skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you might like Foundations of Game Engine Development, Volume 1. (http://foundationsofgameenginedev.com/) It focuses on practical uses of Grassmann algebra and doesn't avoid doing real-world calculations with actual coordinates. It also doesn't dwell on extraneous theoretical material that isn't directly necessary for getting your work done. Source code is included for all the operations.
I remember reading about JetBrains in terms of profitability and capital. If I remember correctly, JetBrains has never raised any money from outside sources and has become profitable very quickly.

In terms of IDE, whenever I get into unfamiliar territory, JetBrains products have always been better at onboarding me into it without having to configure much. For getting into Clojure for example, IntelliJ+Cursive was my preferred choice.
> The US has more flu deaths in a typical year than it had H1N1 deaths.

But far more infections from H1N1 (60+ million, whereas 45 million is the top estimated annual total flu infections from 2010 on): the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic flu turned out to be more infectious but less deadly (I wonder if this is in part because during the pandemic people reacted to potential flu symptoms more diligently) than typical seasonal flu, and there was very light seasonal flu activity.
Doing rotations about arbitrary points in geometric algebra requires the use of dual quaternions, but I agree that virtually every presentation of that material is awful. I'm trying to change that.
"Privatized and expected to make a profit" reads a lot more like Japanese transit to me, than it sounds like any American system I'm familiar with. I'm inclined to understand France as moving in a different (perhaps better) direction than the US is moving (or rather, is not moving).

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/10/why-tokyos-pr...
The paradox is, if these companies fold, Google has to get the data from somewhere.
>"Google NLP algorithms use quora and trip advisor like training data sets."

I understand that Google competes with Trip Advisor with their own travel offering but might you or someone else explain how they use NLP algorithms steal business from them? Also could you elaborate on how they might be using NLP on Quora to their advantage. Where or how do they compete with Quora exactly? Thanks.
Normalization of Deviance (2015)
What the company to be so off with demand estimates?

Would the company have been in ok shape if they would have set lower estimates? Or was that target needed for other reasons?
> It's worth noting that if you look at the cost of ST2's University Link Extension, I believe it was $1.9b overall (with half of that coming from the federal gov) for 3.5 miles of completely underground Link, which would make the cost about ~$540M/mile all in, by my calculations. This is, at least, as complex as a "subway", no?

No, because it only added 2 stations, and that's where the real cost is. Tunelling is relatively cheap, it's the underground station construction that's adding real expense. The 6 mile Warsaw line has 10 stations on it. Typical cost of subway construction in the US is on the order of $800M-1B/mile.

> I don't want to come off as attacking you personally, but I don't think saying that the cost of the University Link expansion should have been "5-8x less than $200M/mi" is reasonable.

Indeed, but I didn't say that. That $500M/mi figure I gave was for ST3, most of which will be above grade. Of course light rail construction in the US will have different costs than light rail construction in Poland, but the difference here is too extreme to excuse it by talking about cost of living differences.

> There's surely some complex work to be done in tunneling under the Montlake Cut,

Surely not as complex as 10 times longer tunnel under Vistula River.

> ST is bound by some really weird debt cap rules that mean they literally can't borrow money in the most advantageous way, which definitely increases the cost.

By less than 10%. It's all in ST reports.

> If you have a more expensive house, or a more expensive car, it's bound to cost you more. This seems appropriate to me - people with more money paying more than people with less money.

This only seems appropriate to anyone in the context of taxation. If grocery stores charged you more for food just because you make more money, you'd most likely be outraged.

> Beyond that, it's not like we do a great job of externalizing the car here either, especially when the impact to the environment is taken into account. Do you think that people who only drive should not pay for the transit that takes cars off of the road so that they can afford to? It's not a zero sum game.

Which is why I recommend charging for congestion. This automatically makes mass[1] transit more attractive.

> I don't feel like I'm getting fleeced by the government when I pay my ST-related taxes, and I don't feel like ST is trying to 'take advantage' of me. I'm confused where that mentality comes from, honestly.

Honestly, I don't feel too fleeced by local government either -- this is rather my complaint for federal government. However, just because I can afford something doesn't mean that it's a good decision to spend money on it. I make this kind of cost-value analysis everyday in my life with my after tax money, and I don't see why I should be silent when the government spends my before-tax money on stupidly expensive projects of little value.

[1] - mass, but not necessarily public transit, that really depends on average passenger load per bus.
No one would have come up with a hypothesis like dark matter without evidence pointing in that direction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid...
What does FED stand for in this context?
> Incidentally, I am happily surprised that that never seems to happen. One could so easily create so much chaos at an airport... There is no authentication whatsoever.

