skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Thanks!. Your comment gave another idea. What if I take a cocktail recipe as a vote. I take all ingredients and create generate all possible pairs. Look for how many times the pair appear in cocktails. Treat those as votes. More votes means they go together really well.
That's useful feedback! It depends on whether your users can convert automatically based on information from an email. It takes some domain expertise to describe potential users, so we prefer to leave that to clients. We might step in that direction at some point -- I'd like to see us positioned somewhere between Adwords and true outsourced sales.
Fake science for the masses

Older article on the issue -

"The coming centuries may see more ocean acidification than the past 300 million years."

https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Caldeira_...

It seems to me, 300 million is used a lot since it's the period scientists can measure?

Probably it's gotten caught up in some sort of quote that we are heading to a time where it's higher than 300 million.

It wasn't hard to intuitively know the article is dodgy, it jumped between acidification, to pollution, to over fishing, not really related topics.
California allows undocumented migrants to obtain driver's licences
Its an anlogy, not a syllogism. It would seem enought that Co2 may be correlated with breeding. Which may or may not be technically correct, but its at least a coherent thought.
HN recognizes if a link has been posted before so if you submit your homepage once that's it.

I've run two Show HN posts for my new project (https://wecombinate.com) and had zero replies or even visits from both. It seems you need to have a group of people upvote early on otherwise you'll disappear very quickly.
I'm the parent of two toddlers and I can see how it happens. It's not quite as serious as leaving them in a hot car, but I've been in a rush and so distracted by work or life that I've put them in the car and driven away without remembering to fully buckle them into their carseats.

Realizing that you've potentially endangered them is an awful feeling, and a stark reminder to slow down and remember what's important in life.

Luckily they've gotten precocious enough to yell at me "Daddy I'm not buckled" so it doesn't happen any more.
Same thing Google does. Targeted Ads. Is Google bullshit?
Thanks for that, it sounds like there's potential for getting in a bit of a hassle. Hopefully it will be fine, thanks again.
Great read; inspiring. Alright, now let me see if my hn karma changed while I was reading.
Rethinking Ray Ozzie
Right. Bosses in the government are not any more amused by these legislative shenanigans than we the people are. The more things that are broken, the louder people will complain and the quicker the bosses will get their funding back.
Wow: saddest most uninformed blog post on hacker news yesterday. Personal story is "uninformed"? Sounds a little totalitarian. I think this blog post is uninformed and quite out of line.
How is the EME slope any more slippy than it is right now with Flash or Silverlight? Both allow sites to serve code in an obscured and non-open way. And yet no one serves a Flash-only or Silverlight-only site.
It doesnt , it's basically a fullscreen browser tab.
That's moderately horrifying. It's also a sad reminder - so many of us go through life having to chisel and scrape that kind of affection out of the world. I can see how having it freely given could be very enticing.
You do realise that 'mobile' now accounts for > 50% of pageviews?

Which means that your ad vendors actually about HTML5 support. They just do not know it yet.
Not yet, they said it would be released in late October. Paper is here: http://nlp.stanford.edu/~socherr/EMNLP2013_RNTN.pdf
The Unladen Swallow project (faster Python, including an LLVM based JIT) found that LLVM wasn't really designed as a universal JIT compiler, or at least not one that was useful for languages such as Python. That was one of the reasons why they eventually stopped work on the project (although a lot of the non-LLVM work they did was still very good an useful and so the project as a whole was not wasted).

The Pypy developers (another Python with JIT project) looked very, very, carefully at every available JIT out there, and finally ended up writing their own. It was the only way that they could get something that would do what they needed. The results of doing that was performance that was far superior to what the Unladen Swallow project got when using LLVM.

It sounds very simple when you look at it from a distance. "We need a JIT, here's a JIT, let's use it." Then you find out that just because something is called a "JIT" doesn't mean that it will be of any use to what you are trying to do. The subject area is very complex and there will probably never be a universal solution.

What I could see the GCC JIT mode being useful for is things like generating certain critical portions of a program under programmer direction. That is, it would make a nice library that you call to generate very optimized code for specific functions or modules. A good example is how GCC is currently called in the background by a number of Python libraries which dynamically generate C code and compile it for faster execution. Being able to do this more directly via a JIT process could be very convenient. This is perhaps the sort of application that the author has in mind.
This is certainly true, but amount matters. If its 300 years then we have a problem, if its 3000, maybe not so much. Articles like this do not help give perspective.
Probably related to this:

http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=358
Aaaaaaand the W3C is now officially irrelevant.
This'll get turned into a multi series drama on HBO.
The author seems to take a one-dimensional approach to these determinations. There's much more at play than raw dollar amounts for running servers. While some commenters might see these web shutdowns as part of a larger strategy to win a political fight, they're overlooking some very basic and practical reasons.

