skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You can play Sonic 2 on it. Also it can use Steam Link with a controller. Also I think you can use it as a homekit hub. I replaced my previous ATV 4K with a Fire TV and sold it. I don't really miss anything from it tbh.

I have a Garmin. It's a pretty nice expensive HR monitor! I like that the screen is always on and I can control it while wearing gloves since it only uses buttons.
Motherhood Project aims to capture authentic take on being a new mum
> There's one stage in the signup flow you can't bypass without SMS

Which impedes the ability to sign up if one does not own a smartphone. I’m sure many people who are unhoused and rely on dumb phones need access to email to apply for jobs. Granted, I’m selecting a niche of a niche, but it’s a prime example of how badly the system is stacked against people trying to claw their way out of poverty.
I don't think you could. In most jurisdictions, gambling machines are tightly regulated to be random, and definitely not skill based.
In case you weren't aware, CDE was eventually open sourced and now happily runs on modern Linux systems (as well as the assorted BSDs and Illumos distros). If you want to have that again, you totally can.
Bookmarked with thanks, it's on my list of projects to check out.
Well yes, in the long term. I was hoping nobody would notice that I avoided admitting that ;)
It does change your odds -- you're now living in a world in which the car didn't get revealed, and by Bayesian reasoning that means it's more likely that you live in a world where you picked the correct door.
I sold my 83+ just the other day for $30.
Using Bayes theorem? But if you know to use Bayes theorem, then you're already formulating the problem correctly, which is the problem all the critics are running into.

Edit: Someone mentioned you could manually "simulate" it with a pen and paper, which I think is what you meant. If so, very good point.
Conditioning. The US job market is conditioned to fear vacations.
This is absolutely false in virtually all commercial regulated gambling casinos in the United States.
This is the most intuitive formulation for me.
Counting out change is little endian - usually you start cents then dollars.

I wonder if we went big endian “by mistake” with Arabic numerals given that Arabic is written right to left.

Some ancient texts have “four and twenty” which is little endian.

We also add commas to large numbers to help with a human processing problem - you have to get to the end of the number to know what the first digit represents and then count backwards (groups of three help).
Register the experimental design before hand and a commitment to publish non-results. That’s the logistical piece. The harder one is the incentive structure in academia that focuses on publishing new/novel research. There should be similar rewards for doing good replication work on significantly important results (eg if everyone based their research on a study that hasn’t been replicated which happens with alarming regularity in the social sciences and psychology). High energy particle physics has this problem now too to some extent and they’re tackling it in other ways (you only have one LHC for example)
Neanderthal remains unearthed in Italian cave
"It's only a matter of time, there's gonna be physical casualties at some point in time. We've all seen it in the movies."

You mean like a pandemic?
;)
> Capitalism in the internet age requires constant growth if you want to maintain your company's value

Craigslist is doing fine with a small number of employees and no need to grow.
Are there really people who have smoked two packs a day for 60 years with pristine lungs?
Kind of simpler to me, is just making closed-source drivers illegal. I like the idea of being able to buy something cheap because they were too lazy to actually write a spec for how it works. But not being able to read the de facto spec - the source code for the driver - is just silly. I've paid for the device, the driver is basically useless except for that device. Give me the code.
Trust and integrity are irrelevant when it comes to professional cyber criminals who likely live in another country. Continually escalating cyber attacks are our new reality. There is no possible way to prevent the attackers from trying. Thus the only option is to harden our systems.

I expect after a few major crises involving mass casualties or major economic losses the federal government will mandate that private industry completely disconnect certain critical infrastructure control systems from the public Internet. Basically the same approach used by SIPRNet.
The thing that bothers me about this problem is that (as far as I recall) it's not asserted that the host always gives the player a chance to switch. If the host sometimes gives people a choice and sometimes doesn't, based on unknown criteria, then all bets are off.
Learn Assembly in 28 Days[0] is what I remember going through when I first started messing with assembly on TI calculators. Another great resource is Cemetech[1], a forum/community dedicated to (mostly TI) graphing calculators and hacking/programming them.

