skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Actually, the advice in this article is dangerous. While technically, you will burn muscle if you exercise at a high level for an extended period, this is because you aren't getting enough calories to support your regimen. People are so afraid of calories nowadays, they don't realize that your body needs carbs in order to perform work. The answer isn't to eliminate cardio, which can boost your immune system and make you feel better overall (unlike what the article states). The answer is to change your diet to eliminate things like simple carbs and saturated fats. I'm under 10% body fat and I do both cardio and weight training and I feel better than I ever did in my 20s. Instead of simply taking my advice (or the idiot who wrote this article), read up on how your body's metabolism works and how the different sources of calories are used for energy and repair. And, damnit, don't be afraid of calories or cardio, focus on what you're eating.
Maybe all available surveillance cams were in use on your street, catching teens flipping each other off and trading "contraband".
Have delayed IPOs really moved the needle on index funds? Not a rhetorical question; it's possible they have. The markets being indexed are so huge I'm somewhat skeptical that companies IPOing later will make any difference in the returns of a passive index investor, though. And that's even assuming that earlier tech IPOs would outperform the rest of the market; they might make the index funds perform worse if that's not true!
You're right, it is not a proof. But in my experience there are very few people who are both smart enough to spot opportunities to copy and have the time to do so when they see them. I'd go as far as to estimate that those people are 1 in a million. If even half a million people discover your early stage product someone copying you will be the least of your worries.
Can't you just use any legit SSN?
I agree with his experiences, and there would be more to add. For example our baby-friend families usually were connected via my wife (from birth preparation classes for example), so it was a bit harder/more awkward for me to call them up to hang out so that our kids could play together. That's not active discrimination, just stuff that happens.

I wanted to throw some other thought to HN: I've come to the conclusion that we won't see a big surge in "stay-at-home-daddying". I have nothing against it, but ultimately I think the rationale would be "why would I pay my babysitter half of my salary" (which is what a stay at home dad is getting)? It seems to me a mother still has a bigger claim to her children because she invested much more physically, so society will deem it more acceptable if she does the stay-at-home thing, getting paid more than a mere babysitter.

Or will it become feasible in the future to speculate on becoming a stay-at-home dad? For example (extreme to make a point) instead of taking on another career, take classes in cooking and home decoration in the expectation to one day take care of a home? It seems very unlikely to me, although of course there will be (and already are) lots of women who have and want interesting careers. But would they go forth and marry a guy with no skills but home honing?
Please spare me the sexism comments, I want to think rationally about this. (I personally don't care who stays at home). The point is that it is very viable to speculate on becoming a stay at home mother imo.
I often fly (in an ultralight) at ~30 mph, and above 2000 feet or so you just feel like you're standing still.
OH MY GOD, WHY? OH MY GOD. OH MY GOD.
I will say that 'vs' isn't strictly needed here; no reason the means of production can't be privately owned while BI is implemented.

Now, that would put a bit of hurt into the reserve army of labor, as the article mentions...
I wouldn't exactly call FAIR "independent". OTM is an NPR show; I suppose it's dependent on NPR member stations or something. FAIR is ideologically dependent on the progressive left. If I have to choose dependencies, I'll go with NPR middle-of-the-roadness.

Thankfully, I don't have to choose, and so can enjoy FAIR's podcast while augmenting it with other sources. Thanks for sharing that; I had no idea they had a podcast.
Groupon and Zynga are two more recent big examples.
>There are also an infinite number of non-conspiracy theories fitting the facts.

That's wrong too. Social life and human action don't have infinite possibilities.

Depending on what scale you draw the line for detail, there are is a finite number of theories fitting any fact -- and less of them, if you include possibilities (Ocamm's razor).

And the more facts you have, the smaller the number of theories becomes.
I can't wait to see the video footage from it!
While not a whole solution, there were aspects of the 2012 JOBS Act that sought to relieve some of the provisions of SOX on small-cap companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumpstart_Our_Business_Startups...

Part of why there are fewer small-cap IPOs since 2000 has been due to the required external audits on companies - on average costing $2M. This had forced many companies to delay their IPO until they had the revenue to afford the audits, at which point often they no longer needed an IPO (due to folding, or selling).

The JOBS Act offered a series of exemptions for small-cap companies to be exempt from such audits, though I'm not sure what stage of implementation the SEC has taken it.
We can do much better with the Tablet UI
I'm thankful that we don't have that feature. After a day or two, any argument you get into on HN is likely to die because no feature of the site jams replies to old comments in your face.
How do you handle when you are done working and, while leaving the darkened room, stub your toe or step on the clutter?

