skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There’s a bit of historical revisionism at play in the article.

Here’s an accurate representation by Aaron Brown of what transpired: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-PhDs-argue-against-Marilyn...

Quoting for those who don’t want to go off-site:

“You have to have lived through this ancient travesty to care about it. It’s probably best forgotten.

Marilyn Vos Savant published an incorrect answer to the Monte Hall problem. She got the correct answer from a lot of readers, including me. She then published a second incorrect answer claiming that all the letters she got—including from math PhDs were wrong. Finally she got the answer right—the one she undoubtedly got from any math PhD or intelligent person who wrote her—but continued to claim (a) that her previous answers were correct and (b) that all the letters were wrong.

As a result, the public is mostly misinformed about this simple problem.

The set-up is simple. There are three doors, one of which has a valuable prize behind it, and two of which have worthless prizes. You select one door. The host opens one of the other two doors to show you a worthless prize, and offers you the opportunity to switch your choice.

The key to this problem, which Marilyn finally saw in her third solution, is the knowledge and intentions of the host. If the host doesn’t know which door has the prize, there’s no reason to switch or not switch, it’s the same either way. If the host knows the door and is trying to hurt you, don’t switch. If the host knows the door and is trying to help you, switch.

Marilyn’s first answer was to always switch, regardless of the host’s intentions. This is also the answer that most people now believe. It’s a common error that people make all the time. That’s why people wrote in to correct her.

In order to justify her incorrect first answer, she claimed it was obvious that the host used the strategy of always opening a non-prize door and offering you the chance to switch. This does indeed justify switching. But that assumption was missing from her first and second answers, along with any discussion of the host’s knowledge and intentions mattering.

Her justification that the assumptions were too obvious to need stating was the actual television program Let’s Make a Deal, hosted by Monte Hall, which eventually gave the name to the problem. But anyone who watched the show knew that was not Monte’s strategy. Sometimes he opened another door and gave a chance to switch, sometimes he didn’t. He was well aware of the problem if he followed Marilyn’s assumed strategy, and was scrupulous about not giving any advantage to the contestant. You can tell this from statistics on the show—on average it didn’t pay to switch—and his published statements.

Clearly there are much bigger problems in the world, and it doesn’t pay to get upset about misinformation put out by popular vain people. If was very frustrating at the time, but it seems quaint that such things upset us in the 90s when there is so much worse information put out today by even more popular and more vain people.“
I have a relative with a PhD in Economics. His personality leads me to believe that he would totally be one of the people to write in to Marilyn. He does sign things with Dr. Drives me up the wall.
I still don't get it.

1. Three doors.

2. Two doors have a goat, and one has a car.

3. The contestant has a 1/3 chance of winning the car?

4. The contestant loses.

5. New game, and odds?

6. There's a 50/50 chance of winning?

(I'm assuming Monte Hall has no clue to where the car is. He is just opening doors.)

7. Could someone explain it to me, and thanks in advance.

(Off topic but a fawn had two babes in my back yard. It was pretty amazing. At first, it looked like the mother abandoned her babies, but she didn't. The babies stayed in the same spot for two day. By the third day, I thought she abandoned them. I looked into care. I was informed to leave them alone. They said, if you knew for sure the mom was killed, you could bottle feed them Goat's milk. Cow's milk is not good for baby deer. I didn't overreact, and mom was there all along. She now just visits with her healthy kids. This has been my best spring in memory. Happy Mother's day to the moms out there.)
Ah! I see, I thought the commentator was saying to solve it mathematically. Manually "simulating" it makes sense.
Some common foods like grapes are poisonous to cats (for unknown reasons), there might be some tube-shaped vegetables too.
Machine Learning Accelerates Cosmological Simulations
In the middle ages beer watered down to .5-1% alcohol was had when water supplies could not be guaranteed to be fresh
I find that the phrasing of the Monty Hall problem makes the solution less certain than stated.