[0] https://tutorials.eeems.ca/ASMin28Days/welcome.html
[1] https://www.cemetech.net/
Fair warning: I haven't rigorously verified the math on this, and tfa is all about the importance of vigorously verifying the math.

In the case where the host revealing the car means you restart, there are three equally likely situations after the host opens a door:
- You picked the car, and the host revealed a goat
- You picked a goat, and the host revealed the other goat
- You picked a goat, and the host reveals the car (restart)

Of the two terminal cases, one gets you the car if you switch, and one gets you the car if you don't switch. In the non-terminal case, it doesn't matter what policy you have because you don't even get a chance to apply it.
On the good side, someday we’ll probably get an episode of Darknet Diaries on this one.
The new TI calculators are still Z80 based, so the Python interpreter runs on a separate ARM CPU that communicates with the Z80 over SPI. This creates such a large bottleneck for performance that in most cases TI-BASIC is much faster than Python (and due to TI banning assembly programs, that means that kids wanting to get anything resembling decent performance still get to program in TI-BASIC just like you remember doing). As far as I can tell the Python support is a toy feature mainly included to meet curriculum requirements in certain European countries. Additionally it's a calculator so text entry is very cumbersome, personally I would much rather write code on a smartphone than one of these.

https://www.cemetech.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=285843#285843 for more information on the Python performance
Self-reported studies are bunk and relying on them is bunk science as far as I’m concerned. We know that non-response and outright lies are a problem. So you’ve got a garbage in garbage out scenario.

There may be places where surveys are scientifically justifiable but I have yet to see such beyond basic preference ones. Even in simpler cases like political surveys there’s lots of problems and they fail us with regularity. Do you really think more complex applications somehow avoid the problems?
I didn't state that it doesn't change your odds. Obviously going from 33% to 0% because the car isn't possible to win anymore will be a change of your odds. I stated it doesn't change anything, because in one situation you go from 33% to 66% by changing and in the other you go from 0% to 0% by changing. So there is no difference to the logic of always switching because it either improves your odds or keeps them the same.
It's great that you're so sure of yourself, just a shame that you're wrong. If the host picks randomly, your chances are in fact 50-50.

Think of it this way: imagine every time the hosts picks the car the universe resets. Now imagine you see the host picking a goat. There's a 2/3rds chance in your universe you picked the car, and a 1/3rds chance you picked a goat, and so switching would seem like the bad option. This actually cancels out the effects of the normal Monty Hall problem, and we are left with a 50-50 chance.
Years ago I challenged you on this and you suggested I write a simulation to check. I did just that and my understanding of the problem improved dramatically. That exchange made a pretty big impact on me and is something I think about fairly often, so thanks. :)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9079260
would be great if we can use python on the ti nspire
I hope finding out how much an Xbox really costs isn't too much to ask for after these disclosures.
Blind taste tests have found that organic tastes no different from non-organic.
Golden Rules in Software Development – PDF Drive
Not really because you can create a valid Monte Carlo model that does "prove" the odds are 50-50 if you don't incorporate the essential rule that throws most people off - that the host's choice of which door to reveal is not random.
I know this is an older book, but reviews and comments like yours suggest it's still worth a read.

Could you recommend another more recent book, or is this the one to read?
Thank you @lazide, great sleuth work
Because of my high school requiring everyone to use an nspire, I am way faster at doing things on the nspire than on the computer, even with a vastly inferior keyboard.
We have had challenges (no pun intended) with our space program as well and there was gross negligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STS-51-L

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_J._McDonald

and then there were numerous experiments on Americans by the government including releasing chemical weapons, viruses and biological weapons and agents (aka germ warfare) in the NY Subway, San Francisco and States like Minnesota and Florida.

https://www.businessinsider.com/biological-agents-were-teste...

https://nospray.org/the-u-s-governments-secret-experimentati...