In all seriousness, I tend to do the same thing.
That is not a cartwheel
> in particular, intermittent fasting (eat once per day)

FYI that is incorrect. Intermittent fasting simply refers to eating your calories in condensed time windows. For example, Lean Gains suggests eating 2-3 meals in an 8 hour window.
I wonder if such a fund would actually outperform other sectors.
That's partly true - if we simply imagine the past but bigger, then like hedge funds, startups have a limited capital requirement and will be hard to find at a suitable early stage

However it seems the world is not shaping up like that - if we take the theory that startups will simply be the new path into high flying careers, supplanting MBAs and certain colleges, then unlike hedge finds which are capital limited,
startups can take almost unlimited amounts of cash. For example if the tech startups world is a guide you should do a degree then take three years to run a startup. It sounds better than junior graduate trainee. If this holds true for even a decent percent of the world, across all industries, you could shovel cash at these guys forever.

That will take industrial levels of cash shovelling - the sort pension funds are good at, but VCs and even hedge funds really really bad at (high we are raising a limited round for 3 years at 2and20 vs give me 10% of your lifetime earnings and start now!)
Does that mean women are setting the rules in America?
Does it actually? I think it shows why proverbial grandmothers aren't using it, but what this describes is well within the grasp of technical users (among whom adoption is also poor).
This is a scary comment; it reifies the abstract concern Rayiner had upthread. Favorable post-Democracy though technology? That sounds like something Aldous Huxley would write about.
Jobs are racist.
Don't know, I'm focusing more on the non-existant IPOs than the spare handful of eventual, delayed ones. That's where the terrible damage has been done.

Looking at Facebook and Microsoft helps to quantify a very small portion of the total damage, but for many it'll be more convincing that the not visible per se absence of IPOs.
I guess latency is why they are on the plane.
I'm not going to go over this guy's many and varied strange opinions, just note that they were conspiracy theories and that he thought people he didn't agree intellectually with were dishonest (e.g. AI researchers from before the AI winter). And so on.

(And if you have a hard and certain opinion about something really complex you don't understand without good facts/logic for support, what are you doing..? Don't answer, that was a rhetorical question.)
That's why I said unlikely. There were some issues, and those are unfortunate, but most people had it coming. As for the "predatory" lending, I still have no sympathy. If you are taking out a loan for hundreds of thousands of dollars, you should be doing your own due diligence. It's stupid of them to give those loans because they will lose money, but the guy taking that loan still needs to know if he can afford it or not.
Reading this makes me wonder if our brains are intelligent or rational enough to understand our intelligence or rationality.
The reality is rational people do dismiss hypotheses completely unsupported by the available evidence. They just at the same time acknowledge that they could theoretically be wrong.

There's nothing irrational with saying; "Aliens did not build the Pyramids", or "I know that aliens did not build the pyramids". It is assumed that a rational person acknowledges an infinitesimally small possibility that they are wrong in stating such a fact, but the reality is, all claims whether negative ("There is no conspiracy") or positive ("There is a conspiracy") are accepted by a rational person with such an acknowledgment of varying importance, so there's no reason for a rational person to append every statement with "but I could be wrong".

The crucial flaw I think that you (and the many, many others who have made such arguments) make is a fallacious distinction between positive and negative claims.
Let's take a positive claim like: "There is a chair in the corner of the room". This claim, however, well supported by physical evidence (our rational subject has felt the chair, seen the chair, and seen others interact with the chair), can't be known rationally with absolute certainty- of course, there's always the possibility that some sufficiently advanced technology, conspiracy, mind-altering substance, or intelligent being is deceiving the rational subject, and there is no chair. This remote possibility must be acknowledged, but at the same time, it is dismissed by every rational agent, and rational agents do not base their actions on such possibilities. The point is, every positive claim like "There is a chair" can be framed as a negative claim like "There is no force or phenomena deceiving me into believing there is a chair". Thus, if your suggestion that "dismissing unsubstantiated negative claims is irrational" is accurate, it would follow that you also cannot accept any positive claims without being irrational.

Rationality is having an open mind, accepting the most likely conclusion based on the available evidence, and properly estimating the degree to which you may be wrong. It works exactly like that for both positive and negative claims.

I hope you realize this isn't just semantics. This difference is crucial in understanding why arguments like "You don't know for certain if there's no God" and "You can't prove there's no conspiracy" are flawed, and these arguments are actually used by irrational people to justify all kinds of nonsense.
Yes, men do tend to be highly valued in some countries. And women in such countries tend to be treated as property. What does that have to do with suicide rates of men in the US? And what does any of it have to do with your original point about feminism somehow causing media scare stories?

It's unfortunate that politics can have such an influence on science and psychology and sociology are far from the only fields it happens in. But, again, that doesn't somehow prove feminism wrong or your original point correct.