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

One of the reasons why airband radio uses amplitude modulation is so that a much more powerful transmitter (ground based, operated by air traffic control or tower personnel, with access to very high Tx powers), can transmit on top of spurious transmissions coming from low powered aircraft or handheld transmitters. The big ground based Tx can step on an interloper and communicate its message to all aircraft on the same frequency.
Yeah, pretty much, though the full story is a little bit more complicated than that.

The reason a single short burn won't do it is that whenever you stop burning you will always be in an orbit that will return you to the point where you stopped (assuming you don't actually collide with the body you're orbiting of course). So you have to burn somewhere other than the orbit you want to get out of. The most efficient place to do that second burn is at apoapsis because that's where you get the greatest reduction in kinetic energy for a given delta-V (because that's where your velocity is the highest and so the force of burn is applied over a greater distance). But if all you have is a low-thrust engine (e.g. an ion drive) you can maneuver with long burns. The math gets hairier though.
The Farewell Address
The predictions are based on what we know is out there, and how we would expect it all to react with us simultaneously. So as long as we have it exactly understood and haven't missed anything whatsoever, then yes, it would be therefore falsified. But we can't make such a claim.

I haven't really seen science work that way, since it isn't all that often we base our expectations solely on things we can completely account for. Science necessitates a certain amount of calculated projection. Theories are adjusted as new details are discovered, and only fools entertain themselves by resisting the bigger leaps needed to make actual discoveries.
Is there any way to prevent them from using it for that purpose or to determine if my insurance company has access and is using it?
If anyone else also wonders what does pandas.DataFrame.join do [1]:

> on : str, list of str, or array-like, optional

> Column or index level name(s) in the caller to join on the index in other, otherwise joins index-on-index.

> DataFrame.join always uses other’s index but we can use any column in df.

Interesting choices but luckily I have never been bit by this. Maybe because I first looked up on google on how to do join in pandas. Nowadays, I mostly use pd.merge though.

[1] https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/reference/api/p...
Too much boredom can breed depression.
> If I write the review on Google itself, I lose nothing.

There are distinct advantages to having a single cloud, with a single set of protocols/APIs/etc. The only issue I see is if Google starts filtering/blocking in a significant way, then the blocked communities will build their own infrastructure. But Google wouldn't want that data, since they are filtering it out in the first place, except perhaps to train their filters more accurately.
Thanks for the tip on IntelliJ + Cursive.

Their recent effort on EduTools was impressive way to teach many programming concepts.
Make that corpus licensed with a Creative Commons license where commercial use requires compensation, but non commercial use is freely permitted.
Looks like Monoid
Jesus who wrote this crap code?

Looks at commit history

Oh it was me...
> As weirdly counterintuitive as it feels to acknowledge, human beings are not naturally predisposed to think of life in terms of seconds and hours, of how they might be optimised.

Other merits of this article aside, it always perplexes me that the works of man are somehow regarded as outside or in opposition to “nature”, as if an atomic clock with seconds display is somehow less natural than a beaver’s dam.

Both are entirely natural processes, produced by and within natural systems.
An interesting aspect of this experiment often overlooked: the same process influences us.

The way that we behave in a corporate setting seems closely related to domestication. It would be worth examining the traits associated with animal domestication and compare them to human behavior in a variety of contexts.

It's not really a happy thought that we're domesticated, but power structures exist, and it's in most of our genetics to serve. It's often possible to trace certain types of ambition to a young age, for example. It would be neat to see a more rigorous exploration of whether it's true that humans are domesticated, and if so, how much, and what it means in a precise way.
The newest research out of the Google AI labs is all centered around extractive summarazation. Led by a researcher from CMU named William Cohen. Their next big business is content extraction.
Facial recognition firm Clearview AI facing legal claims after NYT report
Federal reserve; the central bank that keeps interest rates below natural market price in order to pump growth, thereby putting too much cash in investors hands to possibly use constructively.

You end up with an investment bubble, which pops.
Sure, if you specify the type. It's still a gotcha because the default behavior is to upcast to floating point unless the type is defined for every integer column of every data frame, which isn't very pythonic.

The example with the (incorrect) join above shows how even other operations can cause this type conversion.
Marketers are great at diluting the meanings of words
Absolutely amazing that a completely unsubstantiated conspiracy theory is the top comment.
> I am convinced "normal" kids won't read before 5, whatever you do and how hard you try

I am pretty sure a typical kid (say, at least 75% of all kids) could learn to read simple books by 3 if the parents were fanatical about it and spent hours every day prioritizing the kid learning to read per se, instead of focusing on broader goals. But it doesn’t seem to me like this is worth prioritizing so much, compared to all the other skills small kids should be practicing: gross motor control, strength, and stamina; fine motor skills; getting along with other kids; listening comprehension; logical reasoning; visual observation; understanding the behavior of physical objects; understanding living things; understanding their society and built environment; helping out with family chores; learning to take care of themselves; etc.