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

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

The Chinese unfortunately seem to have picked up some of our reckless habits it seems.
You always know you’re dealing with one of these companies when IT reports up into the CFO.
Something tells me Erdős wasn't immune to sexism and would've probably not been immune to being a bit sexist here too.
1/3 - If the first ball was blue, the probability to pick the second one is 1/3, while if it was red, the probability to pick a blue ball as second ball is 2/3. The prior probability for each scenario (first blue ball vs first red ball) is 1/2, so the posterior is 1/3 that the first ball was blue.

A neat trick to reason about those cases is to use odds. The prior odds for the first ball being blue vs red is 1:1. The odds for the first ball being blue vs red, given the second ball is blue is 1:2. We can just multiple the odds to get (1*1):(1*2) = 1:2 as the posterior odds.

This doesn't seem impressive because the prior is 1:1, but using this method you can easily calculate the odds in the scenario where there are 4 red and 2 blue balls. The prior odds is 2:4=1:2, the conditional odds is (1/5):(2/5)=1:2, 1:2 * 1:2 = 1:4, i.e. 1/5 chance that the first ball was blue.
I'm one of the people who agrees that what Apple is doing is anti-competitive: they shouldn't have the right to dictate what apps run on their phones, and should be required to allow side-loading.

But I also think that families definitely have the right to choose which app they use for the group chat, even if it's only available on one platform.

You separated yourself from your mother, because you don't agree with Apple. Put like that, maybe you can pick yourself up a cheap iPod Touch and say hi?

It's Mother's Day tomorrow, I'm sure she'd like it.
The fact that Montey only reveals a goat is key to the probability calculation. When the player selects a door, they have a 1/3 probability that they have chosen the correct door, and Montey has a 2/3 probability of having the car.
When he reveals the goat (which he always had behind one of his doors) that 2/3 probability shifts to the remaining door. There is no chance in Montey's selections, he knows where everything is to begin with.
Most performance wins from UB come from removing code that someone wrote intentionally. If that code wasn't meant to be run, it shouldn't be written. If it was written, it should be run.

Now obviously there are lots of counter-examples for that. You can probably list ten in a minute. But it should be the guiding philosophy of compiler optimizations. If the programmer wrote some code, it shouldn't just be removed. If the program would be faster without that code, the programmer should be the one responsible for deciding whether the code gets removed or not.
>It's their platform, their APIs, their sandbox, their store, their verification, their rules, but when something goes wrong, it's someone else's fault.

Does this also mean Microsoft is at fault when someone writes malware that exploits Chrome on Windows? After all it’s the Windows platform and API. Should I also blame RMS when someone writes malware in C? After all they might have used the libc.
We'll fix them as we encounter them. At some point the human body will be completely reverse engineered anyway.
I have never heard this formulation, and I like it quite a lot. Thanks!
Lot of eugenics going on in that thread.
Well she is young and eager for more on job training before going solo
That has not been new for a while now. Arch was always some of the top reporting brass imo, what with having subscriptions since very early on.

But sometime 5-7 years ago when I ultimately stopped reading it, I distinctly remember a truly giant, fully scrolled and obnoxiously obtrusive ad for LG television that went and moved the page everywhere you scrolled. It was full of bright colors and strokes of lights going across the page and I remember it being in extreme contrast with the white-on-black plain text article.

It was then I realised that Ars, apart from slightly longer articles, is not much different that average publication. Then they launched their own 'video platform' which is what you are seeing promoted left and right.
Give ‘em a cookie! Hack the planet!
Not to mention a lot of propellant chemicals polluting many bases and development sites in the US
> Whereas only 8% of readers had previously believed her logic to be true, this number had risen to 56% by the end of 1992, writes vos Savant; among academics, 35% initial support rose to 71%.

that 71% leaves 29% of _academics_ not getting the elementary math of the problem. I'm baffled this is _that_ hard?
> Did boomers ever notice all their wife-based humor was about how much they hated theirs?

