation is state-of-the-art when it comes to actually bringing shit up
"Just think about the consequences of deploying such systems."

Those systems are already widely deployed - they're called 'humans'. All vision systems are going to be more likely to confuse like colours.

This problem is quite a bit different from the 'mugshot' problem, or a problem wherein there was a bias or lack of training data for certain samples.

The author I think conflated a lot of the issues and just boiled it down to 'evil AI' which I don't think is the right thing to do.

Issues of ethnic orientation are quite a bit different from systems that have trouble literally due to the colour of something.
I'm bummed that there don't seem to be universities offering this without the specific religious affiliation. You can get it in Roman Catholic form at Ave Maria, or typical protestant form at Bob Jones, but you can't get it plain. There exist non-believers who approve of everything on that list except the religion.
Yes, you can always choose an orientation of the path but not necessarily of the manifold along the path. I understand what he was saying now and misunderstood since it is not the usual way one talks about specifying an orientation at a point and in fact had imagined he was specifically specifying a "big" circle, like a nontrivial loop on the torus. You'd more typically talk about choosing a basis of the tangent space at a point - presumably ColinWright wanted to avoid involving extra definitions like tangent space and so chose a visual definition that wasn't quite as precise. I don't think there's any further confusion.
US News publishes an annual review of diet plans, if you are interested:

https://health.usnews.com/best-diet

If you decide to seek professional help via a diet specialist, be advised that a nutritionist and dietitian are not the same. A dietitian is a licensed medical field; in most states, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist and open a practice.

Good luck with your weight loss journey!
For some reason, emacs to pdf or latex errors out for some .sty file being missing. I could probably fix it, but pandoc works out of the box so I guess I’ll be sticking with it.