Did you even read that link you provided about Margaret Mead? Freeman was accusing her mostly of incompetence (taking jokes/lies as fact is the main example) and Freeman's attacks on Mead's work have themselves been heavily criticised.

And even if they hadn't... so what? You're going to condemn the entirety of feminism (and the field of sociology, I suppose) because one person early in its history may have lied?
Somehow I don't think the FISA court is fixing the problems it was created to fix. It seems to have been co-opted.

Hopefully, in something less than a decade, one of our legislators can find time in his busy money-raising schedule to discover how that happened. And then start a task-force to make meaningful recommendations.
Bureaucracy. Some entrepreneurial employee of the airport can't just head out and install cameras, no matter how cheap they are. You or I could get a gopro and a tiny PC and have high quality footage recorded all day and then deleted automatically if nothing eventful happens. But... we're talking about an industry that still uses token-ring networks.

A "markets" person might think, if it's so cheap and the footage of a crash so valuable, why don't individuals across the bay setup their own cameras to record the runway, then sell the footage if it becomes valuable?
That woman was so annoying with her comments..obviously he is filmy it, was she blind?
"The market can stay illogical longer than you can remain solvent."
I don't know if you are being sarcastic, and but I don't see any smiley faces so here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_data_recorder
How To Reach America’s Mobile Moms
I suspect that basic income is a stable equilibrium given a "one person, one vote"-type of democratic system.

It's in each person's best interests to vote for more wealth redistribution if they're below the average, and there will always be more people below the average than above.

Further, it's in each politician's interest to both promise and deliver such a thing, as it helps them win first and following elections.
I didn't see a 360, it just tipped to the slide after the nose going up.
I forgot which country it was but one of the Nordic countries tried hard to get parental leave taken and in the end they had to make 2 of 6 months of (fully paid) leave exclusively for the father.

Once they did that and the family was actually leaving paid leave on the table otherwise, fathers are now nearing 40% of birth leave.
The idea that Wikileaks would be represented by a holocaust-denying quasi-apparatchik is so DC-comics evil that even I doubt it's real.

You'd like a clearer denial from Wikileaks about it, but then, you'd like a clearer denial about anything in any dispute, and it's not always reasonable to demand one: at some point things devolve to "half you stopped beating your wife yet?" Advocating the for the government of Belarus is, in geopolitical terms, really epsilon from beating ones spouse.
My family is Mormon (LDS) and two of my brother's are cops, so we definitely have this covered.

What I can say is that cops seem to get indoctrinated as part of their training about the rule of law and the need to enforce laws "because it's the law" without thought or common sense applied to each situation.
The Sioux City DC-10 did not cartwheel. I believe a wing detached which is why people thought it did.
The reason I pointed out grass-fed or free-range meat is that paleo advocates often like to point out the nutritional inadequacies of the more modern "factory farmed" alternatives. I am not in tune enough to know whether this is a firm part of the paleo diet or not.

Whole grains and legumes are pretty cheap. I don't think there is any source of protein from a whole food that is cheaper.
Video posted of Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash landing
One tip to avoid being a victim is to never answer those online security questions with a real answer because they can be easily figured out (I usually answer with a password that I don't even bother to remember).
I used the new layer button to accomplish this. It greys out the complications, but the guides from what you've constructed still function.
One thing I'm stuck regarding rationality vs instinct -

I'm partial to the argument that the reason we have heuristics or "rules of thumbs" is because it saves our energy. If we invest fully rational mental energy on every decision, then we wouldn't get as much done. Heuristics are useful because they are useful, usually correct, and save time/energy.

However, they are also sometimes wrong. And I also know that cognitive biases can lead us astray in the same way that a heuristic can be wrong. And that's where rationality is useful, because it helps us make the correct decision in those cases.

If both are true, then the optimized way of living would be to use heuristics where they don't get you in trouble, and use rational examination when the result would be counterintuitive. Here's where I'm stuck - how do you recognize ahead of time when you should ignore your instinct/heuristic/cognitive-bias, and instead use the more exhaustive rational examination?

It's as if we need to develop an intuitive skill on when to recognize that a reality is likely to be counterintuitive. "Oh, my gut tells me that this is one of those cases where my gut will be wrong." Which seems a bit contradictory.
We could create a guest account but usually the tutor knows the student and will give more than one lessons. We also simplified the onboarding process for the student to a minimum number of fields.
Yes, echoing the others Feynman was too late for the foundational, completely change your view of the universe stuff.

Gamow's Thirty Years that Shook Physics: The Story of Quantum Theory http://www.amazon.com/Thirty-Years-that-Shook-Physics/dp/048... is the standard non-specialist account of this, it starts with Plank right after the turn of the century and is essentially complete in 3 decades, about when Feynman was in high school and teaching himself serious math.
As a work-from-home dad with a very flexible schedule, I spend quite a bit of time at the park during work hours. My experience is closer to yours than most others in this thread. I find the moms/nannies/grandparents quite welcoming and friendly. Occasionally a topic of conversation will come up that may be a bit awkward, but otherwise I don't feel that I'm treated much differently. I certainly have never perceived that anyone felt threatened by my presence.