Probably, because the husband-based humor was the same.
The issue with this is that push notification based 2fa is more secure than totp (and similar to u2f) since it prevents dinner of the dangers of phishing attacks.
Modern Technology Helps Discover Beryllonitrene, a New 2D Material
There are many different forms of aging. Which one are we on the verge of reversing and how?
A relatively famous restaurant in Italy doesn’t have any menus beyond a few hand-written pieces of scrap paper (which customers often try to pilfer instead of returning - we dined late and since we were the last to order we got to keep them).
You just brightened my day.
True, you might need to review those rate/rule filings across several states to tease out the more obscure aspects...or any large actuarial firm can do it for you.
Worth noting that Jupyter themselves announced[1] 'nbterm'[2] recently, which seems like an attempt at the same thing but it seems very very immature compared to Euporie.

I don't understand why they announced nbterm at such an early stage tbh. When I tried it it was basically non-working.

[1] https://blog.jupyter.org/nbterm-jupyter-notebooks-in-the-ter...

[2] https://github.com/davidbrochart/nbterm

Edit: cool to see another project supporting kitty terminal's graphics protocol. kitty is a great terminal and has a lot of good ideas. Also, nice to see Euporie has a section on related projects that mentions nbterm.
One way to think about it is to imagine Monty picking randomly in either case, but then (internally and invisibly) correcting his pick.

Assuming, WLOG, that we choose door 1, that leaves us with 6 equally likely cases just before that final correction (or lack thereof):

A) Car 1, Monty 2
B) Car 1, Monty 3
C) Car 2, Monty 2
D) Car 2, Monty 3
E) Car 3, Monty 2
F) Car 3, Monty 3

If Monty doesn't correct in cases C and F, then when he shows us a goat behind (say) 2 then we learn we are in either A or E - it's 50/50. If Monty does correct himself, then we might have been in A or E or F.
I think the poster may have meant cancer free. I don't think its probable that a smoker wouldn't have some sort of buildup or other impairment
Physicists unveil condensation of liquid light in a semiconductor one-atom-thick
Covered in the original Star Trek series over 50 years ago.

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

People marked as casualties had to report to the disintegration chamber.
This is a direct imitation of a restaurant I visited in Europe (I think Rome) - but the menu items were “simple”, all had pasta and there was a meat, seafood, and no meat. Different each day but really only three or so. Quite good and didn’t feel pretentious at all - more like visiting the chef at home and getting to partake in the family meal.
The way I think of it, if you pick a goat on the first try (2/3 chance), you get the car by switching
Show HN: I made a tool to track the upvote/ranking history of HN submissions
This reminds me of the time my entire family screamed and shouted that I was wrong that buying two different lottery tickets slightly more than doubles the total (infinitesimal) odds of winning over just one. 1 in a zillion vs slightly greater than 2 in a zillion because eliminating one choice reduces the pool by one for the next choice.
Ah, yep, that’s right. Another way to see it is that we’re interested in the probability that your door has a goat behind it, given that you didn’t need to start over:

P(you chose goat | host didn’t choose car) = P(you chose goat, host didn’t choose car) / P(host didn’t choose car).

The numerator is 2/3 * 1/2, and the denominator is 2/3, so the ratio is indeed 1/2.

(A rejection sampling loop, where you repeatedly simulate a process until a condition holds, has the same distribution over final outcomes as the conditional distribution—so repeatedly restarting the game if the host chooses the car induces the same distribution on final results as simply conditioning on the host not choosing the car.)
F'ing HN. The link I posted was right.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_acuminata
Can you help me understand - in my view the choice to switch doors or keep the same door is irrelevant, because even if you keep the same door you're making a choice that is now 2/3 of the right answer. If you switch or keep, you're still choosing from two doors that contain a car and a goat. The other door is no longer relevant and doesn't affect the new state at all.

