skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You're clearly thinking of IT support and entry level programmers. They're not judged at that level. However, if you have 5-10 years industry experience, a degree and have worked in some management capacity, you're expected to look a certain part. Unless, that is, you're known for doing things that other people say can't be done. Then you get to live simply. Anecdotally, and off the top of my head, I can name at least half a dozen people like that I've worked with in just the past six months.

Also, might want to work with that resentment problem of yours.
No. Flash drives are slow enough to write to without having to write things (even metadata) twice.
There are more general instructions for getting these tools set up here: http://www.scipy.org/install.html
N.S.A. Calls Violations of Privacy ‘Minuscule’
Unfortunately, Heroku doesn't allow for variable billing so there needs to be a fixed cost and associated limit. Although, we are in the process of reevaluating our Heroku pricing to better reflect our direct pricing and will be adjusting it shortly.
Thanks for this. Yes, we need to update our other assets to reflect the new pricing.
This contrasts strangely with gTLDs. I feel like it defeats their entire purpose if you need to use a subdomain of them.
I think the point of the article is that is difficult to distinguish between luck and skill. (Or even a combination) But skill is still involved. Not doubt some people are smart and knowledgeable and some are not.

Following your example I can imagine that there is a mechanism (I wouldn't call it surefire) that can improve your odds. But that mechanism is difficult to acquire, difficult to transfer and not very scaleable. Therefore it is difficult for everybody to practice it. In fact some do it so badly that they end up loosing more than the average.

> If you think hard enough, you will realize why there cannot be a deterministic, legal system to beat the market.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a deterministic legal system to beat the market. Only that some people may be skilled enough to beat the market.
edit:punctuation
just like nobody could run anything except a proprietary operating system in the 80s?
NSA is not collecting the email and telephone traffic of all Americans

How can we be certain? Especially since we've been lied to on more than one occasion.
This doesn't match my experience as a Googler. I do 20% projects, and my manager has a 20% project. It helps keep things fresh and interesting and I get exposure to more of the vast ecosystem of Google stuff than I would see in my main job.

I get praise and appreciation, and bonuses from other teams. I think it looks good on a resume, I learned something, and it builds a connection across teams. I know the things I'm doing are helping Google as a whole.

People are always going to have different feelings, and often mixed feelings, about putting time into a side project rather than concentrating on their main thing or doing something away from the computer. For me it comes and goes: some days I want a change and sometimes I feel too busy.

How many of you who have startups would feel OK about taking time from it to spend Friday working on an open source project, even if you don't have a boss that's stopping you?
Googalapse
On Running a Conference
How I installed Homebrew from fish:
bash
ruby -e "$(curl -fsSL https://raw.github.com/mxcl/homebrew/go)"
That's because Microsoft uses hostname-based virtual hosting in IIS, and IIS happens to not recognize HTTP Host headers with trailing dots. This has nothing to do with IP addressing or DNS. In the absence of a resolver search list — which conventionally only applies to names without trailing dot — "microsoft.com" and "microsoft.com." result in the same DNS query, and therefore the same set of IP addresses.

Whether this behavior is an obscure bug, a security feature, or both, is left as an exercise.
OK. Better how?
This comment would be much more insightful if you put forth your argument as to why it is better.
So is the entire JDK.
Thanks! I was wondering if someone would make that comparison. I saw async-await a little after I started working on this and felt it was good confirmation that this was actually a reasonable idea.
A few reasons:

- Many 20% projects are not things that would not be easily monetizable: open source work, non-technical things, improvements to infrastructure.

- If the idea is very speculative, exploring it while still getting paid a handsome salary is a much easier step than quitting your job.

- Some things are easier to do if you have all the Google infrastructure to build on: for example the Transit Maps thing below is a lot easier if you can plug into Maps! (But some things would be easier to launch externally.)

- Part of the attraction, like for open source projects, is that it's something different from your main job, so you learn and stay fresh. If you turn it into your main job you lose that.

The theory is that if you do work on a new product and it works well, eventually it will be staffed full-time and you'll be rewarded. Apparently that did happen with Google Now. I doubt it happens every time, but then not every worthwhile startup succeeds.
I was referring to the "even as source" part.

(They make package maintainers excise MP3 code from upstream tarballs and repackage those, not just patch it out of the compiled code - it's a massive pain).
Here's the best part -- these websites are built terribly and are very open to this sort of thing.

After about 2 minutes of looking, I've just found that nic.io (or just io.) basically lets you type arbitrary html into the search boxes. Chrome's built in XSS auditor catches any scripts you put in there, but (at least) Firefox doesn't.

Check it out:

http://io./cgi-bin/whois?query=%3Ca%20href=%22%22%3E%3Cu%3EA...

