skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Apple uses differential privacy and evangelizes its use. DP is not either-or with consent.

Let's say your mapping app says 'Do you want to contribute traffic information during your drive to help provide better navigation experience for everyone' If you click "yes" and opt-in, do you, or do you not, want this to use Differential Privacy?
I'm not on my computer right now and I wonder if they rotated my write key since they don't mention it...
there's already react/D3 libraries. there's also ReCharts, and ChartJS which are wrappers on d3
>It seems like a mistake. If you have one persona, that means that you need to optimize that persona for your career and ironically it feels more stiflingly conformist.

With a name like "Facebook Dating", it doesn't sound like they're trying to enter the Tinder-esque hookup space. If the product is focused on long-term relationships, the dating profile and the career profile probably won't have that many differences. At least not for most people, and Facebook (the website) is clearly aimed at "most people".

After all, a Tinder-like app would already face huge competition, whereas the market for online dating services that work for older and/or more conservative people has been largely stagnant and is currently fragmented across sites like "FarmersOnly". You don't gain traction by solving a problem someone else already solved. Old people are lonely too.
I've used LimePod in Seattle, you can't lock your car without cell service, which guarantees you'll only be able to unlock your car if you had service prior. The key is permanently attached to the ignition, so you could leave your car unlocked and start it later if you were in the wilderness. I wouldn't recommend taking any of these free-floating cars outside of the city because of problems like this, though.
> Except gold has a real industrial value

Apparently nobody cares because only a small fraction of gold is used for that purpose. Most is used to sit on it.

Stable... hard to tell, let's see after a millenium or two. Gold had a pretty good run till now, but hauling one asteroid towards earth or figuring out how to cheaply filter it out of ocean water will drop its value to dirt cheap.

More liquid... probably. Market for gold is still larger for now. Let's check that after a decade or two. Trends don't look too optimistic for gold when compared to btc.
Yes thank you for the tip! PostgreSQL does sound like a great idea and it would be easy to add new data points since I can check against the timestamp before adding new data.
The Tinkertoy "computer" was a tic-tac-toe (naughts and crosses) playing machine:

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/X39.81
Many such online quizzes (also: what is your X name, based on your first & last names, birth year, city of residence, etc.) are very thinly disguised deanonymisation / classification systems.

There are 33 bits required to uniquely identify any individual on Earth. Since the userbase of any online service is already a far smaller subset (particularly when looking at active userbases), answering such a quiz (truthfully) is quite likely a way to specifically identify you. Even as little information as residential and work postal codes is effective at uniquely identifying 90% of a population.

The slightly less nefarious use is in classifying audiences for advertisers, though even this can be abused.

Information has value. Don't grant it casually.
Peaceable is certainly not set in stone, and you're welcome to your interpretation, but a reasonable alternate interpretation is that you have to comply with the idea that owning certain armaments is de facto non-peaceable.

It would be very easy to revisit Heller in this light and say that gun violence is a problem in DC, and thus owning a handgun is a non-peaceable act in itself.
> at least Google tries to improve the status quo

I don't see Google trying to do that at all. I see them trying to ensure that the status quo will never change.
How to read a blog post that omits explanation
Superb set of points; thanks.

Current state:
1. version control [done; branching strategy and flow to be honed]
2. self-hosted gitlab [least of our worries, hasn't hurt to run, so will continue self-hosted]
3. regression has become a serious problem [will push for CI]
4. code/design/architecture/bugfix reviews [will make it more formalized]
5. better prioritization and reduced randomization [will push more for this]
6. on-call roster [will work on formalizing it]

Again, thanks for great pointers.
Slack feels like employee surveillance beyond the chatting capabilities
HYP3R Is Changing the Way to Hire Remote Software Engineers
I actually laughed out loud when I read this. What a sad joke/lie.
Western nations have used capital controls to oppress people. The Nazis, for example, used capital controls to both oppress people and to help fund their war machine via monetary policy.

e.g. https://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqr...
> They almost definitely have liquidation preferences on that 2B

Automatic conversion clauses typically force convertible pref to convert to common in the event of an IPO. This makes liquidation preferences generally irrelevant to public offerings.
There are certain criteria, see [1] or [2] for a summary. They need to be publicly traded for sufficient time, have sufficient free float, be profitable, etc.

See [3] for example on why Tesla isn't.

[1] https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26P_500_Index#Selection_cr...

