skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>> when you break the law.

This is more an inditement of modern society, highlighting how much freedom we have lost

When an app like uber is "illegal" one can not call that society free in the least bit.

The fact that most things are by default a violation of some law or regulation is the #1 reason we are no longer innovating as fast as we used to.

Some might see this as a good thing, I do not
A hearty second for this Heinlein treasure. A better read you won't find.

Skip the "sequels" where he ties in Lazerus Long in...
It would be nice if natural regeneration worked, but in this area an idle plot quickly becomes overrun with invasive species. Some of these are foreign trees, such as alianthus, and some are US trees not native to this area, such as black locust. Even these fast growing and short lived species become quickly entangled in non-native vines and dragged down in windstorms. The result is a tangled mess nothing like the theoretical progression from thorny scrub, pioneer tree woodland, and full woodland. Getting to something like a natural woodland may be possible naturally, but it takes many decades, and the resultant species will certainly not be the mixed oak and chestnut forest, since there are no more chestnuts. Nature only goes forward, never back.
Fair enough. I will refrain from said type of comments in the future. My apologies.
Show HN: Tetris Kachori, Game with an Evil Mode - new EVIL shapes and Board
Where I live any ferrous rails will be gone tomorrow morning.
I don't think that's right, at least this is not the way I learned it: the terms on which you borrow money to fund your investments should be considered a part of the model. So if you borrow short term and invest long term, your model itself now includes maturity transformation, and it can blow up just like any such model. Sure you can then construct a different model that's basically the same but without the maturity transformation, and that's okay, you'll get different returns. Thinking about it this way I think it's still fair to blame LTCM, their investors were free to do whatever their contract allowed them to do.
> What I don't understand is how do things get this far down the road before a good old fashioned sanity check happens

One of the root issues is that way way too much capital has shifted out of the public markets into private equity. Public markets are significantly more regulated, transparent, and liquid. Public markets are almost always more favorable for regular investors. Whereas privately funded companies tend to be structured to primarily benefit connected insiders.

WeWork's ridiculous valuation is a prime example. Private companies can easily manipulate their valuation, by only making sure to sell shares at pre-arranged prices so that they never down round. In contrast public companies shares are traded thousands of times a day. If investors stop believing in a valuation that's reflected in the stock price in microseconds.

The industry has built up this cult around "unicorns"- multi-billion tech companies that never go public. As if that's a desirable thing. It's mostly been empowered by a mythical cult of the brilliant founder. Said founder-CEO need be unchained from any accountability whatsoever, lest trivialities like quarterly earnings reports or short-sellers constrain his creative vision.

And of course the private equity firms behind the VC capital are more than happy with this arrangement. Again, it's significantly easier to manipulate the valuation of private companies than public ones. Keeping your ventures private forever enables the fund sponsors to massage the return stream on their portfolios, which makes their risk-adjusted performance look far more impressive than it actually is.
I do exactly this. It has worked for me so far.
It has but not as good as tensorflow support. This is one thing i miss truly in pytorch. Otherwise pytorch is wonderful.
Which financial model actually works in the real world? A lot of what is studied seems to be nonsense from more than 60 years ago, because computers and algorithmic thinking started to come into vogue in economics research.

The same can be stated about Markowitz portfolio optimization, a product of hype in the operations research space at the time. It obviously doesn't work because portfolio optimization isn't a simple convex optimization problem in the real world. Yet anyone who studies finance is forced to learn it and other empirically failed bullshit.
I'm sorry you're downvoted but this is incredibly important. Over-engagement leads to siloing, burnout, quality problems, tech debt, among many other things
There actually existed hole punchers specifically for floppy disks. You lined them up to the corner of the floppy, and they'd punch a square hole at the proper location.
Got to love it when the protagonist is an Emacs user.
Just looked at Jax. At first glance, it seems to be a GPU/TPU based NumPy?

The thing is, TF has more than tensor ops. It has pre-defined NN layers, data loading/serialization, distributed training, metrics, and model serving.

It seems like a bit of a step backwards, that's all.

Edit: "matrix ops" -> "tensor ops"
No doubt we aren't doing enough to compensate our college athletes. We treat college Football like the AAA farm system for Baseball, and these kids have incentives to go out and hit hard and stand out so they can advance to the NFL. All without much of a safety net.

I have a friend who was on an athletic scholarship, but he blew out his knee and was cut from the team. Luckily his parents found a way to cover the cost for his final year, but overnight he went from having access to tutors, trainers, and special classes, to being tossed in with everyone else and having to cover his own knee surgery and rehab costs.