Agencies are responsible for the content of their websites. If the agency is shut down, there is legally-significant content online that is under no chain of accountability. Every web page on a government site is a potential liability. In the normal course of business (e.g. when the government is not shut down), every piece of content goes through some sort of approval process, or at least someone can be held accountable for it.

Imagine a law is amended, but FCC.gov still has guidance published on the pre-amended statute. Kind of a crude example, but I think it highlights the problems of not going whole-hog on shutting down these websites.

Moreover, it's pretty difficult to not defer to an agency's judgment when they have been winnowed from ~1700 employees to something around 12.
So this is a good idea, until the Fed decides that it's not a good idea.
If we did this, 4chan would rig the votes and take over the world. ;-)
I think that verifiability is an important security benefit from publishing source code and I hope to talk more about that soon.

Some people think that publishing source code is first and foremost a way to get other people to collaborate on its development, not to ensure any particular rights or knowledge or safety for people who end up using the software. For example, you could imagine a consortium of people who each make a super-proprietary locked-down thing and they publish and collaborate on the code of some libraries that their respective locked-down things need. They actively do want other locked-down thing makers to comment on how to make the code better and contribute patches, but they actively don't want customers to use that knowledge to make the thing less locked-down (or to be able to verify what it does or doesn't do).

This is a situation that we often encounter in the real world, and in fact some of the locked-down thing makers are even surprised when people say the contrast in their behavior with respect to these audiences is strange or hypocritical, because they didn't know or didn't remember that other people think software freedom is partly or mainly meant to benefit users.
> The purpose of the shutdown is not just to save money

You write like there's some grand unified purpose to this whole thing. There isn't. This is the natural consequence of not setting a budget, which many different sides had different purposes to not set.

Ostensibly, the consequences of a government shutdown are, supposedly, lower FUNDING to pay for some government service. Given this, it would seem that HIGHER spending would seem ridiculous. Financial motivations in cases like this are supposed to override anything else. The motivations are clearly NOT financial.

So the belly-aching about how A and B are suffering because of a lack of funding is not necessarily true. It could also be to make this situation seem worse than it is. In public discourse, the squeaky wheel gets the funding.
A similar incident happened a couple of days ago [1]. Unfortunately, the baby did not survive despite attempts to resuscitate him.

[1] - http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/baby-boy-f...
Content keys do not have to be shipped with the browser. They are provisioned on a per-user and possibly even per-use basis for the specific content.
It’s easy to imagine how this might often be the case: if the “inessential” public-facing Web pages are hosted on the same systems you’ve got to keep up and running for other “essential” back-end purposes [...]

Does this not then constitute an information leak about what seemingly "inessential" public-facing sites are housing "essential" services (that perhaps should not be on public-facing hosts)?
> I wonder if the code they release will include some version of the data from the mechnical turk project.

I don't know if the "raw" data from MTurk is included in the data set. But at least the finalised data has been released for quite some time now.

http://nlp.stanford.edu/~socherr/stanfordSentimentTreebank.z...

As for the value of the data, I have heard numbers around 10,000 USD. But I have little more than academic gossip to back these numbers up.
Not sure if I'm excited that the first time I've seen an alum from my college (Claremont McKenna) at the top of Hacker News it is Randy Kraft...
All it takes is reading the wikipedia article...

But yes it was and no it didn't. That's always bugged me about the Sokal affair and people holding it up as an example of anything. While the editors did publish the paper, which is a basic problem in and of itself, they claim they wanted big revisions that Sokal refused to make, but then they published it anyway. Since the whole point of that journal at the time was to get wide-ranging viewpoints, I think there is some merit in the editor's claim of a simple betrayal of trust: they assumed Sokal was being straightforward, and the worst that would come of publishing his piece would be a bunch of letters telling him to stick to his day job. In any case, I don't know if we'll ever a definitive story of what really happened, how carefully they vetted the paper, etc.

Regardless, the journal he submitted the paper to was not peer reviewed, so the whole thing demonstrates nothing about the peer review process.
> Rappers don't know and don't care about the people who started or who are behind those brands

This is...incredibly not true. The crossover between basketball and rap and hip-hop is significant and the cultural awareness of, uh, Michael Jordan is certainly there. Kendrick Lamar, Kurtis Blow, Kanye West, Jay-Z, Drake--the group of major rappers who've written songs about Jordan (Lamar) or have written songs that draw heavily from basketball and its history (the rest of that list) is huge.
> The entire point of Lavabit was keeping communications secure. It was in fact designed to have the property that you and the government would have liked to "modify" away.

