skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Note that in real life you almost never strafe. Just look at any footage ( or a movie ) of soldiers/police. No strafing. Games made us believe that we need it.
"If there were a reputable investor who invested $100k on good terms and promised to decide yes or no within 24 hours, they'd get access to almost all the best deals, because every good startup would approach them first"

Mark Cuban does that, and you can email him at will. I've dealt with him and his team, he's extremely fast in deciding (an email or two), and his team is extraordinarily easy to work with. Cuban also doesn't care where you're located. The only catch is that he has to be personally interested, generally speaking, in what you're doing.

However I don't think Cuban gets access to all the best deals. Being located in San Francisco or Silicon Valley is clearly a substantial benefit to having access to a lot of the best new startups. I think location will continue to matter in that regard.
> This is the first time in history when this has been possible.

That's overstating it a bit. Plenty of '80s software companies were bootstrapped for the cost of food+rent+computer, with shareware demos distributed via BBS.
It's a known issue (!?) http://www.raspberrypi.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4592
The EU was already fully aware of the wiretapping like it was aware of the CIA secret prisons in The EU. This whole thing is a farce , with fake outrage from politicians totally corrupt. The EU itself is an american puppet.
Thanks tuananh, I was wondering this. I've been debating between an RPi or a WD My Book Live.
Of course it is, if for some weird reason you think that assembly = R&D ...
How to Conquer Fear that Prevent Your Success and Begin to Live an Abundant Life
> OTOH LSD seems to be non- or low- addictive

LSD is not physically addictive whatsoever.
LSD is primarily a 5HT2 agonist which leads to a decrease in dopamine pathways. This decrease in dopamine leads to taking it mimicing the "negative" symptoms of schizophrenia. this effect has been used in animal models to support various dopamine theories for us to learn more about schizophrenia, such as one of the current theories advocating for an increase in dopamine in mesolimbic brain pathway and decrease of dopamine in mesocortical pathways.

So the drug is useful for inducing the symptoms, however once the drug is gone so are the symptoms. Schizophrenics have problems at some cellular level, be it receptor, transcription, translation, protein modification, etc that leads to their symptoms and the end effects that are similar to LSD. LSD causes the final step in the pathway, not the initial ones.

Likewise for your drugs, you named two dopamine blockers (one selective for D_2 and one not). these treat schizophrenia in the sense that they minimise symptoms since they are working at the final step in what is wrong with the patients. They are not "cures" because they don't address the initial issue, which we hopefully will discover.
"It may be silly, but I bet 99% will understand that he meant the illegal stuff."

Thanks to decades of propaganda...
Even Apple was started as a bootstrapped effort.
As Germans feign outrage for the actions of the Five Eyes, specifically the UK and America, they rubber stamp the same style laws that amusingly, went into effect very recently:

http://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_...

Forcing telecoms to keep data available for on demand searches of intensely personal citizens information.
The rumors of Silicon Valley’s demise have been greatly exaggerated
This is an incredibly interesting and thought-provoking hypothesis.

The Wikipedia entry says that exceptions are due to regional differences. I've often wondered if the increased communication and travel between people in different regions as a result of technology (tech as old as trains/telegraph or as recent as email/Facebook) will lead to local cultural differences gradually disappearing as everyone mixes together into one population.

Maybe this is going to make it harder for multiple parties to exist.

Then again, AFAIK the US has usually had only two major parties for most of its history (with occasional replacement of one party by another...anyone remember the Whigs?)
I can appreciate ROE/posture changes with command changes. I was in OIF '04 to '05. When I got there it was "kick in doors and take names", when I left it was "please come out and have tea kind sir". When I say that the military exists to kill people and break things I was speaking from a historical perspective. Why do peoples create armies? There was a point in history where people groups became large enough in size that the job of protecting the group became the role of less than everyone. Those in the protecting role did what primarily? Kill people and break things in between long stretches of boredom.

Put another way, what is the primary capability that modern militaries build?
UofC not Harvard
I think the cheap money certainly has the biggest impact on two things: first, larger class VC money (and where they get their funds); and second, the free capital that angels and others have available due to the Fed inflating the stock market.

However, given the increasingly lower cost of starting a company, I can't see a substantial impact to the sub $100k funding arena with the inevitable end to cheap money. $100k just ain't what it used to be, but the infrastructure ooomph it buys is just going to keep getting more astounding.
True, it's really the fact that aim/view and walking direction are tied together in a typical game that puts so much emphasis on strafing. Any 'Mech with torso twist is closer to what we'd see with this device.
Which is actually what I've been doing.