If you load it in Firefox (or any browser without an XSS auditor) it'll pop an alert, otherwise you'll just see the image I loaded and a link I inserted.

This is ridiculous.
Those things, while important to consider if you are trying to do something like hit hit a target within a few kilometers with an ICBM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Geophysical_Year), are not significant when dealing with general purpose mapping.
Apocalypse 5: Pattern Matching
Why? Maybe that was just what your friend found most interesting at that time.
Google to encrypt Cloud Storage data by default
That's a very cool project.

But I wonder how it gets over the initial friction of lifting and pulling the paper through as it goes lower on the stack. Surely there's a limit after which, you'd need to remove the completed sheets off the top?
We had an airship here in the Bay Area until recently which (mostly) operated out of Moffett Field. You could go on flight seeing tours around the bay for a ridiculous amount of money. It closed down because it took a ground crew of around 20 people and couldn't fly half the time because SF gets a lot of fog or is overcast in the summer/winter months.

You can rent a Cessna 172 in Palo Alto with a flight instructor who can fly you on the same trip for about 1/4 the price (even less if you take some friends). Airships just don't make a lot of sense, even though they are pretty awesome.

Here's a link to their defunct website: https://www.airshipventures.com/
One of the gems in CS literature illustrates this nicely: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

Essentially self-compiling compilers can "remember" things that are nowhere to be found in the source code.
Quoting from page 13:

A further problem is that in no case were the superior records (returns) I have observed based upon institutional skills which could be maintained despite changes in the faces. Rather, the good results have been accomplished by a single individual or, at most, a few, working in fairly specialized areas in which the great bulk of investment money simply had no interest.

So... he seems to predict a bleak future for Berkshire's returns after his departure as well?
IIRC, top-level and "match all" wildcard certificates were originally permitted by design (e.g., for intranet and proxy applications), but most modern browsers block them for security reasons.
If it takes more than 16.67ms to run a frame's worth of update-and-draw, then it does, and replacing "wake up every in-game entity that asked to wake up this frame" with "let a preemptive scheduler manage ~10,000 threads that want to wake up, do almost nothing, and then sleep for k frames, while some master thread waits on a latch until they're all done" seems unlikely to make it any faster. If the logic my server must perform to handle a request is expensive, then it is, and replacing an event loop with a single-threaded preemptive scheduler will not increase throughput.

I'm not sure why it is difficult to do this sort of thing correctly. The scheduler does next to nothing in the "server with connections managed in coroutines" case and probably makes matters worse in the "storing game state in execution states" case. It could have a positive impact in the server application if one routine is secretly going to crash or run forever, in the sense that the other routines will continue running while the problematic feature is fenced off or fixed.
Wow, that's above and beyond. Thanks!
> On the first count, you're mistaken because there's no reason to assume that the distribution is symmetric.

First, I never said that, and second, that assumption isn't necessary -- the location of the mean won't change, and the mean is the thing you would need to beat, not the median. The reason is that market indices measure the mean (the sum of all the values divided by the count of values), not the median (the midpoint between the highest and lowest value).

> On the second count, that's like saying that math is the foundation of computing, and so the two are indistinguishable.

And? I invite you to argue that it's not so. Computers do what they do solely on mathematical and logical principles. Some would argue that that represents a drawback, hence experiments with things like fuzzy logic. But even fuzzy logic is deterministic and logical, it's just sometimes closer to messy reality. But all of computer science, and computer operations, are strictly logical.

> ... klodolph is correct that the two are different ...

Computer science and mathematics? Only someone unfamiliar with computer science would make that claim. Computer science is applied mathematics.

> ... so you should acknowledge the minor correction ...

Are you familiar with the idea that, if you make an argument, the burden is yours to produce evidence for it? Computer science is applied mathematics.

> Buffet suggests (and advocates) an alternative (his #5) that is NOT fully respectful of the efficient market hypothesis.

But that's not the topic. Whether the EMH is reflected in the real market or not, the issue is whether someone can consistently beat the market averages for reasons other than chance. These are separate, independent topics.

> Buffet claims that there may or may not exist investors who have superior (or inferior) skill, but that in MOST cases the results are due to luck, and "skilled" investors are mostly indistinguishable from lucky investors. Although I have not seen you agree or disagree with this claim ...

The reason I haven't either agreed or disagreed is because there's no way to establish it scientifically, with evidence. So I disagree that Buffett can make the case, and for the same reason, I can't make the case either. That leaves us with the null hypothesis -- without evidence, the thesis is assumed to be false.

> More generally, did you notice that your top-level comment was basically saying "Warren Buffet is wrong about this aspect of investing"?

If you invent quotes for people, we won't get anywhere. I can only say that Buffett can't make his case, and I have said that. That leaves us with the default scientific position -- the null hypothesis. Without evidence, an assumption that a thesis is false.