> "You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat."

That's what the gameshow host did in this one trial, but why do we assume that the host would do the same thing every time? Perhaps the host only tries this other-door-goat diversion tactic when the contestant first selected the door with the car!
That 29% is probably made up of men that honestly think she should be pumping out babies instead of doing men's work. I wish I was being sarcastic or otherwise kidding.
It sounds like this is a good argument, until you learn that Minecraft and Roblox are allowed around Apple's rule, because they aren't "games". But fortnite is of course, a "game".
Interesting. Oftentimes compaction is part of generational GC and the tenured objects are literally moved to an older space. So the compaction naturally fits in the big picture. But the article suggests it's still under development, which means that Ruby implements generational GC without compaction? It must have been a difficult endeavour.
Use another OS then, macOS is not for you.
I’d be curious to know how much ransom is being asked. Before Bitcoin something this big was impossible to try and pull off.
Almost no website has full control or preapproval of the ads on it. They accept sales on an open platform and sometimes bad ads sneak on there. It's not even always possible to report them.
I know you play the game!
Cites?
Ahh maybe I should read the entire comment before replying :P. Sorry. I only saw the wanting to learn assembly and asking for resources. Honestly though I think this could still be a great way to get into assembly. There's a myriad of emulators out there for TI calculators, so you could still use the links I posted.
> If Apple would unlock these pocket computers that we still call "phones" out of habit, this category of issues would largely go away.

I think the fact that Microsoft didn't do this with Windows and therefore allowed the entire computer revolution to go forward is lost on many people.

There are so many ideas that are killed in their crib because 30% is too much to give away when you're a startup.

On Android I basically stopped using many official play store apps and instead went open source. Ungoogled chromium for example allows desktop extensions and I'm currently typing this comment with ublock origin on mobile working perfectly just like on desktop.

I don't understand how a self proclaimed techie can cede control to that level and not be able to install programs without big brother Apple's blessing.
Lol, this happens all the time in the gaming world. Not excusing bad behavior but when a company agrees to something contractually that is how the legal system works.

You can't say... But they bribed me. They gave me a deal that was too good so I took it and it wasn't my fault so now I shouldn't have to honor it.
> Hunting for a specific product (for example a washing line) might involve walking into 3 different shops and guessing which shop might sell what you need.

The horror!
You claim that OSX App Store is doing just fine, but where are you getting your numbers?
> How exactly is the $300-ish Nintendo Switch a different thing altogether than a $300-ish iPad or iPod Touch?

It has buttons.
What specifically is nihilistic about the comment?
The body (at least, the fleshy parts) isn't terribly opaque to X-ray wavelength light -- the point being that opacity depends on wavelength.

If you've got a (white) flashlight handy, you can stick your fingertip in front of the front element. A healthy amount of red light will come through. Flesh, as it happens, is also relatively transparent to strong red light... just not as transparent as to x-rays.
just wait to see the damage spotify will do in a decade or so. an algorithm to rule it all
It has been a great wonder for me that why US highschools seems to require expensive programmable/graphing calculators especially those made by HP/TI. I assume it was some deal made by these companies with the education departments of the states and administrations.

In most other countries, students complete university undergraduate courses, let alone high schools with only needing a cheap non-programmable calculator, while some courses like an undergraduate course in Computer Science wouldn't require any calculator at all.
> as it changes the answer.

It doesn't. If the host randomly reveals a car, then you have 0% chance to win. If he doesn't you have 66% chance to win by switching.
The day this was published in Parade magazine, I was sure that she was wrong.

Even though I was a computer programmer then (1990), I didn't own a computer. I drove across town to my parent's house to use my father's computer to prover her wrong.

I didn't even have to run the program. Just the act of writing the program made me realize that she was right. When I was writing the part where the host picks which door to open, I had a revelation.
It’s also debatable whether a person who “invests” in crypto and loses everything is a “victim” or merely ignorant to the basic principles of investment risk.