It's your perspective (narrowing the choice down) that changes, not the position of the car. Like getting a run of red in roulette and thinking the next one has gotta be black.
> I made one of these as a filter written in C using Lex.

What could possibly go wrong?

Having cut my CS teeth on both I must say both C and Lex are giant foot-cannons if used to parse untrusted input.
Was just gonna say this sounds like your classic case of a business scoffing at the high price of software devs.

I'd wager a guess that their current IT team was worked to the bone on profit-focused projects, but will be 100% blamed internally by the execs.
> I'm old. I read each of these as they arrived in the paper.

So back in the day, Parade magazine was a thing that people actually read, and not just ignored or recycled immediately? The past really is a foreign country.
It is Bayes’ Rule essentially written out (sample spaces)
This supposes Hume was a great philosopher, and that skepticism is an admirable philosophical position. These are questionable suppositions.
Apple did all the things you described in the first paragraph.
Isn't he also removing relevant information as well? The third door is no longer part of the game so the information he gives you ceases to be relevant.
Why would talking that test convince me of the usefulness of IQ tests?
Jumping to sexist assumptions is also a problem.
I like to think about this slightly differently: at first, you bet based on no information, and you know you’re probably wrong. In advance of the host helping out, though, you have no way to put money on your initial bet being wrong. (It’s like playing roulette — the casino is not going to give you even odds betting on two dozens, which would have almost 2/3 chance of being right.)

After the host helpfully takes a door out of play, though, you can bet that you were wrong, and the payout doesn’t change. You already knew you were probably wrong, and now you can bet on this. Of course it’s a good deal. A player can probably avoid the cognitive dissonance by thinking of their initial bet as being their best guess at finding a door that doesn’t have a car behind it.
I think when stating the problem, some people assume the listener has actually watched Lets Make A Deal. You can under-specify the problem for people who have watched it, as the fact that Monty shows the worthless prize is already known.
Show HN: I made a fun real-time visualization of Bitcoin network activity
Yeah, for instance if the host only offers the switch when you've picked the car, obviously you shouldn't switch. That said, this does not seem to be the thread the respondents were pulling at...
This is a small enough situation that we can do complete enumeration of the states.

Let's say you pick door 1. Let's go through all the possibilities: the states of the 3 doors, which one monty reveals, and what do we do, and what is the result?

1 | 2 | 3 || Monty Reveals | You switch | Result
---------------------------------------------------
G | G | C || 2 | Yes | Win
G | G | C || 2 | No | Lose
G | G | C || 3 | N/A | Start Over

G | C | G || 2 | N/A | Start Over
G | C | G || 3 | Yes | Win
G | C | G || 3 | No | Lose

C | G | G || 2 | Yes | Lose
C | G | G || 2 | No | Win
C | G | G || 3 | Yes | Lose
C | G | G || 3 | No | Win

Count 'em up: When you switch, 2 wins and 2 losses. When you don't, 2 wins and 2 losses. Of course, the situation is symmetrical for any starting guess you make.
good illustration https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/MontyIn...
Whether Monte Hall is counter intuitive is a function of how the question is phrased.

When you phrase it in a way that underlines the mechanical nature of the host's decision, people get it right. When you phrase it in a way that suggests the host's choice is itself random, people get it wrong.

I think the first formulation primes people to think of it from the perspective of the host, which is the right perspective for this problem.
I spent years playing an MMORPG called "Maplestory" where me and my online friends would just sit on virtual chairs and talk to each other.

There was something called the "Free Market" where there were no monsters to kill (so you couldn't die.) Guilds claimed different Free Market rooms as their "guild rooms" and people would just go AFK there. You'd always be able to find friends hanging out and talking in these rooms.

You could spend real-life money on their cash shop, which had cosmetics and small things like virtual chairs or couches to sit on.

You could even buy "friendship rings" that would display animations if the two of you were in close together.