skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>very many people are harmed by side-effects from expensive meds that are no more efficient (sometimes less so) than existing meds

That one is easy: don't fast track drugs that are only marginally better than their peers, if at all, because by definition they aren't as important.

I don't have as clear an answer for pregnancy, other than exempting pregnant users from the fast track approval, but I'm not sure how a slower process actually protects pregnancies in the first place.
They are as good as you could hope for a guided tour.

They get your feet wet and let you get your bearings.

But there is still a large gap between having knowledge of a language and performing synthesis with one.

It would be interesting to have a tutorial series for those that get past the syntax stage.

I could imagine being given a small problem and asked to craft a solution. Your entry could be graded, perhaps by humans, perhaps by machine analysis -- it shows how you could improve and some of the top level solutions and what make them better. If you don't meet a certain threshold, you are given another problem of the same level, rinse and repeat, until you are truly solving problems with the language of choice at a level and style that is comparable to your top rated peers.

Seems like a hard problem, but not impossible.
Doctors make mistakes, but there isn't anything preventing that in any event. In theory a doctor can prescribe any drug for any ailment (though there are lots of checks and consequences), and prescribing drugs for things other than their FDA approved use is very common[1]. You have to rely on doctor judgment at some point and efficacy trials don't substitute for competent doctors. And sometimes the whole process goes awry because a drug is approved for one problem, later becomes the only treatment for some people with a second problem, then the FDA withdraws approval because there are now better treatments for the first problem, leaving those with the second problem in the lurch.[2]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off-label_use
[2]http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/007140.html
There's some important context in the comments.
First you are lucky, then you have a network.
For some reason it is saying that my ideal weight is 265, which is about 100 pounds to many. Also, it says I should be exercising 27 hrs/wk. 4 hours of exercise per day seems unreasonable.
5 years for an analytical/clinical study for a DNA test? Absolutely in the cards. 23andMe isn't discovering new mutations that it then claims are linked to some phenotypical difference. They are going through all the SNPs that have ever been studied by someone else, testing you for it, and then telling you that "You have this SNP which is linked to clopidogrel metabolism" for example.

The study that the FDA would have required from 23andMe is to show that the genetic testing provides the correct results at the bare minimal. They would require 23andMe to quantify their actual error rate of their product in use by customers. Depending on 23andMe's claims in their 510(k) submission regarding their intended uses, then the burden of proof may go higher.

The point is that if 23andMe can't actually prove that this test result predicts elevated risk of Alzheimer's (either by their own study, or through other relevant studies) then they sure as hell shouldn't say that their test predicts Alzheimer's risk.

Case in point, clopidogrel response. The link between CYP2C19 and clopidogrel response is well studied. There are already other tests on the market based on this relationship. Given this, 23andMe would not have to prove by themselves that clopidogrel and CYP2C19 are linked, they would merely have to prove their their CYP2C19 test provided correct results.
Why Facebook and B2b marketing don't match
Yes, some of these are a bit unreasonable in the tool.
... but we really want you to drink! ;)
I am created Shiva, the Destroyer; death, the shatterer of worlds. The dead night tiger made whole by the Master of Sinanju.
Regular exercise.

I did a CS master's degree at night while working a full time job programming. After sitting 9 hours at work, I'd sit a few hours in class and then sit a few hours doing homework. After three years, I was a wreck. As soon as I graduated, a buddy of mine spurred me to join a gym with him.

Now I do heavy lifting 3 times per week and interval training 2-3 times per week. I'm not the healthiest eater (maybe I'll fix that next), but I feel great. There's something indescribably satisfying about breaking your own records.

It doesn't matter which exercise you pick. The benefit you get from doing something over nothing is enormous. The important thing is that you do something that you like enough to stick with. As a non-competitive athlete, I find that fitness is 80% attendance.
Logically, either they are:
1) Being killed off by agents representing the interests of other countries - likely aided by Indian politicians.

or

2) Being killed by India's own agents because they are suspected of leaking sensitive data and information.
IMHO, luck is only a factor in success. Failure is much more frequently pre-determined. For example, a startup with a great idea and a great execution still might fail, while a startup with a terrible idea or poor execution will almost definitely fail. I think of startups as needing to be not good but good enough: if the idea and execution are good enough, other factors start mattering. However, if they are not good enough, then no amount of luck will change that in the long run.

For example, the Color app had all the resources (funding, contacts), but the basic value proposition was just not there. They never had a chance. OTOH, Turntable.fm had a great product, but as luck would have it, they did not make it. Either the timing wasn't right or something else, but despite everything they are having to pivot.
Stop talking about the web as the future
Cyber-insecurity and Its Impact on Business
>OTOH when you look at much of the non-western world, thinking about problems with concentrated ownership in a post-scarcity society seems a million miles away from the people who still need a clean water supply and a reliable source of food.

