skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Real-life tactics unfortunately don't make for good heuristics in the Monte Carlo simulator.

Our goal was to improve overall gameplay by making the Monte Carlo simulator play slightly more realistically than random. Keep in mind that when the Monte Carlo simulator plays completely random games, it still does pretty good. I believe it's on par with GnuGo, a good pre-UCT go player, on a 9x9 board on a modern quad-core.

Whether a heuristic applied within the MC-simulator generates sample games that better assess the strength of a move is a tricky question to ponder. But it seems reasonable that most non-random tactics, however simple, would accomplish that (such as proximity- or capture-based tactics).

The reason that good real-life tactics do not correlate with improved gameplay when implemented in MC-simulators is because the logic required for even simple tactics can reduce the number of semi-random games the computer can play by several orders of magnitude. Picking a random move is extremely quick (choosing a number with a Mersenne Twister is faster than adding two numbers- compare that to the operations required to determine how many pieces surround a given position). That's partly why very simple heuristics like capture-if-possible are only effective if they're applied on a few (2, in our case) open board positions per move in a MC-simulated game. So its just slightly non-random.

Anyway I hope that made sense. It's a weird problem to think about at first, but it's actually really fun to play around with. I recommend checking out Drake's implementation.
Android Toshiba Excite 13 Sports Largest Display (13'')
"without Space-X, NASA would never have had a reference to work off", this works both ways.
By working on impossibly cool goals for the betterment of humanity?

Yes.
That's probably the takeaway here. Stripe is probably the first contender PayPal actually has to worry about, at least in the United States. People hate PayPal because their TOS are restrictive, but so far they're the only payment handler that works everywhere. If Stripe goes global, then we will see some serious changes at PayPal as people begin to flee from their services en masse.
Christian Louboutin Daffodile Pumps - Silver
Maybe they're an orphan. Maybe they don't have a significant other. Maybe they don't care about anything in life other than the success of their project.

Maybe the non-501 developers are genuinely self-sacrificing, in every sense of that word, while the 501s live off their labors. For the 501 is very happy to use Google to search for his Disneyland trip, to use his iPhone to find driving directions, to use Facebook to post the photos.

Say what you will, those companies were not built by 501 engineers, though 501s might well be going there now that the pioneers have built multibillion dollar companies.
> I got into the position where I had to report certain problems, like suspected drug use, gang activity, child abuse, and so on [...] the cynism began to grow on me

The reason for him leaving his dream job was completely localized. There are plenty of ways to be involved in teaching besides being in front of a school class. I see this more as moving away from a bad situation, an unhappy collusion of events that got in the way of his chosen path, not a matter of passion vs day job.
We're both off-topic, but since you chose to go there...

My wife was 18 when we got married. She wasn't "well known". She wasn't a feminist. But she kept her last name and it has never been a problem - except for PayPal.

Our kids have her last name as their middle name and my last name as their last name for convenience - mainly the school's convenience.

Personally I hope some day we go to a system where you turn 18 and pick the name you want. I've known at least two couples where when they got married they didn't choose either name, but took a name for "them". I personally would like to see more of this, but then I'm a bit of a romantic.
I must disagree. Altucher belongs on HN.

"I do this with all sincerity. I priced the book as little as I could (99 cents) and it’s even free for Amazon Prime members. Any meager money I make on this will be donated to whatever foundation I can find that can keep people from going to college. Nothing in my career has anything to do with this. It did not help me in any way to spend 100s of hours getting this book ready and available to you and your children.

I am shamed by the indentured servitude that our 22 years olds find themselves in when they graduate. Student loan debt just topped a trillion dollars for the first time. I am ashamed by an America that let this happen. I describe in the book the groups who benefit from that trillion dollars. They don’t care about 18 year olds. They care about their own egos. They care about money."
The fact that computers have such a hard time is a reason it is worth playing and makes Go attractive. The fact that chess can be reduced just makes chess unappealing.
Considering you are a co-founder and jumping ship instead of pivoting, I'd want my shares back too. I'd also be leery of accepting you on my team if you are so eager to bounce based on traction alone.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think your best bet is to negotiate something and get it in writing so you don't have it lingering over your head or negatively impact your new company.
Well, now we know where Mars came from.
I have an account with a linked credit card, and have used the same card without logging in on a few occasions without any trouble. Maybe the policy is different for each country?
Good advice (if you want someone to buy, give them some value), but absolutes always... have exceptions. "Developer Tools Are Not Platforms" seems disingenuous, an ad hoc addendum. What's the distinction? Earlier there's reference to a platform as a "developer/3rd party platform", which suggests it's for developers - how is that not a dev tool?

