skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes, me too.

There's a few things that are relevant:

- When you're an adult, you know more of the context. Everyone as a kid has at some point thought "why am I learning this?". When you're older and you've seen a bunch of stuff, you know why.

- When you're older, you are typically not under pressure to pass an exam. IMO exams cause horrible problems. You're often under pressure to learn more than one class. And you more than often need to learn a lot of specific things that you need for the exam, but are not required to understand the subject. Like what the exact form of some equation is that you for some reason aren't allowed to look up in the exam. You end up spending a lot of time as a kid learning how to pass the exams rather than learning what you're supposed to learn.

- Adults have a better sense of when they actually understand something, rather than just superficially. Part of this is the classroom tyranny. As a kid, you are quite conscious of being judged. After all your future is on the line, and if the teacher thinks you're dumb, bad things might happen. As an adult, you're in class because you want to be in class. If you don't understand something, your status as an adult also helps in how help is presented. You don't get the "omg why am I teaching this kid chemistry, I could be making meth for big bucks".

- When you're an adult, nobody thinks to limit your quest for knowledge. If a kid asks "why is light a particle and a wave" you give them the Discovery Channel answer and stop them from asking too much. If an adult asks, they are welcome to sit in a quantum physics lesson until they leave by graduating or quitting.
As far as I have understood it, the US government was selling off helium stockpiles cheaply for the last 20 years, and now the consumers aren't willing/able to pay prices high enough to encourage production to rise quickly enough...
Yet every school/college assignment includes a minimum length requirement, web copywriters are paid for length and a 1000-page book is easier to market than a concise brochure.
But why do you need two compilers?
Apparently there are studies where performing tasks was compared: in silence vs with music. Routine tasks were performed the same, but creative tasks suffered with music (i.e. a non-trivial solution to a problem was overlooked).

Dunno, however, if reading qualifies as such a task. Namely, the question is whether the same regions of the brain are engaged (and would be busy listening to music).
The response (from Duhem, Quine and others) is this: Suppose you think A contradicts B. You would surely admit that, there is likely some other C that, if C were true, A wouldn't contradict B. But if that's the "logic" of science then it isn't straightforward deduction.

If you want an example, consider an ordinary empirical observation. Someone claims the ball is red; you look and you see green. Classic contradiction, right? Except if lighting conditions are wrong, or there is a pane of colored glass between you, or.. The point is that there are additional claims that, if they were true, would remove the "contradicts" relation between the two original claims. But ordinary logical relationships shouldn't work like that.
Alternatively, it may become easier to set it up.
Thanks. Wasn't Algeria(?) supposed to be building something?
It can show the measurement in ppm also.

However, I've read the reviews and dug a bit deeper, talked to some people. Basically, that value might be elevated by some unknown amount, but the device should not be trusted for the absolute levels.
Exactly. People seem amazed at how fast children pick up language but seem to ignore the fact most kids can’t speak fluently until they are 5+ years old and they spend a lot of time with poor pronunciation and grammar.

I would assume an adult who is dedicated to learning a language could get to the same level in 5 years with enough motivation.
The increased price of helium has also made it much more expensive to do deep scuba dives. More divers are buying closed circuit rebreathers, which are expensive and risky, but have the advantage of conserving helium.
This is a very well thought-out analysis of the textbook and lecture modalities for learning.

I don't understand the virulent negative responses from many of the comments here—perhaps it's just a reaction about the clickbaity title? Take it easy y'all.

The thesis of the article is much more nuanced that the title would suggest. A more appropriate title would be "Analysis of the relative benefits of textbooks and lectures as medium of instruction, and ways we can improve on them." Specifically, the author talks about the assumptions (in caricature) of how learning works in lectures:

"The lecturer says words describing an idea;
the class hears the words scribbles in a notebook;
then the class understands the idea."

and similar assumptions in textbooks

"The author describes an idea in words on the page;
the reader reads the words;
then the reader understands the idea.
When the reader reaches the last page,
they’ve finished the book."

The above two "learning APIs" are in use widely today with various levels of "support" for learners provided by the lecturer/author and the learning setting. In the end though, the hard work of understanding falls on the learner. It's on the learner to absorb, incorporate, relate, and learn to apply the knowledge.

The author points out that rather than thinking about medium of conveying information (lecture, video, text), we should think about "learning API design": what tools, learning modalities, structured activities, projects, and workflows can we provide for learners to foster the cognitive processes needed for learning to happen?
The reaction seems to be concentrating power in the President who can "do something". The centralizing of power and erosion of the original US system has been monotonic for the last 200 years.