It's really not. The pre-capitalist world had a much more egalitarian international wealth distribution, with India, for example, making up a double-digit percentage of the world GDP. These non-Western poor countries wouldn't be nearly so poor if not for the same capitalistic process that is steadily leaving the Western working classes out in the cold (and now even the Chinese working classes, as they get to be more expensive than robots or Africans).
while it's a bit of a face dive into jQuery, this is amazing.
I've got a buddy who has a mail order business, he hires people to put things into envelopes and stick on labels.

He tells me when he hires people with degrees and advanced education and stuff they tend to quit because the job is boring, as well as being poorly paid and having no career advancement opportunities.

Perhaps the job was the programming equivalent of putting things into envelopes.
How Verizon's Lawsuit Could Kill Netflix, YouTube
Ask HN:  What is your main everyday computer?
Macbook? Dell Workstation?...
PS: the only way I would see feasible would be if that person made a monetary donation to you (that money legitimately becomes your), and then you had a private contract with that person to give them shares in the company, but 1. this may run fool of the treaty laws, and 2. I doubt many investors would be willing to do that.
Ultimately both error rates matter, and are measurable. It's not necessary that these error rates are zero, it's necessary that they are measured, controlled, and acknowledged, which is what 23andMe is not doing.

Even the FDA isn't arguing that 23andMe should not offer it's service, just that it shouldn't market it. And really, given that they don't seem to be following the basic quality assurance practices of the industry, they should not be marketing at all.
Lead Generation Revisited: A Checklist for Success
Documentation, Testing, and Packaging
Thanks. I only commented because, well, there's a whole 95% of the world out there that won't know what a GPA is, and it'd be wonderful if region-specific stuff was kept out of submission comments. "Grades" is only three more characters than "GPA".
One way to look at this is that frameworks are like a mechanics shop, or a carpentry shop. They have their own work flow, their own set of tools, etc etc... jQuery and small code snippets are the tools. The hammer, the wrench. When building a site, you don't need the whole mechanic shop (most times) but you need just the hammer. Along with that, a mechanic shop isn't going to work for every case. What happens if you have a mechanic shop and now you are just doing tires. Its not a hard change, but what if instead, you are a mechanic shop, but now you have start building cabinets instead. That mechanic shop isn't going to work. You can't change the lifts to start putting cabinets together.

I think the best way to look at it, is use what you need. You don't need a 140 piece tool set to hammer a nail.
there have definitely been, uh, attempts at eugenics in the past. less sophisticated, overt attempts, but you can not remove the smell of certain things, no matter the scientific veneer pasted over them.
> It's actually kind of hard to tell -exactly- what the FDA wants without reading the original 510(k) submission

Well, you don't get this far into trouble with a regulatory agency without having a contact within the agency that you are working with. So, I'm fairly certain that 23andMe probably knows what the FDA wants, but they might disagree. I'll be disappointed in the company if they have ignored the FDA all these years when it was obvious that they'd need to have some sort of approval (even if it was an FDA acknowledgement that they didn't fall under regulation).

What I really want to know is what 23andMe's response to the FDA will be. They must have known this was coming and should have a press release today.
To echo the monkeys writing Shakespeare analogy, if a hundred startups are throwing darts at a dartboard, there's a decent chance that at least one of them will hit the bullseye.

Where network effects are involved, they may not even need to hit the bullseye - just getting closer to the bullseye than anyone else may be enough.
You can't over generalize startups like this, every startup has different obstacles a different business model, market, etc. You can't just box them and show the metrics as if they are all the same, they will learn to game your system very quickly which has them working towards a very different goal than ultimate success. Also, this system seems like an unnecessary hassle, all the time spent here will detract from the time spent creating value for the company.

I am all for a more metric based investment philosophy in the industry, revenue/profit might be a good place to start..
There's another aspect to tradeoffs where Lumiracoxib was introduced to compete with Celecoxib. Celecoxib has a known acknowledged issue where it increases the risk of heart attack although its relatively easy on the liver. Unfortunately Lumiracoxib occasionally destroys livers. So superficially you'd think having both on the market would be a great idea, because people with a personal or family history of liver disease would probably be better off with Celecoxib but people with a personal or family history of heart attack would be better off with Lumiracoxib. However, worldwide in general all the .gov disagree with me, and as the new guy on the block Lumiracoxib more or less got the boot. It never even made it to market in the USA as far as I know. Probably has something to do with relative incidence of fatality.

BTW these are not made up names although they look like it. Google them for a good time if you're bored. I'm more interested in the chemistry issues than the politics or biochemisty, so I'd be more comfortable (authoritative?) talking about the location of the methyl groups than liver toxicity, but my first paragraph has no known intentional errors (although it probably has some unintentional errors LOL).