Perhaps what he's getting at is that you need to provide value to the customer, or they won't buy. You can't rely on a 3rd party developer to do it for you, for no reason. But they might if you provide value to them. Which makes them the customer (and you a dev tools provider).
If this is what he means, I don't see it as fatal to "building a platform". It just means that if you want to build a platform for 3rd party users,
you'd better offer them some value in order to attract them. e.g. access to customers, data, IP, publicity, credibility, other resource, some cool proprietary technology, or even ease of development (dev tool). It had better be a real benefit that they couldn't easily (or better) do themselves.

Seems he's railing against some misconception that I haven't heard of, and my lack of that context and assumptions creates holes in his for me.

BTW: how is the first example he gives - the first IBM PC - an app? A PC on its own is useless. It might be bundled with some apps, but they aren't why you bought it. (Hobbiest computers were different: they were apps for people who bought them to hack). Of course, the "IBM" made it an exception: instant publicity, credibility, customers, ISVs, marketplace. But tellingly in favour of his position is the iPhone: so obviously a platform today, yet the original iPhone had no appstore. You couldn't put apps on it. It was sold for the built-in functionality: a phone, web-browser etc.

There's an old-fashioned term summing this up: killer-app. It means an application of a technology or platform that makes it worth buying. e.g. For apple IIe, it was word processing and spreadsheets; for the Mac it was desktop publishing. For game consoles, it's launch titles.

counter e.g. game consoles; eBay and Viacom (for 3rd parties not devs); android; heroku (and other PaaS)
This is a good idea.

Ridiculous. But a good idea.
Look at Braintree, they offer international payments.
If you do a search you'll find a number of threads about domain and ssl purchasing. Most are inspired by the same concerns you have. There's a common list that keeps showing up. namecheap.com isn't the only one that gets mentioned a lot, but it's the one I picked
You can also just press tab.
I'm highly skeptical of this story (the original MIT tech review article seemed very speculative).

I fail to see how mining asteroids to use their resources on Earth could make economic sense in any reasonable time-frame.

What resources are so scarce that it would pay to mine them in space ? My impression is that with the exceptions of food, energy and luxury goods like gold, silver and diamonds the cost of natural resources makes a very small contribution to the cost of goods.

Moreover mining asteroids would require the development of robotics technologies which, if applied on Earth, would substantially reduce the costs of most natural resources from their already low levels.
Move on. From the sounds of it, it's a commitment that you're not up to and you've barely begun. Simple as that.
No, but this is one of the reasons we built http://ignitiondeck.com, and we're hearing a lot of encouraging feedback from those outside the US trying to raise money.

If something like that isn't an option, I believe Indie GoGo also offers campaigns outside the US.
Interesting to see so many down votes to my comment.

Even Microsoft leadership has admitted ASP.NET MVC is a better choice for public facing (non-intranet) websites.

My comment was only to make the point that they were using an outdated web framework, so it's likely that their markup is probably also outdated.
Is there are chance you might actually enjoy the process? Do you want to learn how to manage a technical team and all the mistakes and wonder that comes with it? Maybe you can do it after all, but if it's the idea itself that doesn't do it for you then you probably won't want to put in the 20 hour days to make it happen.
上海复盛
Some things to keep in mind:

Launch costs are poised to make a dramatic drop (by a factor of 10-100) within the next decade or two. Now, you could say that it's silly to make a financial bet on this coming to fruition but such a bet is unnecessary, one can simply do research and prototyping and then make the decision on whether to scale up and go for broke or not based on the development of launch costs.

By the same token, launch costs will also affect the growth in orbital assets and infrastructure, which can both facilitate certain aspects of asteroid mining as well as potentially serve as a market for mined resources. Not everything from such mines need to be delivered to the Earth's surface, for example.

Using robotics and efficient propulsion technologies like solar sails or ion engines make it possible to deliver to Earth or Earth orbit far more mass than the mass of the machinery launched from Earth, which will be the major cost involved.

Consider a few things that might be worthwhile. Precious metals and rare Earths could be worth a considerable amount of money. Iridium alone is worth $15 million per tonne, for example. Gold and Platinum are also worth a lot of money. But other things might also be worthwhile, such as water, methane, and silicon. Not necessarily on Earth, but perhaps in orbit. If there is a substantial population of humans living in orbit then water and oxygen could be a valuable commodity, as would propellant (oxygen, methane, hydrogen, etc.)

Or, consider a small near Earth asteroid that is robotically mined to deliver large quantities of silicon and aluminum to Earth orbit, where they are used to manufacture solar cells, supporting structure, and power systems in geostationary orbit to build space based solar power systems. Then, only the ground components (rectenna fields) need to be built on Earth, and only a small amount of components and materials need to be launched from Earth for each new power station. It could well be a cost effective way to deliver electrical power in the near future, although much of that is dependent on automated mining operations and the costs of operating a manufacturing facility in orbit.