First they came for the states by broadening the interstate commerce clause far beyond any rational reading. And now congress has ceded its authority in key areas such as treaties (fast tracking), declarations of war, and in process now: the right to subpoena information (we'll see how this one turns out).
"You can't teach an old dog new tricks" is at least 300 years old.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/you_can%27t_teach_an_old_dog_...
Site is down for me but http://archive.is/tURdz has the article.
>then the worse that will happen

But that's not the "worse that will happen". Go tell a starving 3rd world family that their $300 per month salary will now only buy $200 because you decided its a "risk worth taking".
Moreover, there have been PLENTY of libraries designed to make it easier, like MFC, ATL, etc.

My experience with Win32 apps using those (mostly from the perspective of modifying existing code, not starting from scratch) is that they made it easy to create something quickly to meet the initial requirements, but then the increased abstraction later gets in the way of debugging and extending. I suspect this effect is general to all libraries and frameworks that attempt to be a layer over an existing one.

Personally, I've found pure C and Win32 to be easy enough, but then again, it's something I've been doing for decades.
Popper heavily criticizes the value of explanation. He gives examples of really great "explanations" that have almost zero empirical value (things like psychoanalysis). Hard to see how it could be a "straw man."
I'm not sure it's that cut and dry, nor that any learning needs to be "undone". The study itself (referenced in this article) is co-authored by Pinker, and these ideas take time and research to develop.
Which is nothing in comparison to the thousands of people doing it every HOUR by train.
I would love to see the sections annotated with "approximately twenty minutesb to read" (like Medium does). In fact, if Google added this to every link, that would be amazing. I'm always excited to book mark things like this, and then when I visit my bookmarks tell myself "I'll read this when I have more focused time". Inside my head I'm assuming it'll be hours of work and I never find or make that time, and as such, never read those articles. This looks great and I bet I'll never make the time because of my mistaken assumptions.
How do you trick employees at mobile phone stores into seizing control of a phone number? You give him a fake ID, he checks the ID card's serial number, citizenship number, name, surname, date of birth in the mobile operator's application (which checks it from the governmental API service) or himself from the e-government web site. In this way he understands wheter the ID is real or not and wheter it was stolen or not. If it is real it hands you a new SIM in few minutes. (now it is even harder with ID cards with chips).

If you want to change the owner of the number the employee scans both of your documents and sends it to a governmental bureau and if they approve then the number is transported to the new person. Which it takes at least few days (I think it is intentionally slow).

This one will not save your Google account but it will save your bank account. If you change your SIM card you cannot login to your bank account. You need to recreate a password by calling the bank and answering tons of questions and revalidating your phone number. You might wonder how does a bank knows that a SIM card has been changed. I wonder it too. But the mobile operator probably informs all banks via a API. U have faced this personally 2 or 3 times and my friends have faced it too. So, it is real. (not related but there is also mobile digital signature thing that you can login to bank account, mobile phone operator's web site or your e-government account)

This is how it works in Turkey. I know United Statians don't like 1984 style states but I wanted to share.
The author addresses this:

"It’s the crude version that most people, especially scientists, have in mind when they talk about falsificationism. I will be satisfied if all I have achieved with this post is to convince you that, at least in this crude version, falsificationism is false."

It isn't a straw man if he's right that the crude version is what most people believe.
It's not a GC (in the now common vernacular).

Easy is good, particularly if it works well. Which it does.

Also much more frugal with memory than typical tracing GCs.
Don't Rely on OSI Approval
Rewards for loyal spenders are 'a honey pot for hackers'
What is the point of this article? The content is interesting: falsification is more complicated than it seems at first, and scientists don't practice philosophically-pure falsificationism. But it's wrapped up in some kind of finger-pointing "the emperor has no clothes!" type of exposé format that doesn't make sense and doesn't lead to a satisfying conclusion.
Rust doesn't need to use reference counting for shared data structures, which I'm pretty sure you already know. The use of reference counting is about dealing with unknown lifetimes, not dealing with sharing.
Well that is definitely not the title I submitted.
I don't recall this.
Microsoft provides the 'CComPtr' class template, a ref-counting smart-pointer for COM. It's been around since very roughly the year 2000 [0] [1].

Boost's smart pointers have apparently [2] been around for about as long.

If people have been rolling their own smart pointers since that time, isn't that their own fault?

[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/atl/reference/ccomptr-c...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Template_Library#Histor...