I truly don't see how that's pertinent. So because Lavabit designed a "secure" service and promised their customers secure communications, their customers, and by extensions Lavabit, are shielded from the judicial process of the country Lavabit resides in? Even in cases when they have the technical capability to comply? Seems a bit much.

Lavabit claimed security, not shielding from the judicial process (they complied with other warrants in the past, supposedly). And if they did claim shielding from the judicial process, then their product did a shit job of backing it up. That they could even technically comply with a warrant makes them just as vulnerable to the judicial process as every other service. How is that the government's fault?

> If you want to outlaw safe vehicles, do that in an open session of Congress. Search warrant proceedings are not the proper fora in which to legislate what sorts of online services are legal.

This statement is ridiculous. The search warrant process is authorized by Congress and issued by the judicial branch. It's no secret. Should every search warrant be run through Congress?

> It's clear that we have different thresholds for the concept of evil.

At least we can agree on that. As I've said, I'm a Snowden supporter, and I've contributed to the Lavabit defense fund. But federal agents investigating a national security leak by issuing a search warrant to a provider located in the continental US whose only means of complying is unlocking their entire service (whose fault is that?) doesn't fit the bill of "evil" for me.

At this point we're probably talking in circles though, so I'll leave my thoughts there.
How to select data in PHP
Indies On SteamOS, Pt 2: Linux, The Controller
you misunderstood the transactions in question. They weren't whether McCain would win the 2008 election, they were whether he would win the nomination.

You're right, I hadn't grasped this from reading the article. However, a key point I made still stands:

my reason for selling was as stated: the contract was basically settled, I just wanted to avoid him keeling over and costing me my well-earned gains.

And the reason you were able to do this is that there were people willing to buy your bets; in other words, that there were people who evaluated the risk of him keeling over differently than you did. If there weren't any such people, you would have had to bear that risk yourself.

In other words, the actual bet in question was not whether McCain would "win" the nomination; that had already been settled--he had enough delegates to guarantee that outcome (and the prediction market could just as easily have been based on the bet "will McCain lock up enough delegates to guarantee the nomination"). The bet was whether he would actually become the nominee, i.e., would actually go through the formal procedure that made him the official candidate; that was the outcome that triggered the payoff, and you did not get paid based on that actual outcome; you got paid based on other people's estimate of the probability of that outcome being different from yours. You were only able to sell your bets because your estimate of the probability of that outcome was different than that of the people who bought your bets, based on your higher estimate of the risk of him keeling over; if everyone in the market had estimated the risk of him keeling over as being higher than your estimate, no one would have bought your bets at any price you were willing to sell them for.

In other words: you did not "win" the actual bet in question, because you did not hold your bet until the actual outcome was triggered--if you had, you would have won more money than you actually received. If you had correctly predicted that he would not keel over before formally becoming the nominee, you could have gotten that extra money yourself. Of course I understand why you didn't do that: you were willing to give up a few cents on the dollar as a hedge against risk. But that doesn't change the fact that you did do it, and therefore you did not win by making a correct prediction about the actual outcome.
Coding in the Open
the article writer's positions on Obama and McCain that he discusses in the text were to win the nomination, not the general election

You're right, and I hadn't grasped that from the article. See my response to the article's author upthread.
If the author is to be believed, the flaws of the paper were numerous, obvious, and fatal. Meaning, easy to spot in five minutes by any reader with a bit of domain knowledge. Those are not subtle traps.

Now, while I understand how journals can assume good faith, they should never assume competence. They are supposed to make sure the paper is good, dammit! If they let that one slip through, they are bound to let genuine fatal mistakes slip through.

No matter what, papers should go through actual peer review before publication. This study, if conducted the way I have read it, is solid evidence that many journals do not do that. They broke trust in the first place.
What "landongn" describes, where certain data 'score all over the place' - i.e. where the model tells you it is uncertain about some phrases, and where those phrases are subsequently manually annotated by a human, sounds like 'Active Learning'. [0]

If the model is telling us that it is uncertain about specific examples, and would like more information on examples like those, that's active learning.

That sounds different from what you describe in your post, depending on what you mean by 'sometimes the model is wrong, so we hand the data off to a human being'.

It depends on how we know the model is wrong.

If we know its wrong on a test datum, which is part of a big set of test data humans labelled without any input from the model, then its standard 'supervised learning'.

