skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Lol, amazing how fast the internet has gotten. Started on a 14.4 modem, now I’m being told gigabit fiber is available in my neighborhood. Just... wow.
Why is MD5 a poor choice in this context?
What’s wrong with the application of MD5 to this process?
This is not cryptography. MD5 is a very popular choice for hashing static assets.
> Packrat isn't really a parsing algorithm - the PEG is the parsing algorithm.

The way I've seen it presented, PEG is primarily a style of grammar (basically, prioritized choice instead of normal alternation) and Packrat is a parsing algorithm.

http://bford.info/packrat/
Indeed, but even for example with a wartime suspension of their patents, we would be cut off from supplies immediately and it could potentially take years for our domestic pipeline to start delivering.

Without the wartime excuse I don't foresee it getting any better for the speed at which we can start mining (pretty sure it would take multiple acts of congress to allow for the environmental regs to be ignored), and if we start violating China's rare earth patents willy-nilly I don't picture them helping us with that by continuing to sell the raw materials to us.
China manipulates data pretty much anywhere imaginable. See the Google Maps link [1] and corresponding Baidu Maps [2] locations. Notice how the Google Maps data has huge disagreement between the road network and satellite imagery? It's because if you do mapping in China, the government hands you a perturbation function to apply to each data layer. You have to warp your data per their function, and they can audit it. Baidu doesn't have to do this. However, both Google and Baidu maps are WAY off on GPS locations, 100+ meters off, everybody has to do that unless yo have an accurate mapping license.

I realize this is a little off topic, but since I work on something which has a big China presence, I'm always running into their BS, and censorship is just one little piece of it. VPN connectivity to your non-China offices is also problematic, running TLS over the Chinese internet is also problematic, unless you use officially provided certs and keys, etc.

[1] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Beijing,+China/@39.7616007...
[2] https://map.baidu.com/@12957558.390456071,4804287.368277797,...
I was offered to join this lawsuit but I didn't because I didn't feel discriminated or anything.
If Amazon instead sends a counterfeit product from someone other than P&G when I buy a product that is advertised as sold by P&G, the should be fraud, if it isn't already.

They need to show you who you're buying from if they aren't going to accept liability for selling it.
Yes, and it makes the apps that are sized appropriately for the default Mac resolution too big.

It's an accessibility problem, not a resolution problem. Electron apps don't have this issue because you can resize each app individually to match your needs/screen settings. You can't do this with most native apps.
I don't think people who consider Harry Potter to be a pinnacle of fine writing should be in the business of telling Juniors from Seniors.

Also, for marketing spam, which this is, it isn't written even to Rowling's standards.
> I'm suggesting that your perceptions may have been shaped by a very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades.

In my argument, I assumed that wasn't possible, because the press leans left, and therefore would not be amenable to selling a "very convincing publicity campaign over the course of decades" if that campaign favored the right. I recognize that that's an argument, not data.

Looking at the FIRE data, there was a large predominance of "from the left" challenges (whether successful or not, whether at a public school or not) in 2016 and 2017. It moved back toward (not all the way to) even in 2018 and 2019. So maybe it was just a temporary thing? Or maybe the right learned how to play the game better?
This is a current area of research as the prevalence of interactive notebooks has peaked. As of now, they simply "EXIST" and we know we like them. Its still unclear as to why; obviously having code intertwined other common communication mediums but what about that makes us like it. What benefits does it have over pseudocode or just code? What about code beyond small scripts (500+ lines with design patterns or other abstractions)?
Contact hn@ycombinator.com, they're quite responsive. I see you asked a similar question last month and I clicked the 'vouch' again. Being able to see the 'vouch' button requires 100 points (can't remember exactly).

I'd say some anti-spam score is negative. It doesn't happen often. Usually it's brand new accounts that get flagged by some algorithm, maybe they shared an IP address with another group of account that got banned, and then when the first submission isn't a good quality one, let's say a youtube video without summary, nobody vouches.
While the crisis with fake news certainly warrants suspicion of the citizenry's ability to make informed decisions, how do pro-government citizens of countries without even the cultural ideal of free speech attempt to claim objective soundness for their political positions?
Really you’re not right for them because you don’t share their remote philosophy. Their comp structure is designed to filter for employees who value remote over all else. Kind of makes sense for a 100% remote company to do that. People who are wanting SF rates in Thailand aren’t really motivated by remote, it’s a perk, but geo arbitrage is the real motivation.
The contractors are out of their mind around me trying to hit quota. Last week an amazon van barreled in from the opposite lane, cut off traffic, and parked at a 45* angle facing traffic halfway into a street parking spot. The whole lane was blocked while they struggled to find their apartment on foot.
Also the Steam Linux client.
It should be possible to patch the kernel. If I had an A2 card, I'd try. It's probably just a question of detecting card features on card plug-in and sending a command to enable the cache.