[2] https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_31_0/libs/smart_ptr/smart_p...
A ntive English speaker would say "The hikers went to Yosemite. Everyone climbed some hill." where "some" has a commo English meaning, not the common math-English meaning of existential quantification.
At the risk of asking a stupid question: is there a reason other than offline support why we bother with conflict resolution algorithms?

Every time concurrent editors come up, one of the main points of discussion is the pros and cons of different possible conflict resolution algorithms. People seem to be spending a lot of time on debating and implementing that. The way I see it, whichever packet reaches the server first gets applied first. Send something like "line 9 column 19: insert <Enter>", and when another client whose cursor is on line 15 receives that, it moves the cursor down to line 16 and scrolls the view down one line. Because you can see each other's cursors and selections, it shouldn't be hard to avoid typing in the same place. Unless you have round trip times of multiple seconds (satellite uplinks maybe?), and unless you edit continuously with more than, say, one people per ten sentences, you should hardly ever need it, and if it happens, the person editing will notice within two seconds and just wait a second for the other to finish. It's not as if you can reliably apply edits anyway: as the article already describes, changing a line from ABC to EFG concurrently with someone modifying B to D, does not really have a good outcome. In a more realistic example, it would be changing "its" to "it's" concurrently with changing the word to "that". There is no good solution (the server wouldn't know which person to ignore: the apostrophe inserter or the replacer), so someone will have to resolve it manually anyway, so why bother with complex resolution algorithms? Heck, I'd be fine if my editor would do exclusive locks for the line I'm on before I can start typing.

For slow things like the customer report, internal documents, code, etc., I use something like git. Collaborative editing is (to me) for realtime things like jotting down notes about what I'm working on and looking at what others are working on right now, where even a proper revision control system is too cumbersome (git pull, vim notes.txt, small edit, :wq, git commit, git push, repeat) because someone might be working on the same thing. In such a case, where I need to work together on a file in real time, I'm not working offline, so this conflict resolution is by definition unnecessary. Is that different from the majority of people that use collaborative editing?
Not just balloons. Helium shortage may deflate MRIs, airbags and research
Every empire goes down eventually. The derision of the crown jewel (NYC) of the US empire perfectly resembles the fact that the sun is setting.
Radicle: IPFS-based code collaboration
The most profound thing that ever happened to me reading books was "spaced repetition".

Spaced repetition is the model about how your memory works the author claims do not exist. With Anky I know exactly how much I retain of everything and how much I forget, with graphs and all.

So now , every time I acquire something new I must make an allocation in the future for rehearsal with Anki.

Another very useful thing is fast reading. Your mind can read extremely fast provided one detail: You use always the same layout standard format, then your subconscious can read multiple lines at a eye glance(after lots of training of course).

Every single book has a different format, and most of the time is not suitable for fast reading, with things like long lines that make it impossible to make sense of multiple lines for your mind.

So in order to make them useful I have to parse them and display on a standard way.
But you need more than one wallet. Just like you need more than one house key, in case you lose one.
I won’t pretend to speak for everyone, but my personal problems with Facebook are their wont to perform social experiments on unknowing users, hoarding of user data, especially from sites that aren’t Facebook; and overreach in multiple markets (to name just a few things).

I’m also bothered by their “free internet” programs in developing countries. I appreciate the sentiment behind it, but the way they only have a few sites that users can access rubs me the wrong way. I’m aware that Facebook is one of a handful of companies involved in that project, but Zuckerberg founded the project.

Whatever sway Facebook could have had on the 2016 election is at least tertiary to everything else, IMO. Especially since (from what I’ve read) it seems that that event was an example of outside actors using/gaming Facebook to push their agenda. That could have happened anywhere, including offline.

I take just as much issue with most other social networks, but Facebook happens to be the largest and most egregious offender of them all. I also think that Mark Zuckerberg seems to be incredibly disingenuous.
Oh. I thought you were going to say hurting the electronics industry as well.
Agreed and upvoted. It's been long enough since the previous discussions, and articles like this have repost value in my eyes, since they can generate a good discussion of the content in light of the current state of things.
At the lower end of your range this sounds somewhat like a Xeon Phi - up to 72 cores at 1.5 GHz with 512 kb L2 cache per core. Intel has discontinued the Xeon Phi line, presumably in part because there were limited applications where such an architecture proved compelling. What advantages would you see your FPGA based architecture having over something like the Xeon Phi that might lead it to have more success?
The point is you own it in one sense, but the phone company can reassign to someone else (even if temporary, it's still gone). It's not locked to a physical device at your house that no one else can change, it's not like a diamond ring on your finger.
I'd have just stopped at "I have never worked with FPGAs". To say they're a dead end is to totally misunderstand what they're good at and capable of.