It's certainly a risky endeavor at present, but it's not such a crazy idea as it may seem.
Exactly. I generally find that when I am over zealous when playing I tend to lose.

I find it similar to what I learned from practicing softer martial arts: the person that becomes tense/rigid loses.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the practice of placing a large block order and then canceling it milliseconds later to take advantage of the price movement this causes. So placing a large order does not automatically create liquidity--it can create the momentary illusion of it. (This observation has to be pompously dismissed in gratuitously insulting terms--professional rational discourse will not suffice to explain indefensible practice. I must have touched a nerve.)
Storage on long time frames would mean more expensive, long-term bets for the companies responsible? I'd assume that they'd already be gambling in the early stages setting this stuff up and looking for a pay-off within a reasonable time frame.
That doesn't work well in browsers (especially for blogs)
You're absolutely right. forgive me.

She's looking to fund a very niche market. To go after GLBT* is targeting a potentially disruptive market; to target the subset of only Transgendered people is to ignore the blue ocean the entire GLBT* community represents. Is there any real indicators of Transgendered people experiencing a problem with getting funding?

This business incubator positively reeks of sour grapes for not being chosen for YC. The thought of transgender discrimination so close to San Francisco makes me even more doubtful that it actually happened the way that's inferred. PG doesn't strike me as the homophobic type, either. I occasionally say "It's because I'm black/gay/asian/a woman, isn't it?" in irony, when something doesn't go my way, because I am none of those things. we are now witnessing "I wasn't chosen for YC because I'm transgendered", which I can't help but find hillarious.

In the post/announcement, There isn't an "I can do it better" mentality being discussed; if anything, all I can see is someone bitterly asking "How Hard Can It Be?". She'll learn soon enough.

Further down in her post, she states that she already has companies lined up before she has money to give them. Bad sign.

Given the timeline since rejection, I doubt she's had ample time to sit down with these potential investees and truly figure out if they're worth an investment. Makes it seem a bit like a jilted ex-lover texting "fine. leave. I have 10 men lined up for dates!".

all of the above was in-mind when I stated why it gave me a good laugh. I feel that nobody is going to take this seriously, and any support in-thread is mere pandering at best, so we aren't accused of being non-inclusive to someone that seems to be using the threat of non-inclusion as a weapon. I respect her determination and zeal, similarly to how I respect a kitten's determination and zeal when chasing it's own tail, and I wish her the best.

I really do hope she proves me wrong, however; judging from the original post, I'll be tracked down and passively-aggressively rewarded for being wrong. I love it when people send me free stuff to prove they're rich and I'm wrong. I get free stuff. I once had a corporate sociopath hand me a half pound of weed as an "up yours" present after he got me fired from a $10/hour job I hated. I can't wait to see what a reasonably-attractive tg could offer. I'll totally give my mailing address in a PM.

* GLBT* as in wildcard, not as a footnote. please ignore the recursion.
10000 clicks, 2 hours, TCombinator Makes HN`s Front Page
Having a customer have to create an account to create a paying account on your service would be disastrous.
To further illustrate the point, I think I may have actually tried a no-capture heuristic at one point. I wouldn't be too surprised if it also worked better than random.
Competition to restructure the Stanford Protein Folding Contest
"A smart person looked at this deal and agreed it was worth $1B, 30% cash and 70% stock, since that makes no sense to me I need to figure out what they know that I don't know."

This sort of attitude probably didn't work out so well for the average investor during the dot com bubble.
Key Reason for Wage Inequality Is Education
Why is the US wealthier than Europe? Give credit to its cities.
Daniel’s Hierarchy of Speed: Get 2.1 Weeks of Your Life Back Every Year
Then don't do that.

Edit your code block over at the left margin as you would normally edit any code. Then do a block insert of 4 spaces down the left side of your code block. That's how I do it.

line of code
line of code
indented line of code
line of code

In vim, after editing your code like you usually would:

Go to the front of the top line,
Ctrl-V to enter visual block mode (Ctrl-Q on windows),
jjj to the bottom line,
I (capital I) to insert at the front,
space space space space,
escape.

I did exactly that to create the above two blocks.
You only use 10 percent of brain - Myth busted
Off the top of my head I'm not sure if this is part of Markdown proper (or maybe GitHub's "flavor") but you can do fenced code blocks, like so:

~~~

// your code
// goes here
// and here

~~~
I agree that using Haskell is like flying a helicopter when others use cars. However, I still strongly disagree with the choice you wrote earlier:

> If you want to use these languages, you have a choice between (a) learning the theory, and (b) not fully understanding the tool you're using.

Please bear in mind HM is only a basic idea of how Haskell type system works. Current inner workings of GHC type checking are described in 80 page research paper on OutsideIn(X), http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Simonpj/Talk:OutsideIn. I never read more than half a page from this. Yet I can use GADTs, type families, existentials, rank-2-types and so on with no trouble. I don't think Haskellers who did not read those 80 pages are "not fully understanding the tool they're using".