I guess the point of this ramble is if a company exists to provide highly personalized customized services, then using a metric of "joe average" is probably not overly meaningful. The response of joe average to a disease percentage is maybe not relevant to the response of someone with a high percentage to the same result.

We have a pretty good medical system designed for joe average, and its intersection with radically personalized services is unsurprisingly going to be an epic disaster.
I'm unable to find a definitive reference, but Gary Player (golfing legend) is also attributed with the quote: "The harder I practice, the luckier I get." Perhaps that's why it was on ESPN.

Pretty sure George Simmons has this quote of Player's on one of the chapter pages in his "Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell" book.
So on one hand you are criticising a 19-year old for attempting to add value to peoples' lives without asking for anything in return, because you feel his efforts are insufficient, yet you yourself are actively refusing to bring anything worthwhile to the table.

>I think we should all spend a lot more time shooting down people who don't deserve attention.

I agree. I hope its not lost on you that this is exactly what I've been doing.

No one is above intelligent criticism, but we have yet to see any of that from you.

This is a place for people that like to build things. Having a needlessly negative attitude isn't conducive to making that happen.
I, for one, appreciate the Oppenheimer reference.
Changing the world doesn't mean changing EVERYTHING about the world, or the entire world, just a part of it. I want to make huge changes, but you also have to find a level of satisfaction in making smaller changes
"[...] we have proposed modifications to the device’s labeling that could mitigate risks and render certain intended uses appropriate for de novo classification [...]".

Incidentally, the FDA is lagging a lot of other criticism and restrictions on the 23AM service; for instance, you can't even buy the service in Maryland, which forbids any home lab testing for health conditions not administered by licensed professionals. Similarly, there have been many critiques in the media and elsewhere about the lack of rigor in the 23AM analysis, relative to the importance of some of the conditions the service is implicated in.
Sinatra Cookbook | Recipes for the Ruby framework
That could get interesting... Lots of statups are popping up everywhere with DNA related products..
If it ain't loading: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%...
Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade Lineup
Case in point, clopidogrel response. The link between CYP2C19 and clopidogrel response is well studied. There are already other tests on the market based on this relationship. Given this, 23andMe would not have to prove by themselves that clopidogrel and CYP2C19 are linked, they would merely have to prove their their CYP2C19 test provided correct results.

It's not entirely clear to me that this is what the FDA is demanding. Quantifying the lab error rate is easy, and while it's possible that 23andMe is failing to do so, it's almost like not doing that would take effort.
Any technology that tries to correlate genetic markers with behavioral characteristics will be regulated out of existence

I'm sure that there are those who would like to make all such pursuits illegal. Such a slippery slope, though. Where will that line be drawn? Which 23AM style correlation question should be illegal for inclusion in their correlation determination system?

1. Do brussel sprouts taste bitter and unpleasant?
2. Are you more active in the mornings?
3. Do you prefer blondes to brunettes?
4. Do you carry debt on your credit cards month-to-month or pay them off?
5. Did you graduate college?
6. Do your joints ache after rigorous exercise?
7. Have you ever been arrested for a felony?
8. Are people with a great deal of money more lucky than clever?
9. Does hard work tend to lead to financial success?
Hyperbole aside, if "Dr" Smacktoward did actually develop a cheap and effective therapy that actually worked, the prior restraint employed by the FDA would likely keep it off the market. The same technique employed against snake oil may also be applied to real cures that might provide cost-effective competition to multibillion-dollar blockbuster patent medicines.
I get annoyed with Siri every time I use it. Either there's a long delay and she doesn't quite understand me, or I get the response I got this morning when trying to look up directions: sorry, I'm not available right now, please try again later. It was amazing using my friend's Nexus phone and watching Google interpret what I said as I said it.
The startups I work on have that as a top level goal, absolutely and 100% - as a person, you have to focus on and reward the process as much as the potential result, or it won't work. Paul Singh is fond of saying "we always celebrate the result, but we need to celebrate the process". Putting more people in the right process will produce more positive results, even if not all those people can achieve the massive results we're learning for.
No, you're missing the point. Frameworks are abstractions the author doesn't like. Languages are abstractions the author is fine with so they aren't frameworks.
Generalized Knight's Tours
If I really had NIH syndrome, I wouldn't use any tools/libraries. On the contrary, I use them quite frequently. And I build lots of my own tools/libraries on github.

What I don't do is make intrusive assumptions about the entirety of your application's architecture simply because you include my one little focused tool.
The usual form is "readiness". According to the OED, "readyness" went out some time in the 17th century. I think terminal "y"s quite often turn into "i" when a suffix is added (ready -> readier; daily -> dailies; thirty -> thirtieth); there is probably an interesting reason for this but I don't know it.
Right.