> ... some of the minor details of your points are technically wrong or confusing ...

Locate one, but be prepared to offer evidence.
Ok, Mac-head. I concede.
There was a local florist where I used to live that was frustrating (but really, most of them I've used over the years have been).

My wife was not well, I was out of town, and I called to have flowers delivered. I asked for an extra, and got it, but had to talk to the owner, and it was like twisting their arm to get this done.

I asked for a small box of chocolates and a DVD to be included (I asked for a specific DVD). I offered to pay extra - the DVD was $19 - and I didn't care on the size of chocolates - just something. I kept getting "but we don't do that". I begged and pleaded. Got the owner. "But we don't do that". I said - "look, charge me an extra $50, just please go buy that DVD and include it with the flowers". They finally did, I think I got charged $35 extra for the DVD and chocolates, and it made her day.

This was well before streaming home video stuff, and my wife had hurt her foot - not able to drive anywhere for a bit.

I was shocked at how hard it was to get a local florist to even consider adding in real extra value-add gifts. Throwing in a "romantic/comedy DVD of the season" option and tacking on an extra $25 or so seemed like "found money" imo. Yes, I'm not a florist by trade, but I've seen that there's a lot more that could be done.

Throwing in a movie and some candy and microwave popcorn along with the flowers seems tantalizingly easy to do. Heck - why didn't video stores deliver back in the day? (maybe some did?)
Bad example. This has been an open secret for quite a long time, and the final revealtion surprised only the "I want to believe" crowd
I mostly agree. But "playing the market" as its normally understood involves trying to make money on the market within a fairly short time frame, by buying low and selling high. I believe Buffett has many times said that the market is a casino in the short run (playing the market) but becomes an accurate "weighing machine" over the long run (buying and holding for five, ten years or more). E.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aYEOsZgRm8 So in that sense Buffett does think "playing the market" is a loser's game (that's played by "speculators", not "investors"), though I don't think that's specifically addressed in the linked letter.
With so many HTML junkyards out there - it's a de-facto standard.
Same with XML.
The moment I saw XML's <tag>...</tag> - I asked - why don't we just use <tag>...</> to save 15% of world's bandwidth?

No one was able to answer this question.
That appears to be a subscription service mostly? I didn't see any mention of same day on demand delivery. I may have missed it, though.
How was the process?
there's the scroll bar...
Yep. Same here. I only get Japanese characters.
I currently scan the entire internet once a week using a re-implementation of scanrand I did myself. (and will be switching to Zmap shortly)

There aren't as many people using it as you'd think because 1) finding a working download link is quite an exercise and 2) compiling paketto is near impossible except on Dan's machine. :)
After a chain of events I lost $12 million of equipment
Without knowing what their exact boundaries are your numbers don't look great. Most people here seem to have Airs, but to compare with my Pro:

730 cycles, 92% capacity after 27 months (mid-2011).
> haliax is pointing out that 100 fund managers may not be an unbiased sample.

My point is that, of 100 typical managers, 50 will beat the averages. Not any specific set of 100 managers, just typical ones.

> ... and (2) that 100 is a sufficiently large sample to overcome the error bounds.

You're completely missing the point that it's not about any particular set of 100 managers -- they're just a representative sample meant to turn the results into convenient percentages.

A: "Take a random selection of 100 typical fund managers. Now ..."

B: "Wait! Which specific managers are you thinking of?"

A: "No, the 100 managers are meant to represent perfectly typical, average managers, and only to be able to use the number 100, in order to discuss the outcome in terms of percentages."

B: "Oh, umm, okay."

A: "How about I say 'Take a typical set of 1024 managers. Given that, 512 of them will beat the averages.'"

B: "Wait, where's my calculator? Is 512 half of 1024? Why are you trying to trip me up with oddball numbers?"

A: "Q.E.D."

> The "correct" thing to say is...

The correct thing to say is what I said.
From what I can see, it looks like there are a series of rollers that rest on the paper, which allows the printer to pull the top sheet with little, of any, friction.
Executive Order 12333 — US intelligence activities: Collection Techniques
This is beautiful.

I love the idea of an inverted printer, where instead of paper moving through the printer, it's as if the printer is moving through the paper.
They are not the same org?
This is great, looking forward to more!

A bug: If it reaches the end, then clicking in the score will move the pointer there and start scrubbing but no sound is played. The play/pause button behavior becomes a bit funky as well.
Little friction against the device itself, but not the other sheets beneath it. The weight of the device + completed sheets on top will add to the friction between the next sheet and those below it.
I think this is a great idea. But considering how I have enough trouble being in a non-sealed elevator going at only a few feet per second for a few minutes, I don't think I'll be able to tolerate something like this unless they tranquilize people like me at the station.
It's not so much that as that I don't see the structure of the relationship being entirely consistent with the intended outcome.