Now I'm not saying this is good that athletes got special treatment, but it really drives the point home that they are given special treatment when you deprive them of it right before the graduation finish line... My friend struggled; this is actually where I met him, as he was seeking tutoring.

He was trying, like really trying. Putting his all into academics to try and get caught up. There's only so much you can do, and he had been given such an easy pass to that point he simply wasn't able to do any of the work. He was depressed, felt like his whole life had been taken away, felt like his parents had sold everything they had to help him at least come out with a degree... and he didn't want to let people down.

This was all in the early 2000s, so I don't know if it's changed... what I think would be good:

* Make scholarships irrevocable due to injuries. If you get football scholarship, you get to stay no matter what. With full access to team tutors. A school can't offer someone a life-changing education, and then rip it away just because that person got hurt trying to help entertain the school's athletic audience.

* Make health funds available. Any injury you get while at work, work is liable for. You get hurt playing football, the team has to pay your insurance premiums and provide trainers for your rehab. Like a pension fund. Not like these programs don't have the money...

But paying athletes... slippery slope. It feels like then we really should split sports out into their own AAA systems, rather than relying on schools. I recognize that the drive to be a top athlete can permeate into other areas of a person's life, and sports built team mentality and promote physical fitness... It's just such a sketch gray area when you think about the NFL (and sure, others) diverting risk and responsibility for these kids to the NCAA.
It's kind of a half-and-half situation.

On the one hand, Marx anticipated communism rising up through society organically from the proletariat, whereas in most communist countries it was instead imposed in top-down fashion by a so-called "vanguard party" (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguardism).

Vanguardism was a feature of the Leninist approach to communism, and Lenin had not-terrible reasons for preferring it -- namely that by the 20th century, people had been waiting more than 50 years for communism to bubble up organically the way Marx had predicted it would way back in the 1840s, and it never seemed to, you know, happen. Lenin argued (in What Is To Be Done?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F) that Marx was wrong in this regard, that the only way the working masses would ever embrace communism was if a narrow, elite activist class first educated and agitated them.

Vanguardism worked, in the sense that it resulted in the creation of formally communist governments, which waiting for Marx's prediction to come true had never (and still never has) done. But it also tainted those governments (which were of course staffed top to bottom with members of the vanguard party) with a strong sense of their people as cattle who needed to be herded by their betters, which then made it easier to abandon democracy, shutter the free press, and murder lots of people whenever they got in the way of the next five-year plan.

On the other hand, complaints by communists that existing communist governments weren't practicing Real Communism™ always had a whiff of no-true-Scotsmanism about them. Most countries with these governments were pretty miserable places to live, so they weren't exactly great advertisements to people who lived elsewhere for the idea that they should embrace communism themselves. So people who advocated for communism had to somehow find a way to assure people that the communism they were preaching wasn't the same thing as the system down the road that couldn't feed anyone and was riddled with secret police. Accusing the folks down the road of deviationism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deviationism) was a useful way to do that.
Re/flex 1.4.3 high-performance lexical analyzer generator
I am pleased to announce RE/flex 1.4.3, a fast lexical analyzer generator. RE/flex is built from the ground up in C++ using a new design that makes the generated scanners faster than Flex (the fast lexical analyzer). The generated source code is reusable, easy to understand, and integrates seamlessly with Bison/Yacc parsers. This CodeProject article explains what's new and how it works: https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1180430/Constructing-Fast-Lexical-Analyzers-with-RE-flex-W
Geez, that article is only 8 years old.

It leaves out one thing. At cocktail parties, 1st question is: "What do you do ?"

"Oh, I'm a plumber, I dig the shit and swollen tampons out of peoples stopped up toliets, plus my hands are always purple from the solvent cleaner for the PVC glue"

Oh, and all the nearby women's ears perk up, suddenly this guy is AN ITEM.

Case closed.
To expand: Early on there might've been some differences in the media rated for double sided disks, but by the time the floppy disk was a consumer item they were all using "good enough" media, and you could hole punch any SS disc to use the other side in an SS drive.

Few cared much really because the double sided drives were clearly the next one you were going to buy even if you hadn't got one yet. And then it wouldn't matter.

A fun trick with some combinations of drive and system involved having a disk that could be read differently when flipped, in a double sided drive. It wasn't viable large scale but crazy people having fun with stupid floppy tricks might produce a few occasionally and hand them around.