Most kids end up learning to read at 5–7 years old instead because the parents spend time doing other things with them, the kids spend time on other activities, and often the parents have other things to do and the kids must entertain themselves. This is totally fine.

My son is 3.5 and will probably be at the stage of reading simple books (say Green Eggs & Ham level) by about 4 or 4.5. I’m sure we could have gotten him to that point by 2.5 or 3 if we made it our top priority. But I’d much rather spend 1–2 hours per day reading a wide variety of enjoyable books to him and inculcating a love of books (not to mention practicing his listening comprehension, vocabulary, and general language skills) than spend that time on phonics drills.
BRT seems like a pretty good principle. As long as it's not "BRT until you can stab" or "BRT until you have all their money" or whatever. You seem to be pointing an accusing finger at BRT. I'm guessing you may have had some experience with "BRT and they'll come around to your way of thinking." But I imagine that even those aren't usually malicious. Granted, they don't have to be malicious to be off-putting, but try to take it with good humor.

If you're willing to not suspect the worst, sometimes you can appreciate somebody like the person described in these posts and admire their goodness and the general goodness of everyone.
Tons! I use bspwm. I would check out
AwesomeWM, herbstfluftwm, xmonad, i3, and many more[0]!

[0]: https://github.com/aleksandar-todorovic/awesome-linux/blob/m...
You are reaching here trying to give new meaning to established product. Facebook's model is fundamentally to exploit it's users with no regard for privacy.
Is it ever not?
Just want to say I'm grateful you took the time to share this lesson - there were some insights there I'll be thinking about ways to action on our side of things. Thanks!
Reducing Inequality Involves Tradeoffs
You decide what resource a planet produces, then hook it up to nearby planets that provide the resources it wants, which expands how far it can send its resource along the network. The network itself is composed of rail lines directly between planets.

Screenshots on my twitter: https://twitter.com/LiterallyOwls/status/1218418806520979456
KWin is scriptable with JavaScript.
Man builds real lightsaber (kind of)
I've met more than one Quora engineer who were stone cold convinced that they hired the absolute best and brightest engineers _in the entire industry_ and that they were destined for greater things than Google, Amazon, etc.

All I was left with was impression that Quora hires people that are batshit.
Linode launches free DDoS protection
They really missed an opportunity to make the videos be 8 seconds long, not 6.
For auto-complete, they should learn from TabNine
The Portal: Sir Roger Penrose
well sure.. but if one average an arbitrarily chosen vantage point (ours) sees only one of these so well, then we can infer that many other arbitrary vantage points see none. and that would be sad.

(i know the article mentions others, so this might not hold up to a full cataloging of our night sky)
That is by design. Serves somebody's interests, just not yours.
If the quarantine is indeed growing rapidly, that might suggest that Chinese officials are receiving updated information about the scope of the disease that prompts them to expand the quarantine.

A growing quarantine seems to suggest they believe the disease is not yet contained.
Vine Relaunches as Byte
This is the best analysis I have seen yet. Thanks for your comment. So then we should be even more concerned? If CCP quarantines so soon after learning of the virus, clearly they saw something ugly.
> That’s just for writing though, not reading. I still find lisp code very difficult to read, perhaps not due to parens specifically but more because there is no syntax.

Most of us are too familiar with the infix notation. It is deeply ingrained on the subconscious level of our assumptions about programming languages. It is indeed tricky to quickly parse a snippet written in a Lips with an untrained eye.

Many software developers with prior experience in programming, at their very first encounter with a Lisp dialect, instinctively try to reject it. It looks unnatural and doesn't feel right.

In comparison - most people who never wrote a single line of code ever before, usually don't struggle with Clojure or Racket.

However, if one ignores the instinct, persists, and gives it some more time, they may find an incredible world of possibilities.

There is a way to speed up the process of adapting to reading and writing Lisp code. The trick of learning to read Lisp code efficiently, is simply refactoring code on the go. Don't try to learn a Lisp dialect by merely staring at code - in books, on web pages, etc.

Pick up an IDE or editor that supports Structural Editing. Structural Editing is a way to navigate and refactor your code without breaking parenthesis or other characters that define the structure of your code.
Learn basic structural editing commands - slurp, barf, raise, transpose. And modify the code, pick up functions, and try to dissect them. With a connected REPL, Lisp allows you to evaluate any expression without any prior ceremony (a feature that most other languages don't have). You can try every single piece, break up functions into smaller ones, or compose multiple small functions into a bigger one. It doesn't take too long until you see the benefits of this approach. Sadly, for some people going back to normal life, after discovering powers of Lisp becomes like going back to drugs after detoxification.