[3] https://seekingalpha.com/article/4088016-will-tesla-join-s-a...
But again, that's only a problem if you've recorded the plates in the first place. Cameras functioning for live-only view with no recording storage, cameras without a good angle of the front or rear of cars or without the adequate zoom level for readability, or radar-based solutions are all incapable of violating your privacy in a meaningful way.
It is not that I disagree with Hennessy, but I think it is premature to conclude that general-purpose processors have reached the end of the road. There is a healthy middle in between specialized and general-purpose design. Exploiting that middle is what I think will deliver the next generation of growth. That is exactly what naturally occurred with SoC and mobile design.

The raw computational capabilities of the TPU don't really prove anything. Of course co-design wins. Whether it is vison or NLP -- NN training has dominant characteristics. The arithmetic is known: GeMM. The control is known: SGD. Tailoring control and memory-hierarchy to this is a no-brainer and of course the economic incentives at Google push them in this direction and of course the expertise available at Google powered this success. For other applications it is not so clear.

Finding similar dominance in other applications is trickier. To accelerate an application with a specialized architecture you need dominating characteristics in the apps memory-access, computational, and control profiles.
Correct. There are index mutual funds and index etfs. The article seemed to refer the latter.
That single mutation could affect level of some hormone during som3 crucial step of brain development and that might result in some complex behavioral changes.
Bioinformatics and other bits – Retrieving genome assemblies via Entrez w Python
> All dating apps target millennials

Millennials are almost in their 40s now! The prime dating app market (low to mid 20s) is now Gen Z.
Sure, which also happens every time there's a big down move in the market. Actually per prospect theory it is often the best performers that get sold first:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_effect

Regardless, my point is smart stock pickers will come in and bid up companies that get oversold. No damage done unless you tried to time the market in your IRA and sold at the bottom. People who continue automatic purchases of broad indexes will be happy (at some point!) for the discount.
I think that "code style, naming conventions, source code and repository layout" being commented on by younger devs makes sense since they likely don't have the social power or knowledge to make these other suggestions. Also those suggestions can be important in the early stage of a project to set precedence
> it's that there are very different faces of ourselves that we show to the professional world, to our friends, to partners, and to the world at large

I am not sure about this, I used to think like that but the older I grow the less I care. I even embrace the fact to show the same persona everywhere.

I haven't been actively using FB for the past few years though but maybe this is something that newer generations have already concluded in.
I don't understand -- why wouldn't it continue to be viable? Nothing about this proposal provides me with any reason to stop blocking tracking.
This statement must be qualified. Stores experience shoplifting of formula due to cost. The locked cabinets protect expensive stock.

WIC programs specifically include X amount of baby formula as part of the program. Especially in low-income areas (and increasingly higher level income areas) formula has become a form of currency and an easy way to launder drug money.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/05/02/magazine/mone...

The amazing part is the inefficiency of the WIC program made the formula black market possible.
"Most people (who I have met) who own passives have no idea what they are buying but are sure that buying passives makes them very smart. This blows up every time."

I can't say about the first part, but economically speaking, they are very smart. The alternatives are higher fees and lower results.

"Simply, going from 0 to $300m+ earns you that right. Very few people have achieved that."

You mean the guy who explicitly wants to raise the price of small caps (which conveniently have low volumes)?
Are the alternatives any better? For instance is discord protecting your chats?
> as much as I focus on something else.

Yes, so people ending up focusing on things like cellphones and email.
Well that's a different thing than what the OP claimed (marking up an investment with a tiny secondary round). They marked it up with a giant round!
That we are exploring other computing substrates does not mean that those substrates will be economical or practical to use. They either will be or they won't (a determination which is ultimately dependent on the laws of physics). Our exploration of other substrates is a necessary but insufficient precondition to actually putting other computing substrates into production.
Using nature to produce a revolutionary optical material
People more or less do do that. I've often searched for something on Amazon and bought the most popular result.
There's no support for that viewpoint anywhere in the text of the 2nd amendment, nor is there in Heller.
> The fundamental problem he seems to be pointing at is that notional replicating portfolios can work like an engineering marvel in good times and become inoperable in bad (liquidity) times.

He is confused. That was the problem with the synthetic OTC instruments that he used which nearly tripped his winning position because no one wanted to actually trade with them. And even that was largely the case because he was buying not even CDOs but synthetic instruments that were derivatives of the CDOs.

Index funds on the other hand own the shares in companies that publicly trade where the market markers must provide liquidity hence a single trade at +/- 10% will not only move the quote but would trigger other buyers and sellers to decide to want to play.
Conformance tests, code reviews and ACLs for check-ins.