But my original point is caution in these waters, when plenty of viable options exist.
The methodology effectively reflected the divide between experts' and policy makers' views on the relative harms of various substances. Given the nuances involved and our limited understanding I agree with the decision to use a committee of experts versus a more precise mathematical specification.

Not only do I think it is meaningful to compare the harm done by drugs as they are actually used, it is necessary. Nutt's research is from society's perspective - that's why it spends more time on how people actually use drugs than how much harm would be done if they used them appropriately. It is not meant to guide responsible drug use, but instead, inform pragmatic harm-minimising policy. From that perspective, the inclusion of the endogenous prohibition effects on harm is a feature of his methodology, not a drawback.

Saying a study is "invalid" is a harsher critique than saying there are additional factors that need to be taken into account before coming up with policy conclusions. As an analogy, Newtonian gravity is not "invalid" - it is just a cruder model than one including Einsteinian time dilation. Nutt's 2007 paper is crude compared with his later work. Not "fraudulent" nor "invalidated".
I didn't vote on any of your comments here. Humor doesn't go all that well here, my take on that is that it is of course subjective, and a whole lot of it is quite a bit less original than maybe the commenter thinks (which turns it into a sort of noise).
I'm not saying it shohld be the only factor! You should always know what you're getting into.

I also don't think LSD turns anyone into a super genius...

I was just reacting to a now deleted comment that said you should do it because you want to, not because your intellectual heroes thought it was great. Is it wrong to want to because people you respect say nice things about it? (While remembering to evaluate if it's really a good idea for you, of course.)
"effectively no relationship" and "statistically independent" are not necessarily equivalent claims. Assuming Nutt used a rank correlation statistic (Pearson correlation is not well-suited to ordinal data) then zero correlation most likely implies no linear relationship between ranks. That's not equivalent to independence, but I think it's accurate to characterize it as "effectively no relationship" in the context of a discussion about drug laws. OTOH, a scatterplot would be more diagnostic than a statistic here.
Zoneminder grinds my dual-core Atom to a halt. Try 'motion' for a simpler system (well, simple if you like config-file setup) with about 25% of the CPU usage. Plus, the viewing interface is just 'cd /motion; ls *avi' rather than the slow and clunky web interface of ZM.
While running backwards is a popular
tactic in FPS games, it's one that is obviously completely unrealistic. I think given that this is a virtual reality device, it's more likely to be used for more realistic games that wouldn't require backwards running.
I'll add a major forward-looking issue: The Federal Reserve has been issuing free money, and that party is over.

It won't affect the next A or B rounds, but exits in about 3-5 years are going to dry up much like they did the last time the Fed tightened.
Yes, it is. If significant numbers of people become dependent upon a single point of failure then whoever controls that gains an incredible degree of power. You have to have some plan for how you're going to spread your risk pool around in that regard or you're just creating a population of slaves.
Given sufficiently low friction, there should actually be very little force exerted on the belt. Some sort of larger harness might be an option if it does become an issue.
> Haloperidol and olanzapine, two common prescriptions for schizophrenia, have been demonstrated to reduce the effects of LSD.

That is such a bullshit statement. A wide array of pharmaceuticals reduce the effects of LSD as well as other drugs for that matter.
The American revolutionaries were indeed conservatives in the sense that they just wanted what they felt were their rights as English citizens.

Across the Atlantic, Edmund Burke was the founder of modern conservatism. He did not want the colonies to secede and was deeply pained by it, but supported them because he felt their rights were violated. He was an unqualified opponent of the French Revolution, however, and extensively fought with Paine on this.

Edmund Burke did, in a sense, a classical liberal, he passionately defended English rights, but never really universalized them or subscribed to Enlightenment ideology. He's sometime called "The most important philosopher who wasn't a philosopher"

Most of the American revolutionaries were, deep, strong believers in universal enlightenment ideology.

Two of the most important, Jefferson and Franklin, were also "Makers", polymaths who made contributions to many fields. Especially Franklin who both made real, major scientific advances AND in the literary sphere, founded BOTH the American satirical and ethical traditions.

Again, both were unapologetic followers of the enlightenment: believed in universal natural rights, were Deists, etc.
As with anything, pick a subject you find interesting imo.