Source: Professional FPGA designer.
I don’t think that’s true. One of the most prominent figures to continue developing popper’s philosophy is David Deutsch, and he emphasizes good explanations.

Being a good explanation means, among other things, it has a wide range of applicability and is hard to adjust if predictions don’t work out. Psychoanalysis wasn’t a good answer.
Don't know if this is common, but when I'm tired my accent sort of turns British. Seems North American accent requires more effort.
The site guidelines call for using the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). Judging by the first couple of comments that appeared here, the title is baity, because it was generating shallow reactions—to the top-level dramatic claim, rather than to the rich content in the article, such as its final paragraph.

When the comments in a thread are generated from the most-obvious, already-familiar information in an article—which often shows up in the title—than we get a discussion of people reciting things they already know or believe (not interesting!), instead of a learning process (much more interesting).

I changed the title to "There are strong arguments against falsificationism", which is a phrase from the article body. (When we change titles, we always look for representative language in the article itself.) A couple minutes later, I wasn't sure, so reverted it. This is a bit of an edge case. To some extent, what to do with the title depends on which direction the thread takes: shallow "I know better" dismissals? or thoughtful responses to the less obvious?
This is probably why people tend to think google search sucks. It's probably true that most search terms are not going to give you want you want to see. Google disregards the precise terms because they aren't useful to search for, and instead tries to understand the intent of your search.

For nerds, this makes google search suck, because they still construct search queries they way they did in 2000 (that's me too). For most people, it makes google search magically good compared to what they would get from a more "precise" search engine.
You should come to my workplace and tell this to actual scientists, who seem to have no trouble hypothesizing things they are unable to falsify, who pick up methods because "other people are doing this", not because of some underlying epistemological criterion, and whose epistemologically broken hypotheses have no trouble getting published in top-flight journals.

I also object to you saying "better explanation" without defining what that is. What makes something "better"? It's more intellectually satisfying? It feels "right"? It has a lower p-value? The ultimate subjectivity of this criterion, which is really at the root of all scientific endeavor, is why philosophy of science remains so difficult to pin down.

In the end what makes up scientific knowledge is that a bunch of people we call "scientists" approve of it, and pass it on in their writing and speech. Philosophers of science are welcome to come up with theories about how science operates, but I suggest they might benefit from some anthropological approaches, because scientists are sure not reading and applying their philosophy books.
> Intuitively new media won't have as much (good quality) content as books

care to share that intuition? this doesn't seem obvious to me unfortunately
>would you have considered Democritus's atomic theory to be meaningless, given the lack of any conceivable path to test it at the time?

Strictly speaking Democritus's atomic theory is still untestable today because it doesn't include the actual scale of the atoms. For all we know the apparently continuous quantum fields are themselves made of "atoms" (in his sense, not the modern meaning of the word atom). If he had said "things will get clearly atom-y around a nanometer" then it would have been at least conceivable that someone could eventually look that closely.

>you have to take quite an expansive view of what is 'conceivable'

That's right, I was laying down a very liberal criteria (and saying that it was a necessary but insufficient condition).

>If so, what sort of experiment would you set up to test it?

That's kind of like asking what sort of experiment could disprove the law of the excluded middle: not an unreasonable question, but the answer is going to sound pretty silly. To test my claim, you could iterate though every claim about the universe, checking to see if it simultaneously could not contradict with any observation, and yet predicted what you would observe. Good luck actually doing it; but it does technically meet my criterion.
That’s for state department level professional proficiency. I wouldn’t be surprised if most Americans aren’t at that level for English.
Why are they writing every program name in code formatting?
How a Toxic Work Environment Affects Mental Health
Your of course proposing the orthodox neo-liberal do nothing solution. The worst that will happen in that case is your 3rd world family starves to death.
Just because a government is in charge of a poor country, doesn't mean the people in that government are unable to make informed decisions.
See also these recent threads for greater context:

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19881709

- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19885502
My nephew has a serious advantage though. He is one hell of a lot more pliable than I am. He can hit the ground pretty hard and be back up practicing, but my middle aged body would be in traction.

I will probably not learn to do backflips ;-).

I would like to learn to ride a hoverboard though. That looks fun.
Strictly speaking they aren't a "part of calculus" - they aren't directly related to continuous rates of change - but that's a pretty arbitrary distinction and both are almost always taught as part of a calculus course.
Theoretical Physics Reference