Doge isn’t a scam, it (as with all crypto investments) behaves like any other investment vehicle, except that it has no inherent value and produces no value.
epic money incentives the developers to kick out the original investors (Kickstarter supporters are investors, with rather weak conditions) with no care for what they promised ,yesterday ( "not legally bing nah nah").

the word "bribe" connotes the motivation to over advantage and plain wrongdoing aspect in financial incentives, as opposed to an ethically clean normal "financial commitment", like dollar for milk.
What would this table look like if Monty always revealed a goat? Would any win or lose row be added or removed?

I know the result is right, but I don't think this table illustrates the reason.
This made my week :)
I work for a large outdoor retailer and the difficulties fulfilling bicycles is not unique to -any- store, big or small, right now.
I think it's made pretty explicit. In this version: "Then, the host, who is well-aware of what’s going on behind the scenes, opens door #3, revealing one of the goats." The host has to open a door that doesn't show the car.
Monte Hall DOES have a clue where the car is, and is NOT "just opening doors"

With the full knowledge of where the car is, Mr Hall opens a door that is NOT the door the contestant chose, and is also NOT the door containing the car.
What does it feel like when you're wrong about something? It doesn't... it only feels bad after you figure out you've been wrong.

I love sharing this puzzle/problem, and hope to once again share it with new friends once the plague is over.
This is why you shouldn't use remember password on a shared computer? This is hardly Amazon's fault, and what are they expected to do in this situation, when they're sending 2 day perishables through a third party?
> "Corporations are people."

That is a useful legal fiction only because saying otherwise infringes on the rights of the people within those corporations. It is not useful for dictating public policy for billions of people.

> To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me.

This assumes that freedom of speech is a positive right. It's not. It's a negative right. We are not asking Apple or Google to speak, we are asking them not to censor. There is a difference.
I think the lesson is that the are a lot of bad academics out there, who either repeat what they've been told without understanding it themselves, or whose confidence exceeds their ability, Dunning-Kruger style.
Facebook refuses to take down counterfeit product ad with stolen video footage
I'm no way an expert, so even if Ms. Savant beautifully explained it; my puny brain thinks... "how is it different from starting the game with 2 doors?". If you choose again, how is the probability not 1/2
TL;DW of video: The Flip N' Slide mousetrap fell victim to counterfeiters. Shawn Woods made a YouTube video about the genuine product, which the counterfeiters then stole for their own ads, which ran on sites including Facebook, TikTok, and Twitter. When he filed a copyright claim with Facebook, they refused to remove the video (their response is visible at 3:35). Attempts to take them down on other platforms didn't fare much better, with the exception of YouTube itself.
Security through obscurity is not security
Long Abandoned Soviet Tech Might Help China Land on the Moon (2019)
incredibly succinct, thanks.
How does Apple treat Roblox and Minecraft differently than Fortnite?
The primary purpose of taxes is to build bombs and train soldiers to defend the realm. Everything else is secondary. Imo the government does too much, but that's a whole other debate.
>4. Owning property in a country or state should make you a tax resident of that jurisdiction.

How should that work in practice?

Should a person who owns homes in Connecticut, California, New York, D.C., Virginia, Florida, Alps, Paris, Hong Kong, London, Etc be paying state taxes in every jurisdiction? I'm asking in earnest, and want billionaires to pay significantly more in taxes per dollar of gains and wealth than, e.g. Americans making median income, but how can that be enforced when it's less expensive to bribe/extort a politician/party than it is to pay their fair share?
> First off I want to note TI calculators are not anything special when it comes to assembler. It was more of a limitation of the platform (in order to get games that are fast, you had to write them in assembler because TI-BASIC was too slow).

> Note also that assembly code is different for each CPU architecture. The TI calculator I had contained a z80 chip, so it was z80 assembler (Motorola assembler?). The x86 assembly language is a more complicated, but probably more useful to learn (can look at any program on your computer). Or maybe you could learn ARM assembly (e.g. this would allow you to write simple programs that blink lights on a Raspberri PI).