I think the essays on Lisp and Arc are some of the more interesting ones, but ymmv.
Well written. Being myself an Austrian (not only by economic affiliation) with ties to the USA I just today contemplated that in a way Obama will do much more damage to the American reputation than Bush (2) ever could.

Bush could be seen as an anomaly. He was not elected by a majority of the American people for his first turn, and even if everybody shook their head about the obvious oilgrab in the Iraq based on blatant lies, people could somehow understand that you don't change an administration amidst a war.

Obama was seen as a return of the USA that was always admired by many if not most people in Europe.

Like someone coming to their senses after a violent fit, Europe was ready to embrace an America that put effort in preserving and spreading civil rights, peace and democracy with means that did not involve letting countries descend in mayhem that bloody dictators would envy.

Then
- he did not shut down Guantanamo (and he could have done it if he had acted fast and spent time to convince his party)

- he did not Veto a continuation of the Patriot Act

- he let his administration spy on the press to an unprecedented extent

- he defends spying on everybody outside or with ties to outside the country

If this is the rational, the civilized America, then we are in deep trouble.
With the obvious caveat that nobody can speak for PG except him, I'll take a shot:

I don't think he wants to. Even though I think he'd argue otherwise, he's a genuinely good guy. Not in the way that you think of when you think of the class clown / extroverted nice guy, but more like the kind of good that he sees the potential in people sometimes before they see it. In his current situation, he provides help really broadly for a lot of founders, thereby helping the entire ecosystem. If he ran a traditional-ish VC fund, he'd probably have to be on boards, learn what it's like to run a huge company, etc. It just doesn't seem like it's as perfect of a fit.

I think PG has found his way to influence the startup world for the better, and it's through essays and through YC. He gets to spend a few months at a time working really hard to help startups succeed, and then he takes some time for his family.

I think a lot of people forget how much work it is to try something new and different. Given the numbers he references, YC is, at this point, basically a proven startup. If he were to try to switch his model, he'd have to essentially start over, which means lots of guessing, hits and misses, etc. I know I wouldn't want to try to start over from scratch when the thing I'm working on now has so much potential.

That is, unless, raising a fund / swinging for the fences would be a way to broadly change the startup ecosystem. (jury is out on whether that'd be the case, imo)
Solar/wind account for a fraction of US energy usage, and such people are unfortunately the extreme exception.

It's almost impossible for a human alive today to truthfully live free from oil - even if they are exceptional. How much harder would it be for an ordinary person who actually lives in US society?
MCabber looks pretty nice at first glance; thanks for the tip. I'll have to go find a sample config for it before I can actually use it and see if it's any good though.
The soul is an immaterial substance - the supernatural, unexplainable. It is, by its very nature, am unknowable question. How can that be an answer by any reasonable definition?
bullsh*t , like the benefits of europe when we have 26 million + people out of work, fool me twice ...
EU is not working , for the people at least ...
Oh, sorry ^^;

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to try something because your heroes thought it was great. Though, I can see that just because your heroes thought it was great doesn't necessarily mean that you'll want to. Maybe that was more what Mr Deleted meant? More along the lines of don't just get swept up in the actions of strong personalities.
Anything can be argued... I take it as a given that we aren't living inside a computer generated simulation known as The Matrix. But somebody, somewhere, could make a case that we might be. But for all practical purposes, it is a given that we don't.

For all practical purposes, it is a given that the FISA courts are a rubber stamp. Just because there is some amazingly-low-probability and unlikely scenario to explain that away, is no reason not to accept the utter and obvious truth.
Well, the 100% stat doesn't mean much by itself either. We should expect the government to be bringing cases with fairly solid proof for starters, so 100% is nearly indistinguishable from the ideal scenario.

But more importantly if the judge indicates they won't sign it without changes, then the changes get made and it ends up eventually counting as a signed warrant.

If the judge says they won't sign that warrant at all then the government withdraws it before formally filing it; again, keeping the stat near 100%.

In fact the only warrants by these metrics that wouldn't end up signed are the ones that the government felt so sure about that they didn't even bother vetting it with the judge first before formally submitting it, and the judge had to actually reject it.