I'm not sure what would account for the difference. I live just a few miles from FB headquarters and am in the same demographic as OP.
It did a 180, spinning around with the nose digging into the ground.
I wish at work I could just focus on one thing, my job invites the clutter of too many things pulling on me. I've always been able to multitask more than most but it's always at a cost. If I can work on one project all day I am far less exhausted than working on many different things on the same day. One day recently I worked on 4 apps back and forth. Our brains are not made for that kind of twitchy thinking. It's not just physical stuff that makes up clutter.
Neither can humans, but humans can handle a lot more situations. We can take into account a lot of information and come up with creative solutions, while current computers will need a set of humans to come up with and program potential scenarios beforehand. I think we'll have computer level AI that will perform better in accidents eventually (AI is improving and our brains are not) but it a long way into the future, and not an imminent threat to pilot jobs as some would believe.

In the meantime, the solution to the human factor isn't to eliminate humans, but to improve training (which is already happening after AF447).

I like having human pilots primarily because I'm a programmer and I know how difficult it is to design robust computer systems. There's been one runway overrun and one serious in flight incident with passenger injury due to software design faults. Now try to design a system that makes sense of audio, video and smell in addition to the existing sensors, and not have it fail in some spectacular unforeseen way..
Yeah, I thought there was a bit of hyperbole going on. I am stunned people walked away from that.
Google celebrates Roswell UFO Incident with a doodle
I think a plugin that whould do the following whould be great allready:

"Paste and crypt"
paste text into field or mark it. hit encrypt. pop/menu/whatever lets you choose or import public keys.

"paste and decrypt"
basically the same funtionality backwards
Might it be possible to have a "house pilot" at each airport that could be patched in during landings or takeoffs? Latency could be made pretty negligible with a radio link only a few kilometers long at most.

That wouldn't do anything for patching in pilots for planes in the middle of the pacific, but I wonder how often that would be necessary.
Excellent article but it fails to ask the question why. Why is this happening? Who benefits? Why isn't the people's will being realized politically? Why do the courts no longer protect our Constitutional rights?

There's a critical piece missing in these discussions- the global banking cartel that has corrupted all of our political and social institutions. Until their agenda and activities are included in the scope of our analysis, things will just keep getting worse.
Most primitive todo list application ever seen
That's true, but 1) anomalous conditions are very rare and 2) as often as not the pilot is the anomalous condition. Pilot error is the most common cause of aviation accidents.

EDIT: Notice that you had to go back 30 years to find your third example of a human pilot saving the day. And automation technology has improved a lot since then.
Too Old to Become a Developer? – XDA Developer TV
Wow, thanks - I played with it for hours and promptly signed up for the paid version. Great tool.
> he believed in conspiracy theories like being a 9/11 truther, etc.

On that subject, there's a video that it would be great it every American watched. It's made by a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. It's about evidence that explosives were used on 9/11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ddz2mw2vaEg
Circuitlab is keeping me busy at the moment but thanks I'll check this out.
Unfortunately they're taking on massive amounts of debt that will make their life more difficult. If they could only receive a loan for a percentage of their projected income then they'd be able to decide if it's worth it. And it would put price pressures on the school.
Garbage pickup is one of the many jobs that will probably be obseleted by self-driving trucks. So, at least in the medium-term future, we'll likely pay less than we currently do.
Terrorism only achieves those non-physical effects because of people's misunderstanding of the risks. If people cared about terrorism to a similar degree to which they care about other stuff of similar deadliness, the terror part of terrorism would disappear.
> capitalists, who want a large labour supply...

Even Friedman argued for the NIT, noting it was less paternalistic than food stamps or other benefits to simply let the poor allocate their money however they see fit (and simple transfers would likely lead to lower administrative costs).

But this implicit line that there's a secret cabal of "capitalists" all persuaded by some idea that they never publicly proselytize, but all coordinate action in order to pursue... it sounds a bit conspiratorial. Cribbing lines from marxist economic theory, it's going to alienate half your audience or more, and immediately make the argument deeply partisan, when it needn't be.

I mean, believe that line or not, but I think the argument is stronger without falling down the rabbit hole of pretending to know what "the capitalists" are up to.
No, just the people who decide who gets them: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873
I would love to just sit in on those meetings. It'd be like watching every disaster movie ever made - who gets believed and who sounds credible?
Snowden Interview with Jacob Applebaum
‘I filmed the first fight and arrest through Google Glass’