Almost every discussion oh HN about Lisp-dialect results in at least one comment of someone claiming that they've tried writing Lisp for many years but never have "discovered" its powers or even after years it still feels "unreadable" to them.
Most of the time, those comments are disingenuous. Lisp does not require anyone to have a "differently wired brain." Nobody comes into this world with the innate ability to read and understand Mandarin better than English or with the ability to be able to learn Python and Javascript but not Clojure.

Most people don't realize that very often, path to simplicity lies through the thorns of breaking existing habits. They choose an "easy" way. The "way of familiarity." And without even realizing, they usually create more work for themselves.
Cool, thanks for the explanation. Looks like all that Kerbal Space Program was useful after all. :)
I have fond memories of some of the old Apple II games, and my kids have enjoyed the ones they've tried. No real emulation of anything physical, usually played by kids in pairs, and the feedback loop was slow enough that you couldn't just try lots of random things instead of thinking. Some I've tried with my kids at various times are The Pond, The Factory, and Rocky's Boots. I don't know of modern equivalents. Maybe Manufactoria?

What kids play in school though these days (does that make me sound old?) are things like Prodigy (prodigygame.com), featuring decent graphics but mind-numbing content, with constant nags to upgrade to a premium account.
And what are you not-so-subtly suggesting?
Perhaps we can find more of them if we look longer.
You are entirely missing the point in your first two points:

* The issue here isn't that the inputs were wrong, it's that the experts could not (or would not, if you don't want to be generous) accept that the structure was under-strength in spite of multiple reports; the believed their calculations rather than their lying eyes.

* There is no particular evidence that the firefighters panicked. Whether or not they did, though, they did what their training led them to believe was their only choice: keep their equipment and try to reach the top of the ridge. The foreman was the only one to realize either that the training wasn't going to work or that they had another option.

Do you have a great deal of expertise in this area?
Modeling, even if incorrect, is important for at least 2 reasons. The most obvious one is that we can refine the theory as new results come out of the experiments. The second is that a successful model, even if wrong for the experiment it was devised, will eventually shed light on a similar problem elsewhere.
I never thought about it that way, but I guess so. Sometimes I even have a sip of water if it is too toothpasty.
For what it’s worth, I came to say the same thing, then saw you already did.

It’s hard to disentangle the effect HN has on our thinking, though. Just because layoffs have popped up on HN, are we both imagining that it’s part of a global trend? Or do global tech trends inherently appear on HN? Hard to say.
Not sure how that would help. I imagine currently its all rights reserved, and google is claiming that using their information is fair use.
Came here to say the same thing. I remember at my peak fitness (a time when my afternoon / evening hobby was to briskly walk a few miles uphill into the mountains surrounding Missoula) encountering some smoke jumpers on a conditioning session. I was unladen and walking at a very fast clip. I got passed on the trail by some guys wearing the largest packs I’d ever seen.

Later, I worked for the Forest Service doing IT, and remember seeing the smoke jumper training which involved taking off from the airfield in Missoula and getting dropped somewhere in the surrounding hillsides, and them showing up back at the smoke jumper center several hours later with their packs.

Totally badass.
> "...serving ads inevitably leads to an unquenchable thirst for data..."

well, to continue playing devil's advocate, we've had hundreds of years of advertising (newspapers, pamphlets, and posters/signs before that) without any kind of systematic data collection, so it's not necessarily an intrinsic characteristic of the advertising business to collect data.

in an alternate universe, if banks didn't have such a stodgy and stifling rent-seeking business on the movement of money (transaction fees on everything), microtransactions might be the preferred business model of many online businesses that are now dependent on ads.
I don’t mind the reordered list, specially if I’ve been away for a while, but the density of suggestions is ridiculous. I’ve seen stretches of twenty tweets in my TL where not one of them was an actual public tweet by somebody I follow.
Confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome I see, amateur mistake.
The Terraform example doesn't seem particularly useful to me, as something that runs Terraform would be on the CI side. I don't need to worry about dependencies locally or anywhere else because it should never ever be ran anywhere but the CI server, which we would steward over.

The AMI part of it I believe is also typically done with a "data" block to grab a new one, so I'm not sure what in particular is added there?

Dependency management for devops sounds reasonable, but to me it seems more like trying to make an NPM/Cargo/pip that is for every language instead of a particular language.
The experts were led to disregard reports of sagging by their trust in the computer model.
Objective truth? Who teaches that these days! :)

A: Celibacy as a nominal choice is part of the emerging asexual ‘sexual norm’ found mostly in Asia but spreading to the west.

B: This point is usually a confusion of terms. Men who are attracted to men but are celibate are currently priests in many parts of the world.

C: True

D: The Catholic Church has no power to ban anything.

E: Also a confusion of terms between secular and religious groups. It’s analogous to arguing about whether everyone can physically become pregnant, because the religious definition of what they call ‘holy matrimony’ involves more than just feelings.

1/5 objective truth points :)
A USB CDROM drive is ~$20.