(Involved halving or less the sector counts and abusing alignment to interleave one side's sectors beside the others. If you wanted to be evil there were further refinements in what you could make the system report was there that wasn't)
The video anchoring the article shows as unavailable for me. Is there an alternate place to view it?
> For example, in Zig both signed and unsigned integers have undefined behavior on overflow, contrasted to only signed integers in C.

Huh, that's a strange choice. What's the safety story for Zig? Are these always undefined, or is that only in an "unchecked" build?
There are a number of problems with this accusation.

(1) The requirement is that the sulphur is not released into the air. This is the rule adopted by a standards body. Why exactly is it cheating to dump it into the ocean instead?

(2) It is unclear that this is a bad thing. The article only cited the danger of dumping the chemicals in a port, where concentrations could reach dangerous levels due to concentration. It is unclear that dumping in the open ocean would be bad

(3) The final charge is that the scrubber increases CO2 output. It is unclear how one should get around this. Obviously, any process that requires more energy releases more CO2. There is no data given as to whether open loop or closed loop scrubbers generate more CO2. I'm guessing both generate some more CO2. The fact of the matter is that the regulation as stated requires more CO2 to be produced. The regulations mandate extra energy use, so the extra greenhouse gases produced are directly due to the regulations, not the companies behind this.

In other words, the article is written as if to accuse the companies of breaking the law, but in reality, the companies are simply complying with the standards in a way the author does not like. Instead of calling for standards to be changed, the author is acting as if companies should magically know what to do. Standards bodies exist in order to create standards that companies can follow. They should be the ones implementing the rule change.

Indeed, the article explicitly mentions that the IMF explicitly allows these kinds of scrubbers. Thus, using them is not even air quotes cheating. It's actually fully compliant.

To the article's credit, they did point out that the standards body is indeed reviewing their rules, and should be able to figure something out in the coming months.
The decades long wait times for green cards for immigrant doctors is also hurting health care in rural America.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/08/news/economy/immigrant-doct...

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/communitie...

https://time.com/5299488/international-medical-graduates/
Couldn’t you say this about every single feature implemented in the C++ compiler?
While most of these student athletes are unlikely to make millions, this bill allows that bottom 99% to make money in other ways that were previously prohibited, such as providing private coaching to younger athletes.
Recently I found that a lot of TF2.0 Keras' functionaly does not support eager execution. This makes Pytorch still significantly easier to prototype with than TF2.0.

If you miss Keras' way of defining NNs, you can use PyWarm: https://github.com/blue-season/pywarm which offers a fully functional NN building API for pytorch.
The Olympics are neither a university nor an athletic association, and even if they were Olympic athletes are not, in most (if any) sports, prohibited from paid endorsements.
I know. I don't want to go as far, but if I had to choose, I would also go for Jax, and help make it feature complete. However, it is not very feature-complete yet, and thus probably not as useful for everyone yet.
Doesn't CoreML abstract 90% of the actual model format/training source away? Last time I played with it in Xcode, it was painless to pull a pretrained TF model and use as-is.
Because Elon's success has nothing to do with cannabis. Maybe if he had taken up smoking cannabis, he wouldn't have been successful. He certainly demonstrated that he doesn't smoke cannabis.
> Many countries rely on Erlang for their immediate payment switches, allowing instant bank transfers

Just wondering if such a system used in Poland, actually called Elixir[1], has a line of Erlang/Elixir in its codebase.

[1] https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elixir_(system_rozliczeń_międz...
There were custom tools for punching this hole in the exact right place, but you could also just freehand it. https://content.spiceworksstatic.com/service.community/p/pos...

The really cool trick on an Apple ][ was eeking out an extra 14% storage by modifying your drive to use 40 tracks instead of 35. Everything was designed to work with 40 track disks but for some reason the standard Apple ][ disk drive had a piece of metal physically preventing the disk arm from moving past track 35. You could bend / cut that out of the way and get 40 tracks. Even more if you hacked your software and trusted the disk media beyond track 40. But that was dodgy, up to track 40 was mostly safe. Except it broke a few copy protection schemes that would slam the disk arm all the way to the outside and expect that to be track 35.
Got my hopes up, for a second there.

Currently this is the closest approximation I can find: https://youtu.be/hfr1ddGM6Rk
It may be weird to some, but there are a lot of intellectual phase locks today.

A major cause is publish-or-perish. And expert-group-bias. That last one is like: "Experts in astrology agree that astrology is working well."

We can spot these phase-locks by comparing the theoretical predictions with the actual real-world results. I also noticed that some of the results are altered afterwards to fit to the model.

Another signal is that good (and friendly) criticism is attacked, with personal attacks usually. This often happen when two different experts meet. From their expertise they come to different conclusions.