There's no expression of trust on the part of the business partner when putting up the money is the sole basis for having final say on technical matters. Don't get me wrong, it might work out fine with the right individual.

But there are two other reasonably likely scenarios:

() A gung-ho technical person who becomes frustrated by having their ideas and opinions overuled by a non-technical person. And in the original scenario, the non-technical person is not working flat out to make the product take off.

() A not so gung-ho technical person who is mainly collecting a paycheck until the money runs out. This may be a later edition of the first or someone who comes onboard with that idea - keeping in mind that the business partner plans on spending their time at another job.

It's not the money, it's the passive model of investment that to me makes success look less likely. Or to put it another way, why wouldn't the sort of technical person who can conjure up a product out of a text file want to team up with a business person who will sell a million of them before a line of code is written?

Or at least a business partner who is trying to sell a million of them before any code is written?

Being in it together really requires being in it at the same time or a track-record of trustworthiness.

Good luck.
Play Missile Command on any YouTube video page by typing "1980"
All I'm thinking is:

What diploma?
> I think the point of the article is that is difficult to distinguish between luck and skill.

Not difficult, impossible. It cannot be established scientifically. No control group, no meaningful controls.

> Following your example I can imagine that there is a mechanism (I wouldn't call it surefire) that can improve your odds.

And people who write worthless "secrets of the winners" books rely on this very assumption (and on the stupidity of the average investor). If such a thing existed, one of two things would happen:

1. It wouldn't remain secret for long, therefore everyone would practice it, therefore it would become the new average market performance. End result: no secret.

2. It would remain secret in perpetuity, the owner(s) of the secret would use it to either drain the market of its capital or foment public doubt about market fairness, as a result of which businesses would stop using the equities market to raise capital. End result: no market.

So the "secret" would either destroy the market, or the market would adjust to its existence in a way that everyone would have the same opportunity. Therefore there is no secret.

> I don't think anyone is arguing that there is a deterministic legal system to beat the market. Only that some people may be skilled enough to beat the market.

I hope you now see that this is impossible.
The weird thing is that it looks like he's running, and he doesn't show up in any of the other pics.
I've set my thinkpad to 'start charging' when below 40% & 'stop charging' when it reaches 60%. I use it with AC power plugged in while the battery floats ~40-60% charge level. Once a month I power cycle it to re-calibrate the battery. It's been going good for the past 3 years. Shows 500 cycle count with 80-90 hrs/week usage & ~80% capacity.
I love Beatrice too.

har har har.
Full of bugs, only canvas draws correctly on mozilla. But I admire how you can get a product online like that and I can't because I'm a perfectionnista.
It looks like this is just a design concept (not a prototyped device). In addition to the initial friction issue, the printed page would not be able to be placed on top of the stack after it got too tall. So, nice looking, but unlikely to be very practical.
I have been following FTL developments at NASA with interest, but this article is shit. Flagged.
> It doesn't have to be a 'system' that's replicable. It might just be on a case-by-case basis.

Sure, no problem with that. Case by case -- half the time it works, the other half the time it doesn't. Sum the outcomes and you have average performance, and you might as well have invested in an index fund and caught up on your reading.
The professors are interior designers.
Nanoscale structures called metatronic circuits
But sometimes, you do know them, and it's like HOLY SHIT SMALL WORLD. I was on a subway in Paris one night with two friends. A group of (American) girls heard us speaking english, we got to talking, they found out where I went to school (Penn State, huge effin uni), and were like "do you know so and so". Turns out so and so was my roommates ex-girlfriend. Small world, eh?
work in the multiplicative group modulo p for prime p > 2^32, find an appropriate generator, and iterate by multiplying with the generator mod p

Is that the same as a PRNG with period 2^32-1? I thought I read that idea in the Warhol Worm paper, but looking again it uses a block cipher so I was probably thinking of the Witty worm.
"Plain looking" can be true or false? By what standard? It's also an opinion that the way a person acts is due to demographics. tl;dr: neither true nor false, just a belief, a value judgement.

Some people in this world would definitely say that it's not sexist to grade women on appearance, and in fact it is a value judgement held in positive regard in many parts of the world. That there is a class distinction that implies standards of behavior follows from this.
I could see a way where if the device was fitted with springs of some sort it would be able to "stand" or lift itself to prevent that kind of friction (of course there would be a limit to the size of the paper stack on top, but you could probably design it / fit it with springs such that the limit is practical (and far more than the amount of paper someone would logically use for this)

This is freaking beautiful. I hope it can work.
Think You Might Like "Jobs"? Think different
Probably because the author's first name is Zakir.
Techdirt has been a consistently better aggregator of “anti-establishment” tech news than NBC, and does do original reporting as well. I'd guess the submitter has an RSS feed or bookmark there.