Spec/code is open. I'm just sort of surprised noone tried it yet.
(obligatory IANAL) Recitals aren't legally binding in and of themselves, so I'd be wary of _relying_ on them _completely_.

That said, the articles of a regulation should be read in light of the recitals (as the latter are the rationale behind the actual binding legislation).
Suspense for data loading seems to cover that side of things quite well in the experiments I've tried with the current API.

I use Sagas as well though, and Ive found them ok...really easy to test but feel very heavyweight and clunky; personally, I don't _really_ like the loading/error state to be handled by Redux: the more years I work on React/Redux app the more I prefer for a section of an app to be mounted -> triggering a fetch -> loading, show local loading UI -> {fails, show local UI|succeeds, dispatch success}. So Redux becomes a serializable normalized data cache that acts to store the results of disparate API calls and doesn't care at all much about the UI.
Maybe I should clarify: I didn't mean that it's always futile to build mental models to understand the world. More that in this instance, our attempts to rationalize our behavior and use that understanding to guide future behavior (via economics, esp.) have clearly been at least partially a failure. If we continue to see profit as the ultimate goal of human endeavor, we do so at our peril. I think it's clear that economics is lagging behind the physical sciences in it's ability to successfully guide our behavior. It needs modifications to be able to properly deal with externalities; otherwise we're on a collision course with a future that I think most people would consider highly dystopian.
I don’t recall anyone ever loving gimp, at least beyond it’s GPLness. It’s been the butt (deservedly) of UI jokes for as long as I can remember.
I suppose you could call the packrat cache an 'infinite lookahead buffer'.

Arbitrary backtracking is a property of PEGs though - you don't need Packrat for that. The original 1970s Ullman paper that this all goes back to is 'parsing algorithms with [arbitrary] backtrack'. Packrat made it linear.

These differences probably aren't worth worrying about too much though.
I think you read a lot in my post that wasn't there.

But also sure... I don't know why you would be so naive to think that scaling issues don't work both ways. Perhaps what works for Switzerland and it's one city over 250k people might not work for USA with it's eighty eight over different climates, areas, densities, geological formations. No, surely I'm just being hilarious :D
I wasn't saying the conclusion was wrong, just perhaps too obvious.

Eating whole foods is healthier than eating packaged foods is pretty intuitive at this point.

In a study that did not allow free eating, we could have gone further to find out if a 100% controlled ultra processed diet, was still worse for you the subject that a calorie matched diet based on whole foods.
We started a greenfield project a few months ago and decided not use Redux and try the context API instead. In retrospect, that was a bad idea. Context is fine for a small app, but small apps tend not to stay small... and then you're stuck with the Yugo when you what you really need is a truck.

In our main app we also use advanced features like what Slack is describing in their post, like having multiple Redux stores. We also combine stores from multiple sources (e.g. appStore = [...store1, ...store2, ...storeFromALibrary]. It's incredibly flexible.
Big whoop. The hash collisions of MD5 allows an "attacker" to prevent himself from posting his own image. A simpler and cheaper way to perform the same "attack" would be to just not post the image in the first place as the outcome is the same.
That's kind of my point. Those are not rational reactions during a deflationary period but that's what people will do anyway.
I am not redefining the term here. There is no bait-and-switch. I am entirely consistent both with the Wikipedia article and with Dr. Haidt. Yes, the term is often used in a negative sense (and, to be clear, I think political correctness is bad) but it's original connotation was positive. My definition was consistent with both.

The only bait-and-switch here would be if I sometimes pejoratively referred to policies as "politically incorrect" which did not in fact meet the definition I provided, or if I applied it in an inconsistent manner. Neither I nor Dr. Haidt do this.

EDIT: so there is the pejorative and non-pejorative sense that is worth addressing. As the wikipedia article says, it is used in a pejorative sense when used to refer to situations where the suppression of potentially offensive speech is deemed excessive or unwarranted.

I (and Dr. Haidt) do use it in that sense, with the clarification that by "excessive or unwarranted" we specifically mean "without regard to the truth or falsehood of the speech expressed". That is the best way to summarize how the term is actually used in modern parlance with a great deal of consistency, particularly by groups such as Heterodox Academy.