I noticed that these conflicts are hidden due to the peer-review system. Each specialisation is controlled by their own experts. This means that the different experts won't touch each other areas much. And just stay at their own territory to avoid conflicts. Or do not even widely publish their conflicting results.
I almost have a PhD from UW and concur. One failure mode I’ve observed in people getting a PhD is not fully understanding what it entails before starting. Later they undergo a painful period of rectifying reality and their idealized version of what it means to be a PhD student. Often realizing it wasn’t for them, and they would be happier elsewhere. I think for many people it’s important to overcome the sunk cost fallacy and leave.

Like many things in life a PhD is what you make of it, and I know many people who have had a miserable time, and those who’ve had an awesome time and everything in between. My PhD has been exceptionally tough, and not for the reasons Philip talks about, I have an awesome advisor, great lab, focus, lots of papers and it’s still just a challenging process. To me the PhD is much like ultra-marathon training, I’ve had the opportunity to do amazing things that I would have never got to do at a company for 5 or 6 years and wrote cool papers and built high impact systems. Though I’ve had to do all those things while making almost no money, and working with exceptionally limited resources.
The streams are on Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/andrewrok
One thing that flat-earthers have taught me this past few years, you absolutely can't cure stupid. There will always be stupid ass people on the planet.

However, I do know rational people who don't believe in global warming. Mostly, to the degree of being fearful. They do believe that climate patterns do change. They believe the Earth can get hot. They just don't think in 2050 Florida is going to wash out like some predictions said a few years ago.

The reason, there's too many doomsayers that overblow claims or making mountains out of molehills. This article being one. This leads them to still stay on the fence or lean one way or the other. I'm generally a prudent individual. If I see potential problems ahead, I try to nip that problem in the bud. So even if I, hypothetically, didn't think we are on a crash course when it comes to global warming, I still think it would be good to make sure it never comes to that. Reversing the affects takes too long to let it happen. Best to curb CO2 production as soon as possible, just to be safe. But it's not handled like that at all. If I didn't have my own thoughts on the subject, I won't lie, I'd probably be a denier too. Too many global warming advocates have made some crazy claims with dates that never held up. They want to ban all these lifestyle activities that aren't even the low lying fruit. All in the name of "scaring people into action". That line of thought is archaic and dead. People don't function that way anymore. We need to try being rational about how we spread information. That way a majority of people who actually "change the world" and have "influence" agree and spread the word and ideas on making such change.

First we stop making bullshit claims on global warming. Then we can get people to fully wrap their heads around the real research. Which, I know sounds like a lot. But, it worked in Florida elementary schools. I argue Florida public environmental education (at least in the 90s) was a super effective program. It never overblew anything or made sweeping claims over little things. I remember well that they always said "Bad things could happen if we don't do anything", not will. So yea, maybe I'm bias. But I just know articles like these aren't helping. And sadly, people who believe in global warming because of articles like these, are weak in faith. The first to give up and do nothing.
> Tremendous revenue but not really any profit. College sports overall are not "profitable" except at a very few elite programs.

Those elite programs are probably the only ones where athletes would have any significant endorsement opportunities, anyway.
Not necessarily true, and in that case you'd just have to update min-height to the new header/footer sizes.

Still wouldn't downvote
Yes, you're correct. I'm also, like many of the people on HN, familiar with the associative property of multiplication. It's just a humorous way of saying that taking your estimate and doubling it isn't gonna be enough.
In northern Europe it's the exact opposite. Youths go out of their way to get tanned skin as is signifies social prestige on Instagram and IRL, as in you can afford to go often on vacations in sunny places year round as opposed to the poor wage slaves who are at their desks most of the year.
Right, and now money will not change the game one bit. Alabama players will get millions and your school will lose every game by 100pts. Now every player will go to whatever school pays the best by their affiliations (no company will pay your to go to Alcorn State).

I am not against paying them, I am against paying them right away, and I am against paying them millions. Forget college sports, it's now just pay for play. Most of them will not get a degree, the best will be rich and blow it all on drugs and cars and gambling. The pay should be given to them after they turn 21. Or just forget sports entirely, let's just have professional teams and call them by sponsor. Instead of cheering my college team, I can just cheer the Microsoft Manglers.

We shouldn't have to have scholarships either, why act as if anyone will go to school? If you aren't good enough to earn millions you can't play. Alabama's pros against your crappy team of walk-ons. In the end maybe no one will pay most of the players because their school is pathetic to watch on ESPN.