Why should I know theory - OutsideIn(X), HM, category theory etc., to "fully understand" the tool? Intuitive understanding gained by practice is enough.
Cheap Nike Zoom Kobe VII 7 Year of the Dragon Shoes for Sale
中国十佳整形医院
Advice sms in english - Advice sms
You didn't deserve a downvote, I don't think, so I gave you a bump.

I also don't think your critique is necessarily on-topic since you seem to have something against Keynesianism and I can't tell why

Number 1: What I know about it seems too simplistic, and it contradicts other models that I already know much more about.

Number 2: Not an argument against Keynesianism itself, but it's application. As you note, many on the right "associate his ideas with some vague notion of socialism". I think that's because Keynes's ideas are misappropriated by big-government types (primarily but not exclusively on the Left) and used incorrectly as justification for what they wanted to do anyway.

As I've noted elsewhere in this thread, a proper reading of Keynes would give us a plan for the entire business cycle: yes, we need to spend to stimulate in the bust; but the other side of that coin is that we need to save during the boom so that we've got something to use to stimulate with. The very same advocates of the Keynesian approach to solving the bust are unanimously uninterested in following through with the other half of his prescription. This reveals to me that they're intellectually bankrupt, and just using a convenient egghead as cover to allow them to continue their game plan of pandering for votes by promising favors to all.
While I agree in principle with this article's point that non-voting stock makes more likely the possibility of an iron-clad grip by irresponsible dictators, I don't think it is unconscionable or "evil" in Google's case.

Much of the innovation that I appreciate most coming from Google appears financially irresponsible from the outside looking in. When Google first went public my concern was that it would lose its ability to have its engineers working on hundreds of long-shot projects with no projected revenues, and a management that is open and accepting of innovation in all of its forms. If the decision-makers at Google were only interested in squeezing the most out of Google's bottom line, then there would be strong arguments to shut all of that down, which I think would be unconscionable: a massive waste of potential, on a scale that only a multi-billion dollar corporation can be capable of.
I had the same issue when I moved to Australia from the UK. I had to open a new PayPal account (with a different email address), which was a hassle but having two accounts is working fine for me now.
Dashboard Ads Coming to Tumblr
I think you could add to your examples curation.

As shown by the gentleman that publishes HackerNews Monthly, there's definitely a market for the collection/curation of content, and that business probably scales pretty well.

There have to be all kinds of audiences out there that don't have time for a deep dive into the 'net to find the content they are regularly interested in, setup RSS feeds, etc. Bringing quality content to them that either entertains, educates, or enlightens (not to mention enriches) would seem to be a good business with a very good future.
Mysterious particle found useful in quantum computing. YAY
Of course you have to remember that different tests use different standard deviations. For example, Mensa here in Finland uses a test with standard deviation of 15, so 130 is "only" two standard deviations smarter than average. The point is, the scores are meaningless without knowing the standard deviation used.
Virgin Olympics in 3D
Build the best API you know how to build and ask questions later. If your business is doing well, then supporting your API forever is a high quality problem.
(snicker)
Tuning cars the geek way
I'll add a +1 to that recommended TTC course on economics. I listened to it (and many others) while commuting in NJ traffic, and turned wasted time into an asset. I did learn a bunch from this particular course. Be warned that the teacher is sympathetic to neo-classical approaches (but then, so am I).

EDIT: Tip for TTC courses: never buy them at full price. They periodically have tremendous sales, and they're sufficiently expensive that you could easily save a hundred or two by waiting.
Your API documentation (or specification if you have one) is not your specification. Your API implementation is your specification, especially if you are the only provider of the API. I realize how trite that sounds, but it's true. Defensive API design (make it REALLY HARD to have undocumented tricks that developers can use in productive ways) is dramatically harder than API design is in the first place, and I still guarantee you'll screw it up for any moderately expressive API.

It's not just an issue of parameter validation or well-defined calls; it's the interactions between calls where this is hard. It's issues of ordering, timing, when you can secretly skip synchronization because you know the API will synchronize just enough for you to get away without something more heavyweight, things like that. And then when you have paying customers? Yeah, you can't break their code, even if it's bad, because if you do you won't have customers for very long.
My question stems from the concept that NoSQL is not a categoric replacement for the RDBMS. In some cases a MongoDB, CouchDB, Cassandra, etc. could serve as an application's only data store. In most of the scenarios I deal with, the ad-hoc capabilities presented by an SQL interface to common reporting or analytic tools are very important.
I think you're missing the point.

Wrap the goods in a capsule. Attach a parachute.

Now you can land it anywhere you want, lawyers permitting.