If, instead, the model is 'wrong' because it expresses uncertainty for particular test data, then, if we go and have a human classify that data it was uncertain about, and retrain the model, then we are probably doing Active Learning. In this case, the model/system is (at least partly) guiding the learning process.

Reinforcement learning is neither of these things exactly - it describes a more general framework, where the system is getting rewarded based on how well its performing.

Lets say you want to choose 1 of 5 labels for each datum.
In supervised learning, the system gets given the right label for each training example.
In a RL setup, it might be shown an example, have to guess a label, and maybe be told if it got the right guess, but if it guessed wrong, just told it was wrong - but not necessarily told what the right answer was.

There's a little fuzziness to how all these terms are used in practice.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_learning_(machine_learni...
Sick and tired of the idea it's ok to sell a vulnerability wherever the money is.

The idea that money always overrules morals is a deep and pervasive belief in the business culture of this country. The vuln market is no exception and is a symptom, not a cause.

When is the computing community going to step up and put an end to morally wrong behavior like this?

About the same time any other industry puts an end to the morally wrong behavior they engage in (read: never).

Or, to push the same buttons as above but in another direction: when did everyone become so entitled to getting exclusive access to a bug/security report about them instead of competing for it in the market like anyone else?
I understand that empirically it seems that having a co-founder decreases your chances of failure. Others have already done a great job at explaining why.

I'd be interested however in understanding how, empirically, single founders with a couple talented contractors/employees compare to the potentially more risky duo founder relationship. Or is this simply not the kind of team YC would get behind?
More facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Steven_Kraft
This is interesting but is there proof that these bitcoins have been seized? Is it related to Silk Road being shut down? I feel like I missed something.

Also it looks like there is a typo in the title, the linked site says that the transfer is for 27,365 bitcoins. Still a crazy amount.
Your crawls probably only surface people who create tweets. Lots of people read twitter on any given day without creating anything.
Because I was being 100% serious.
Healthcare.gov however is still running (sort of, signups are dead today due to the crush of traffic). It's ironic that the site at the center of the shutdown is running but many of the other gov sites are shutdown.
Ask HN: Borrow Google glass.
Is there any chance i could borrow google glass for my convocation ?, I don't mind paying for it. i only need the google glass for roughly a week. Starting 14 Nov to 21 Nov. Please pm me your offer.I'm in Malaysia.
Thanks
How dumb is it to pay $150 for a Raspberry Pi?
Seems like a logical approach to me. Also once you get the data set built you could algorithmically generate new recipes. If one type of machine learning algorithm generates more pleasing new cocktails you have a winner. Just don't do all the testing yourself. We don't want to read the HN post explaining how 'sparkpluglabs' ended up in detox from unit testing!
>And herein lies the problem with tech stock IPOs of this generation

Of this generation? If anything there are far fewer money bleeding IPOs than there were in the late 90's.
What does she possibly have to gain by responding to such crticism? Regardless of the situation, her best move is to ignore it and move on with her life.
What is this message board you talk of? I might be interested in lurking.
People are presumed innocent in the criminal justice system. It's also important that the press be cautious about drawing conclusions. But individuals uninvolved in the case are not required to genuflect to a presumption of innocence.
Yeah, and this is why I desperately need to take a machine learning class. Why oh why did I finish undergrad in seven semesters instead of eight?
I think radioactive garbages in Pacific ocean from Fukushima would do better job.
I don't understand the plans.

The cheapest plan, for instance, is $800/mo for 20hr/week of lead research. Are these 20hr/week time that a real employee of LeadGenius is using to my services?

If that's the case, it translates to $1600/mo for 40hr/week -- a 20k salary for the employee?
makes no difference , you'll still need to install some 3rd party plugin or buy authorized hardware in order to run the media.

Doesnt change anything for the client.

The providers will swap an object tag for a video one ,that's what it is all about.

It's basically a Flash or Silverlight for video and sound only.
I'm not sure if this anything to do with why this is on HN but Jay Roberts is Jason Roberts's brother (Jason Roberts is co-host of the TechZing podcast).
Because I think "protect" is propaganda in this context. Digital restrictions management is harmful to users.
Customers requested it, actually, even knowing that it'd use more time. It's more useful at the end of the day anyway -- lead data is often not contact information, but a good body of background information that can be used to determine if someone's a good fit for a particular product or service.
Looks like not even adobe does the daily update / reboot requires when adobe software is installed.
if it is the FBI, at least they are making it easy to track.
I find the service interesting. But, I suppose lead research is done through outsourcing somewhere cheap because at 800$ per month for 20hrs/week, how can they make a profit? It amounts to about 10$ an hour.