With all that said, I do agree that this standard of oversight is severely lacking compared to the capabilities of the NSA. Allowing companies to give stats regarding NSLs and other warrants is only the tip of the iceberg of improvements that are needed to transparency, oversight, and accountability; not just with PRISM, and not just with NSA.
PG did start a founders first vc firm. It's called yc, and they have a nondescript office in mountain view and tell you yes or no after a 10 minute interview.
This is why, in this age of mass media and constant opinion, perception is the only thing that matters. The NSA has been doing this for years and other countries have too. Everyone suspected it, backhandedly inferred it. Now the outrage happens when the media takes him as a dark horse. It's unfortunate, but unless you're a scientist, that's the system we live in.
This is the fundamental problem with communist/socialist style systems where the government is supposed to take care of everyone: Productive work is no longer incentivized enough to support the society, and rollback is politically impossible, so they keep right on following an unsustainable course until there's a complete collapse.

Unfortunately, people who are in favor of things like universal healthcare, minimum income, etc., fail to appreciate that good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes. (I'm speaking about typical HN readers who support these things who won't personally immediately be getting a piece of the pie.)

As you say, the fact that people will vote for things that are in their self-interest at the expense of the society as a whole is a problem with democracy. In the US this has traditionally been avoided by a strong sense of patriotism / nationalism and an ideology of individual responsibility, but these barriers are eroding with cultural changes, increases in minorities with different values, a dysfunctional education system, and various economic disruptions.
> It's only a matter of time before the "big dogs" in email abuse the position and decide who is and isn't allowed to send/receive email outside of their little oligarchy, either on their own or at the behest of governments.

Uh, what? We have the tools today. TLS to your mail server, PGP for your email content.

SMTP is already a highly distributed system that is controlled by no single entity. If the big email providers decide to block all the little players, making your own message passing system (with blackjack and hookers) and convincing everyone to come use it is many steps more work beyond just staying on SMTP and convincing everyone to stop using the big email providers. Then at least you don't have to develop new protocols, you don't have to develop new clients, and you don't have to convince people to use them (but still, good luck with that first step).

How about instead we just make email encryption a whole lot easier to use and promote email providers that aren't beholden to court orders (aka probable cause must be demonstrated at a minimum)?

Meanwhile we can work on reforming the security apparatus in the US because 'reasonable expectation of privacy" most definitely includes all the geographical locations I access my email account from, amongst many other things, so should require a warrant.
For now, the whole world don't trust US, or any cloud service provided by US.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/iu/mysterious_answers_to_mysterious_...
I wouldn't say that it's nondescript.
Excellent arguments.

Total surveillance is one of the many tools, that the political elite uses to prevent the majority from changing the system.
One of the primary claims to power in medieval Europe was the divine decree, something that was usually "approved" by the Roman Catholic Church, so yes religion has had an absolutely insane amount of influence on politics, so much so that you can easily argue that it was responsible for predominance of monarchies and dictatorships until the enlightenment (and even then it took centuries).

Entire governments have risen and fallen on top of the backs of religions and their schisms and reformations.
Well the German supreme court declared these laws partly unconstitutional. In Austria the supreme court has still to decide.

Of course these laws should be abolished.

But these cases show an important difference: These laws while outrageous, were created transparently and published.
This enabled citizens to take actions against them, and hopefully at some point they will be abolished.

In the case of the NSA everything was covered by gag orders under the penalty of committing a felony. That is way more insidious.
Yup. All this outrage is fabricated. This isn't country versus country. This is people versus the State, and the people have already lost. The german government is doing what it must to fool the people, yet again, into thinking their governments are representative.

Bread and circuses are far cheaper today than in ancient Rome. It doesn't take much.
ha ha :) nice example for ad hominem.

The author is part of the Green party directly fighting the law you mentioned. Also if you cannot see the difference between the law Germany passed and what the US is doing with PRISM, you seem to be on the wrong website ;)
UIUC is supposed to be amazing, but Florida State University for some reason makes you take like 3 years of Spanish. Perhaps some won't care but for me it was a deal breaker.

If OP isn't opposed Christian schools, Regis University's curriculum looks pretty rigorous. I'm not a religious person, but when I looked at their curriculum I started wishing I had chosen it over the program that I'm currently in.
> "There are so many cases of serious mental problems including permanent insanity caused by psychadelics."

> "And of course there are also the thousands of people that are not exactly insane but have their brains pretty much fried and are just not very good for anything useful anymore."

> "To mention one of the more recent fruits of psychedelics -- the guy that shot that US congresswoman in the head fried his brain on mushrooms."

Don't make outlandish claims if you're not going to bother to cite your sources. Also, even if what your claiming regarding the Arizona shooter is true, I have a mustache, does that mean I'm going to commit genocide?