It's the only way.
I'd compiled a list of critical articles some time back, though most are popular treatments:

https://ello.co/dredmorbius/post/qvifcykyzm2wfhhlrf6qfa

The exception being:

"Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator."
By Pittenger, David J.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol 57(3), Sum 2005, 210-221

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2005-11299-006
> Many gun owners have left the NRA over this exact issue.

The more common sentiment in the comments of the gun community is that the NRA is not doing enough to protect gun rights. Can you honestly say that the other organizations that gun owners are flocking to like the Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition are less supportive of gun rights?

Deeply disingenuous indeed.
Location: Northeast Ohio

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Ruby, Ruby on Rails, Redis, JavaScript, TypeScript, React, Redux

Résumé/CV: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14gZqNiu5EbKWt0jOfS2a88bz...

Email: lleolin@fastmail.com

I have been developing web applications in Ruby on Rails since 2006 as both a hobbyist and a professional, in addition to other Ruby frameworks such as Padrino or Hanami. I am seeking challenging problems that engage my creativity and desire to build neatly architected, functional, and well-tested apps. Very open to opportunities to do more front-end development (particularly in React), or move into other languages and frameworks such as Elixir or Phoenix.
As others have noted, there's a lot here that isn't relevant to Burry's argument, but this seems like the key rebuttal to me:

Active funds literally own the market. When you buy an index fund of the total stock market, you are literally buying the stock market in proportion to the shares held by all active investors. If you sum up the collective holdings of active managers, what you basically get is a market-cap-weighted index. Index fund investors are simply buying what the active investors have laid out for them.

I don't have the knowledge to evaluate this statement, but to me, it undermines Burry's point that passive investing distorts prices.

And this bit that he quotes from someone else expands on the point:

The use of price signals by those who played no role in setting them may be capitalism’s most important feature. That most of us and most of our dollars don’t have to pick stocks, or to price air conditioners, is a great benefit and taking advantage of it makes us honest smart capitalists, not commissars.

As I understand it, Burry's argument is that index funds distort prices because capital is being allocated in an automated and uniform way, instead of being allocated according to the expertise of a diverse, success-weighted group of investors who are motivated to make intelligent and informed decisions. At some point the difference between the index-fund-driven prices and the "true" prices according to informed opinion will become obvious, and investors will attempt to flee index funds, popping the bubble. The rebuttal in this argument is that active investors are still controlling the market because index funds mirror their activity. We will never reach a state where people will rush to "escape" from the index funds to actively managed funds, because index funds will always approximate the aggregate opinion of the actively managed funds.

This accords with my naive idea of how index funds work, but I don't know if they actually do work that way, so I can't evaluate the soundness of either argument.
Fair enough, so going back to a liquidity mismatch.

Will be interesting to watch the next market crash.
This sort of thing happens all the time. The Japanese-style quality movement had many different fads (for example 5S) but most of the top denizens said that there are some basic universal facts about quality but every organization has to develop their own system that works. Consultants can help you do that but you can't follow a textbook and make a company. By contrast, the American quality movement has always been filled with charlatans and fads like "Zero Defects". Do Americans want religion and not mastery? Who knows.

I see Scrum a lot like I see Six Sigma. They take some of the processes you see from a successful team and they turn them into gospel for managing all teams. Sometimes they try to apply these processes to the rest of the company in places where they don't make sense. They create a bunch of certification levels so that they can claim you can't just learn it from a book. They make a bunch of money but leave their clients in a strange place.
FWIW, here's a better answer that was written later: https://stackoverflow.com/a/57676035/5230900.
> Don't look for a silver bullet.

Have cut my teeth long enough to know that there's no silver bullet (except in a 'con'sultant's marketing brochure, that is! :D)

> Trying to add some kind of process or framework is likely to just suck more energy out of the system and make the ICs think you're wasting their time.

Absolutely. Point taken!

> Nobody likes to live in chaos.

Unfortunately, few do want to, cause it makes them look like heroes. And that's where the problem arises. These fellows to nurture their heroic image end up ruining it for everyone, and worse - make the org just stagnate in a limbo.
>I meet a lot of people who protest facebook by moving to Instagram/WhatsApp

I see. So these people dont like FB the product not FB the company. That feels like a very restrained response. I protested by just moving to Signal (and never using insta) and boy does it suck if other people wont do the same.
Remember when that kid was calling on a Vanguard boycott because it was the largest holder of gun stocks?
How did you get hired into a place that uses Rust when you don't know any? Also where do you work because I want that.
Thank you. I'll try to digest these. I barely understand the math involved. So I'm pretty sure my "intuition" is wide of the market. I'm very grateful for your efforts to explain, socialize your work.