Anyone who has a negative visceral reaction to the use of the phrase "political correctness" needs to be sure that they can understand and address that meaning of the word. It's not just a general "boo" word, but one with specific content and describes a real phenomenon.
When Your Moon Shots Don’t Take Off
No, they're not (if my understanding is correct) passing their orders through a middle man, they're passing their orders to a market maker. Market makers don't get "fees" and don't perform arbitrage (they can't, they need to match the best bid/offer). They make money by trading the spread (the difference between offer and bid). They buy at $100.01 (best bid) and sell at $100.02 (best offer) and pocket the difference ($0.01). This of course relies on statistics, law of large numbers (doing this often enough) and avoiding risk (a single large move can wipe out your profits from 1000s of trades). The reason they like trading with Robin Hood (and other retail traders) is that the chances of a large move following a retail trade is much smaller (retail traders are "uninformed", i.e. noise).
I'm the author of this blog post and I'm more than happy to answer any questions people have!
Any plan for a Seattle/Redmond office?
World Wide Web (1992)
Yep, I've never seen a system that was a) so bad that it requires rewriting and b) had a great schema that rewrite could be done on top of.

Usually a quick glance at the schema will shine a bright light on top of all sorts of badness - denormalizations, excessive metadata-driven-ness etc. Rewriting code on top of crud like that would be epensive, and result in a lot of ugly code, which would need to be rewritten again.
Yeah, Signal seems to work fine in most of China.

Obviously there's not a snowball's chance in hell that Open Whisper Systems would ever even consider complying with any demand from the PRC.

I just don't think PRC authorities really care about Signal. It's not popular, not available in the app stores available to the Chinese masses, and anyone using it is probably just going to tunnel out anyway. They tend to ban things that are competitive, and Signal just isn't. It's a niche app.
I'm listed in that bibliography.

A PEG is imperative. It's already an 'algorithm' and already describes how to parse it. That's different to traditional declarative grammars that people are used to, which need an algorithm to go with the grammar.
There are a number of prescription weight loss medications that increase the feeling of satiety. Maybe you meant that we haven't found a way to do it without side effects?

https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/weight-manageme...
In Chicago they always droce around in rented vans from Enterprise. I wonder if they had some sort of deal to hook up their "contractors" with vehicles.
Well. In theory, one should be able to reproduce (implement) an algorithm described in a paper just by reading the paper. It's better if the algorithm is typeset as, you know, an algorithm, but if the algorithm can be better described in plain English...

Besides, _ideally_, machine learning reseach is not about building a system but about making a theoretical claim that is supported by empirical results. The main claim should be about a property of the algorithm: its time complexity, its convergence, its correctness, etc. Experiments should directly test the theoretical claim and verify it in practice.

... ideally. In practice most machine learning papers are vehicles for a little table that compares your system with a baseline that you chose based on the fact that your system beats it (or you wouldn't have put it in the paper). Whether your experiments prove anything beyond the fact that you beat some benchmark is not really important.

And so whether someone publishes a reproducible paper is of no consequence because the only point of papers is to pass review and convince someone that the researchers should stay in the (research) money. In any case, things move so fast that most of the time nobody wants to reproduce your old and unsexy paper from last week.

Then some busybody comes along and points out the fact that you're wearing no clothes. Like in the paper above.
Ask HN: What's the best way to get tagged training data for NLP
I'm looking to have technical keywords tagged such as programming languages, frameworks, etc. I would use mechanical turk, but since this data is very technical, I'm not sure the turks would be able to do it properly?

I was thinking about making a game and having technical recruiters tag words for the system. Thoughts?
There's a 26+ year old bug in the markup at the end of the source code (The extra </A>):

<DD> Getting the code by<A
NAME=49 HREF="LineMode/Defaults/Distribution.html">
anonymous FTP</A> , etc.</A>
Also too late here. As a big fan I was bummed to be forced to leave the free plan. This and the 3 device limit were a deal breaker. Now I'm onto syncthing and keybase FS.
is all your code public?
I'm curious to see some examples of rule 6

> Never hesitate to sacrifice truth for clarity.

My initial thought is that it is saying that it is OK to omit some details if they would only serve to confuse learners based on what they currently know?

for example - I volunteer with CodeNation teaching HTML/CSS/JS to high school students and we don't explain that `$` is an alias for the `jQuery` object, or any other details about it - because they don't need to fully understand that to start working with it.
It looks like you got hellbanned when you mentioned Trump.
It is on the list.
I should have known this would be used as an excuse to even further expand corporate control at the expense of individuals. Now they're trying to use it to restrict the second-hand market.

Instead of making it clear you're buying second-hand goods, or from a non-authorized seller, they are deliberately conflating what you're buying, with who you're buying it from. This way their anti-counterfeit efforts will conveniently squash the second-hand market.
As far as I understand the specific law in question, you are disqualified for a investment residency if the money you are using to invest is borrowed from someone else.
All sciences that collaborate with the field of AI: Cognitive Science, Neuroscience, Systems Theory, Decision Theory, Information Theory, Mathematics, Physics, Biology, ...