Sure, I understand all this already. I suspect that x86 assembly might be most useful for me, but I also have access to an Arduino, so I might try writing assembly for that as well.

> 1. Example of Comparing C to x86 assembly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOyaJXpAYZQ

Thank you! Added to my reading list.

> 2. The assembler project part of nand2tetris computing-from-first-principles course: https://www.nand2tetris.org/project04 I haven't gone thought this course, but I've heard many things about it.

As it happens, I’ve already gone through nand2tetris. I can’t say it helped me that much: sure, it’s good for getting a conceptual understanding of how assembly works generally, but it doesn’t give me any idea about e.g. how to write a program for x86 or ARM.
Yeah - I don't think that statement clarifies. The rule that the host will never reveal the prize should be made explicit.
I don't know of any instance where my fashion style or an outfit needs to be fulfilled as fast as a fast food item in the drive through. Plus, I don't get why I got downvoted for posting an opinion on something that isn't even breaking any rules or coming off as any way negative or flaming.
If you are talking about a simple lottery with N tickets and a fixed probability of any one ticket being the winner = 1/N, then the screamers were correct. To see this, imagine that there are a total of two tickets (N = 2). You buy one ticket. The probability that it is the winner = 1/2. After buying the second ticket, is your probability of winning somehow > 1? Or has it exactly doubled?
That just means you didn't get bitten by the lobby monster.
> A stolen account can be used to play with cheats or to commit credit fraud / chargebacks, and the typical punishment of banning the account is no longer a deterrent. If there's an in-game player market or gifting system, items can even be transferred to otherwise legitimate accounts.

How is that hurting the company? It would mostly hurt me as the original account holder. Except for the cheating, but that can just be done with a newly created account as well, so the only thing the fraudster would gain is not having to create an account.
Is remote work common in AgTech?
But you are wrong: it's exactly double the odds.

If you bought all the tickets, do you think you'd have over 100% chance of winning?

Edit: looks like leephillips beat me to it
Easier: Microsoft Windows
Companies like this are tax dodges that socialize risk. The limited partners enjoy fat returns with minimal downside.
Even in a pre internet era those people are few and far between compared to the general population. On top of that, societies still go on without them. We don't need "seers" anymore for society. This isn't a primitive form of society.
> Honestly though I think this could still be a great way to get into assembly. There's a myriad of emulators out there for TI calculators, so you could still use the links I posted.

Good points — I’ll save those articles for future reference. Thanks for the recommendations!
Glad someone talked from the employee's angle, that's something I have been wondering for a while too.

I can't even remember the last time being a customer of "local businesses" other than restaurants, and don't see a reason to do so, morally or financially.
> To do this, the researchers first had to characterize the scattering medium precisely. At Utrecht University, they shone light through a layer of zinc oxide nanopowder deposited on a glass slide. They then used a detector on the other side to measure the light and analyse how it had been scattered by the powder. Once this has been done, Rotter explains, you can calculate “what kind of wave would be transmitted through this medium in the same way as through fresh space”.

So it's not just any opaque material (and it's not even "opaque", really), and it's not just any waveform. The headline is pretty darn baity.

Nonetheless, the science here is pretty cool. I could have imagined taking a scattering medium and a desired final waveform and computing the initial waveform that would produce the final waveform, but this seems to be saying that there exist waveforms that are essentially fixed points of the transform induced by the scattering medium. I wonder whether how exact that is -- whether the waveform really is identical, or whether any differences are simply hidden below the threshold of measurement sensitivity.
I may misunderstand you, but replace the lottery with a coin toss. Buying a ticket gets you a 50% chance of winning. This reduces the pool of possible outcomes by 1 for the next choice, so there is precisely one choice left. However buying a second (different) ticket does not give you a 150% chance of winning.
Excuse my GIMP skills. https://i.imgur.com/MW90pVZ.jpg
Saturday Night Live – Elon Musk (International Only Live Stream)
You know, this is something people mention a lot on the internet since forever, and it reminds me of the assumption that mouthwash which is 20-25% alcohol must be for the purpose of killing germs.