You can manipulate what is "healthy" (min/max) in the chart by editing the end points of the green zone on the left hand side.

On the right hand side you can input your values for each metric to see it plotted on the hGraph circle + get a score.

Feel free to submit what you think is healthy in the bottom right.

Thanks for the feedback!

Eric
If you liked his first chapter, consider supporting his IndieGogo campaign for the whole book (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/neural-networks-and-deep-l...).
Author here, glad you enjoyed it :)

Definitely let me know if you have any feedback or suggestions.
With respect to to?
My general rule is that if someone wants it to work, it will. if they truly want you, they will. many people, arguably everybody, is interacting more with the mental contstructs in their head than with the physical reality and true nature of the other party. Last person with qualities X burned you? The next person you see with qualities X you'll superimpose upon them that expectation, and treat them accordingly, perhaps causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Do both parties want to come to some arrangement where they engage in mutual tangible reciprocity? Then they will. But if at least one party does not, it won't happen. The "takes two to tango" phenomenon, or the logical AND operator. But you only have control over yourself, not another party. You can try to communicate better, you can try to reduce your exposure to being falsely bitten/categorized, but you can never eliminate it. Everybody brings their own baggage to a relationship, whether personal, business or employment-wise.
Are the product shots of a big mac realistic? No, product shots are always studio lit and unrealistic, but you do what it takes to sell the product.

In this instance I agree that better (less realistic) lighting would show the product in a more favourable light. (excuse the pun).

It's not "deceiving the customer" it's just advertising, and it works, we shouldn't shy away from that because of some notion of "realism".
> You cannot automate a cold-wallet scheme.

That's why I said that it would be manual. Actually, it could be semi-automatic - a script could generate all relevant transactions, and a human operator could simply confirm them few times a day by signing the transaction with his password protected private key.

> Customers like having funds available to them immediately... among other things.

Either security or convenience. This service was aimed for merchants, which are used to get their funds from payment processors much slower than in a matter of hours.

Also, that's only one of the solutions that I mentioned. Second one, which is convenient and more secure at the same time, is using multisignature wallets.
High growth start-ups are nothing but luck. How does a company built in a garage with practically no marketing budget get such high growth numbers in the initial stages (facebook, twitter, snapchat, instagram,etc)? They manage to go viral. Pure herd mentality.
The Indian Strategic Command is led by a 3 Star General [1] so the position mentioned in the article that the police failed to find anything is load of BS. This type of stuff is taken care of by Intelligence agencies, and if there was anything extraordinary here, the repercussions must have reached this side of the border, i.e., Pakistan.

In fact, I find this whole mentioning of Pakistan twice in the article offensive. If there was even a whiff of Pakistani intelligence work here, the whole world would have erupted.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Nuclear_Command
Not having a test done could kill people, too.
Quote Investigator has tackled this one:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/07/14/luck/

The upshot is that its origin is unknown, but goes back at least to a Walter Winchell column from 1949. Gary Player used it and became associated with it. The attribution to Jefferson is nonsense, of course.
If the person does great work for those 9 months, why do you prioritize commitment?

Would you really prefer to hire someone who will perform worse but makes you feel better because you know he probably won't get a job elsewhere or have independent ideas? Isn't that the very definition of "B people hire C people"?
> You cannot automate a cold-wallet scheme.

Yes, you can. You can have the hot wallet only deal with multi-signature outputs, and have these approved by separately locked down servers running behind TOR, for example, using out-of-band mechanisms for approving transactions.
The point isn't necessarily the second test (which would have to be done). It's also the emotional distress caused by a potential false positive, which could be severe. You could imagine in an extreme case some one finding a result with a poor prognosis and deciding to commit suicide. Now, if that result was a false positive, you can see where you'd want to have some assurances that their test was accurate.

This is an extreme example, and I have no knowledge that it ever happened, but it is possible.

This might not even require a technical fix with the test, but rather a marketing and reporting of results.
I've been meaning to rip out the terrible "wordpress framework" from underneath my blog so that it doesn't suck when 20 people try to read it at once.
> (Also, secondarily, wtf mom? Where the hell else am I going to get a new-in-the-box Amiga 500 now?)

There was a warehouse full of unopened Amiga 1200's discovered recently... A new-in-the-box Amiga 500 might be hard, but there's plenty of Amiga gear for sale still, including FPGA reimplementations (with or without improvements).

Thought frankly, at this stage, if you were to consider buying one for the nostalgia, avoid machines that has not been owned by enthusiasts, as there are known problems, such as capacitors that are likely to leak acid and damage motherboard traces, so if you want to pick one up you'd do better picking one up from someone who is/has been aware of the problems and has dealt with them already...