Any AI curriculum worth its salt includes the many scientific and philosophical views on intelligence. It is not all alchemy, though the field is in a renewal phase (with horribly hyped nomenclature such as "pre-AGI", and the most impressive implementations coming from industry and government, not academia).

And eventhough the atom bomb was based on science too, there is this anecdote from Hamming:

> Shortly before the first field test (you realize that no small scale experiment can be done—either you have a critical mass or you do not), a man asked me to check some arithmetic he had done, and I agreed, thinking to fob it off on some subordinate. When I asked what it was, he said, "It is the probability that the test bomb will ignite the whole atmosphere." I decided I would check it myself! The next day when he came for the answers I remarked to him, "The arithmetic was apparently correct but I do not know about the formulas for the capture cross sections for oxygen and nitrogen—after all, there could be no experiments at the needed energy levels." He replied, like a physicist talking to a mathematician, that he wanted me to check the arithmetic not the physics, and left. I said to myself, "What have you done, Hamming, you are involved in risking all of life that is known in the Universe, and you do not know much of an essential part?" I was pacing up and down the corridor when a friend asked me what was bothering me. I told him. His reply was, "Never mind, Hamming, no one will ever blame you."
>no results to many incredible results

What exactly is incredible (relatively) about the current state of things? I don't know how up-to-date you are on research, but how can you be claiming that we had no results previously? This is the kind of ignorance of previous work that we should be avoiding. We had the same kind of results previously, only with lower numbers. I keep trying to explain that increasing the numbers is not going to get us there because the numbers are measuring the wrong thing. There are other things that we should also focus on improving.

>dismissing our measures of progress and improved generality with ‘nowhere near as robust as [...] humans’ is certainly not the way figure it out.

It is the way to save this field from wasting so much money and time on coming up with the next small tweak to get that 0.001 improvement in whatever number you're trying to increase. It is not a naive or spiteful dismissal of the measures, it is a critique of the measures since they should not be the primary goal. The majority of this community is mindlessly tweaking architectures in pursuit of publications. Standards of publication should be higher to discourage this kind of behavior. With this much money and manpower, it should be exploding in orthogonal directions instead. But that requires taste and vision, which are unfortunately rare.

>People can't multiply thousand-digit numbers in their heads; why should that in any way invalidate their other measures of intelligence?

Is rote multiplication a task that we're interested in achieving with AI? You say that you aren't interested categorizing for the sake of categorizing, but this is a counterexample for the sake of giving a counterexample. Avoiding this kind of an example is precisely why I said "a measure that we care about improving".
I'm pretty confident we are talking about the same thing. I was referring to market makers as the middle men because they are not the stock exchange. Call it whatever you want, but trading the spread is arbitrage, i.e. a price mismatch with opportunity to profit.
They could require all suppliers to put up a surety bond. Make the amount high enough to filter out suppliers unwilling to sell long-term and also attempt to filter out anyone intending to sell counterfeit goods. Any suppliers who hit a certain threshold of failing to meet Amazon's standards of product authenticity would forfeit their bond. This isn't a new idea, it works well in other industries.
The only thing propping up the regime is the society which feeds it.
Ask HN: Why are flight blackbox data still not uploaded to cloud?
I'm a layman in aviation, and I'm a software engineer working in a telematics company writing real-time system.

After doing some research into this matter I was surprised to find that we're still relying on oldschool physical blackbox to get flight data. But why? In this [1] Quora question a person claims to have gotten an answer from NTSB. They have two main arguments:

1. Data is too big that we don't have technology to deal with that much information

2. There are security concerns since people can intercept data.

I don't understand either of the arguments. Here are my thoughts:

1. Some basic search [2] leads us that there are approx in the order of 10k airplanes in the sky. Assuming there are no periods of time where flight traffic is orders of magnitude worse (since countries live in different timezones) seems like the problem we're trying to solve is streaming data from 10k clients. Assuming the biggest bandwidth bottleneck will be audio (since there is no video data and physical data is relatively cheap) we can reduce this problem to streaming movie from 10k clients at any given time. It seems like one way to verify this problem is tractable is counting how many people uploading video to youtube any given moment and finding out the delta between total video length and transmission latency. While I don't have any real numbers, it seems like a tractable problem.

2. Similarly, this seems like a problem that we already should be able to solve. AES encrypted keyboards, encrypted mouses etc come to mind; or even basic HTTPS.

Could someone please explain this layman why this problem is so hard? If someone were to attack this problem and maybe found a startup, what resources should they refer to?

[1] https://www.quora.com/Why-do-airplanes-still-use-black-boxes-while-all-data-could-be-saved-real-time-to-servers-on-land-through-the-Internet

[2]: https://www.quora.com/How-many-airplanes-are-in-flight-on-average-at-any-given-time-worldwide