When I studied cryptographic voting systems, my "aha" moment was realizing the magic sauce is creating hash collisions so that a secure one-way hash can be used to protect voter privacy.

Re-re-reading the differential privacy stuff, this para jumped out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy#ε-differe...

"The intuition for the 2006 definition of ε-differential privacy is that a person's privacy cannot be compromised by a statistical release if their data are not in the database. Therefore with differential privacy, the goal is to give each individual roughly the same privacy that would result from having their data removed."

Oh. The "differential" part means modeling the difference between data captured and not captured.

I think (hope) this means figuring how much to fuzz the capture data so that hash collisions will match real world fuzzing.

--

Again, I'll continue to try to grok this stuff. Real world (story book style) examples will be very helpful.

Until I do understand, I think it's crucial for crypto and privacy minded people to quantify the assumptions and context involved. When I was working on election integrity (and medical records & guarding patient privacy), all the discussions were just make believe. I did help author a govt report to meant to help quantify the attack surface area for election administration. But I don't think it did much good, nor was it replicable (to new contexts).

So bravo. Please keep going.
Probably the method itself is too technical. I was usually told about it that applying Differential Privacy tries to guarantee that users won't get more information from two different databases, one with PII and one without.
> Part of the problem is that there isn't a centralized Science Propaganda Council issuing these warnings, which could be told to do better.

The layman listening to how this is covered could very easily come to the exact opposite conclusion ("97% of scientists....!!"), and much of the armchair experts seem to behave as if there was.

But this is my point: why isn't there something akin to a centralized Science Propaganda Council where the very best science on the matter is agreed upon by the experts, and open to criticism by those who disagree? Isn't this how any large project would be organized (well, the "central" part of it if not the openness to criticism)? Does having a bunch of splintered groups arguing inconsistent viewpoints seem like the optimal approach to something that may very well be an existential threat to life as we know it on the planet?

> Scientists publish studies and sometimes strongly worded letters; journalists and authors pick it up and twist into something that (then) sells publications / (now) attracts eyeballs to advertisements; people mishear these reports further, freak out and tell to each other (or, today, post on social media).

Bingo. And intelligent people sincerely wonder why this isn't having success. The situation is so utterly absurd to me, it boggles my mind that no one else seems to notice any imperfections in our current approach (and this applies to all the issues facing the world, not just this one).
You don't just 'elect to become a citizen'
Yeah, in some sense any layer is a "memory module". Perhaps more specifically, attention solves the problem of directly correlating two items in a sequence that are very, very far away from each other. I'd generally caution against using attention prematurely as it's extremely slow, meaning you'll waste a lot of your time and resources without knowing if it'll help. Stacking conv layers or using recurrence is an easy middle step that, if it helps, can guide you on whether attention could provide even more gains.
Sure, but do you buy a bundle of goods this way? That’s the analog of index investing.
This about engineering choices. No doubt a phone can report on traffic without the system as a whole storing which phone it was.

You could run ML locally.

If you want to know how long patients are waiting, you can just record wait time without recording details of the patient.
There are plenty of value stock ETFs out there. You don't have to go with an index fund.
Unless there are expected revenue targets that aren't ratios.
Sorry! I wasn't meaning to correct anything. I just wanted to add a little snippet.

You're right that the Know Your Customer regs make it very hard for some people to open an account.
I'm impressed how much progress on Question Answering problems BERT has led to. The technology has (finally) reached the point where automated answering bots can handle non-trivial problems. It will be interesting to see what products this leads to in the next few years. I imagine a lot in customer support, but also a lot of decision support systems.
The "different clock" hombre_fatal is referring to is the "biological clock" - A single childless woman aged 35 who wants a family with two or three children has very little time to waste (assuming she wants a traditional two-biological-parent family structure which is extremely common among members of the upper middle class).

They need someone ready to make a lifetime commitment - and as it's rare to marry without dating for at least a year or so, they've only got a few rolls of the dice left.

If that's not where hombre_fatal is in his life, such women won't see a future with him.
Are you arguing that index investors should not be part of the market at all?

A large number of investors leaving the market will see a sell off no matter what vehicle they're in.
Can anyone chime in as to how it is legal to remove someone's ownership from a company like that?
I'm asking you. It's your rhetoric. What are you referring to?

Update: Bueller?
As a product-guy-turned-engineer, I really enjoyed this read! Thanks for linking some great resources.