However, I recently read something that claimed to debunk this, saying that even 50 proof is not effective at all at sterilizing things and it is merely a solvent for the active ingredients.

The reason I stumbled on it was because I'd been worrying about whether the alcohol free variants are effective, vs. alcohol potentially being a carcinogen.

So I think it's less obvious what effect 1% alcohol has than at first glance.
>We already know what the alternative is, in fact that was what we had for a long time: App Store + freedom to install/execute third party apps. Just like how all three desktop OSes always did, just like how Apple's own MacOS does it, and it's doing just fine.

Also today on HN: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/05/apple-brass-discusse...

>XcodeGhost billed itself as faster to download in China, compared with Xcode available from Apple. For developers to have run the counterfeit version, they would have had to click through a warning delivered by Gatekeeper, the macOS security feature that requires apps to be digitally signed by a known developer.

Developers (should be) in the top half of user sophistication and they download a counterfeit version of XCode and ignore warnings about an unsigned app and install it anyway causing a breach affecting 128 million iOS users. Imagine what Aunt Ethel will be able to accomplish with CuteKittyAppStore.kp
I think the confusing part for many people is the unstated fact that the host takes all prizes into account when revealing a door, and that the host is forbidden from revealing the car. If the host chooses randomly then his pick adds no information (other than the extra revealed prize)
Copy-on-write is exactly what G++ and libstdc++ did with std::string before C++11 changed the spec. And it was terrible and full of bugs.

I remember how I had to solve a pile of thread bugs in a C++ project by changing string assignments into iterator constructors which would bypass the GNU CoW reference counter.

They tried, and tried, but never quite succeeded in fixing every single possible race condition with the reference count CoW implementation.
Indeed so, and even some $80 soldering stations sold on amazon are remarkably not terrible these days. Some even come with hot air guns. somewhat randomly chosen example:

https://www.amazon.com/YIHUA-Soldering-Conversion-Temperatur...
Again, Epic offers money to a game studio and the studio decides to screw over their existing investors and commitments. Why is Epic at fault for this?
Yeah it sounds like normal capitalism to me. Epic offers someone enough money to consider screwing over their existing investors and commitments, they take it. Why wouldn't Epic do this?
Matlab
Wolfram alpha
Mathematica
We are watching together with others Crypto guys and gals, just in case :)

And will be switching to the market to see how it goes

If anyone want to hangout -> https://w2g.tv/rooms/i8uvsbtxtw5ktqnxwu
I'm not a lawyer, but this just seems like a different kind of fraud - two parties knowingly engaged in a transaction involving counterfeit products, where the victim is the original designer rather than the buyer.
There was an story in Stephen Baxter's "Vacuum Diagrams" about a eugenics experiment where the participants could only reproduce at like 40 years, then 50, then 60, etc.

The leader was trying to suppress the genes that prevented long life. They probably did some nasty stuff to preserve the experiment, but it's not as bad as just killing all the babies that don't meet the standard of some puritanical leader.
BULLISH FOR DOGE
And as a twitter reply pointed out aptly, the first author is a well-known quack. See also https://www.cnet.com/news/sorry-nasa-photos-are-not-evidence....
There’s a Go implementation buried within the V2 SDK.
94% of the participants did not complete all the assigned trials. That left 30 participants Who did, and among those, 9 cats were found to select " at least one stimulus by sitting within the contours (illusory or otherwise) with all limbs for at least three seconds."

So when they're saying this should be repeated in a controlled setting, they're not kidding. Why does a citizens scientist decide to not complete a study involving their cat? How about boredom, because their cat doesn't do anything?