skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

My point is that many OECD states are (greatly) increasing the portion of the healthcare market controlled by the government, and few if any are decreasing it substantially (or at all). I define 'destroying' the private market in healthcare as the government taking over previously private activities, in effect nationalizing the industry.
Is Google Play in PDF? I think the link from OP offers ebook in PDF, which I can read from iBooks.

Oddly enough, it's not published on iBooks.
Article has moved; new link at http://www.fastcompany.com/3022891/innovation-agents/exclusi...
I've been forced to do this by a publisher and did not feel good about it at all. To be fair, though, it was a quick port of a flash game that was completely unplayable on the 3gs and not fun on the 4.

A quick search will bring up tables of which device requirements will disallow which devices, so it's not an unheard of practice. But nobody is excluding potential customers out of spite, it's because the older harware genuinely can't handle the apps.
Is that still correct for iOS5 and newer? I know I never solved that to anything remotely close to satisfaction when checking it out last time for iOS6
MightyName
I have a reference - contact info in profile.
How Interviewers Know When To Hire You In 90 Seconds
this seems like the type of thing teacher's unions would squash/render useless quickly. Anything that tracks data as a function of teacher performance would not be allowed, severly limiting the usefulness of the software. I HOPE HOPE HOPE I am wrong, can anyone explain to me why I am wrong?
One of my personal rules for communication is that high-level language is a killer. Whenever conflict or confusion arises, high-level words need to be abandoned in favor of precision if the communication is to go anywhere. This is very similar to the article's examples of replacing a word with it's definition.

I believe that high-level language is the root of many philosophical/political disagreements because people simply use different definitions. When disagreeing parties avoid high-level labels (like "justice", "bad", "fair", and a plethora of others) and instead say exactly what they mean they can much more quickly realize exactly what they disagree and agree on. Arguments over high-level concepts rarely go anywhere useful because there's no substance to argue over.

> The illusion of unity across religions can be dispelled by making the term "God" taboo, and asking them to say what it is they believe in; or making the word "faith" taboo, and asking them why they believe it.

This is very true, and I can't believe some religions that people think are the same. They happen to use the same words, like "God", "heaven", etc, but the concepts are completely different and incredibly incompatible.

High-level language is very useful for quick communication. But it's horribly misleading and is a complete road-block to communication when people have different definitions or ideas in mind. This seems really obvious, but it's sad how much religious, philosophical, and political discussions only center around high-level language.
Note that minimum income is a very different (and to my mind far worse) proposal. If you make $Y and $Y < $X, you're paid $X - $Y. Which means there's no reason to work unless someone is offering you a wage above $X.
- I wish you the best.
Benchmark Analysis of PHP Array Loops
Who says reparations are linked to "affirmative action"?

Here's a simple case of a prima facie case for economic reparations in the form of unemployment benefit: the government actively manages economic policy to ensure unemployment doesn't fall so low as to stimulate wage inflation. That's not speculation or conspiracy theory; it's explicitly stated as the objective of effective monetary policy in the economic literature. People are unemployed as a direct result of a policy aimed at ensuring macroeconomic stability. Therefore, some form of unemployment insurance is justified (as, for that matter, is expecting the beneficiaries of said economic stability to subsidise it)

NB. I realise that some libertarians would prefer a "gold standard". But the logical consequence is the same: an arbitrary decision of the government to restrict the currency supply[1] in the interests of preventing inflation causes people to be unable to find work for a period of time. Ceteris Paribus, many _more_ people since credit would be a lot more expensive under a gold standard

[1]in this case to "the quantity of gold held in the Fed", which actually sounds a lot less "free market" than the status quo of to "the amount of credit private banks are willing to supply given the Fed's interest rate"
I would echo this sentiment. Not only are the columns intentionally mis-labeled but they also appear to be computed, meaning some of the variance inherent to the original sample will have been lost.
1. someone in China downloads bitcoin client or opens online wallet, and someone from another country sends them bitcoins for service or anther reason.

2. mining.
Correct, no drinks right now. Might offer as an add-on in the future.

We're really striving for "feel good" meals that fill you up, but don't slow down your brain for the rest of the day.

Minimum order is only 2 meals, but we charge a bit more ($8.50) if you only have a few people.
$7 will buy you a couple tacos and a bottle of Coke at the taco truck. $7 is a pretty good price for lunch.

Now, given that it's for startups in San Francisco, the demand for local-sourced organic quinoa meat substitute may make $7 harder to do.
> Does anybody know why JIT isn't done in classically AOT compilers?

One (admittedly incomplete) answer is that AOT compilers try to replicate many of the wins that JIT compilers get from runtime specialization by including a profile-guided optimization pass instead, which specializes ahead of time, using data logged from what you hope is a representative example of runtime.

Good JIT compilers can do things like optimizing fast paths, discovering latent static classes in highly dynamic languages, etc. These kinds of optimizations can also be done AOT, if you have good profile data and suitable analysis & optimization passes.

The pros/cons of each approach are not entirely resolved, and you will find varying opinions. Part of the problem with making a direct comparison is that there are large infrastructural inconveniences with switching from one approach to the other. A good JIT is a quite pervasive beast, not something you can just tack on as a nice-to-have. PGO is somewhat infrastructurally easier to add to an existing AOT compiler. Therefore, if you can do most of what JIT does via PGO, you would prefer to do that, were you the maintainer of an existing AOT compiler. Whether you really can is afaik a bit of an open question.
We're still getting settled in SF, but I'll add Seattle to the list :)
For a detailed analysis of where North Korean prison camps are thought to be located see http://freekorea.us/camps/

Some of the camps are massive, for example Camp 22 is estimated to be 225 sq. km and holding 50,000 people [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea#Int...
For anyone who is interested on reading more about North Korean prison camps, Blaine Harden's 'Escape from camp 14' is an incredible read.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11797365-escape-from-cam...
37S really loves job boards, this makes what 3? 4 now?
I don't quite understand what you mean. Message me? diran@dirango.com
Not many places. You can get a good Bahn Mi in the inner sunset for < $5. Also, Mehfil in SOMA has a $5 lunch special, but it's not a balanced meal.
Nope. Me and my Dad did tests at 23andme and a British university lab and according to the 23andme test i'm not a family member of well.. myself (nor my dad). If a test is not good enough to predict family members or even the same person i would not hold any of their other 'conclusions' in high regard either.
Nonsense.

I'll put aside a host of successful companies over the last 14 years that have been quite successful pursuing similar businesses.

Instead I'll challenge your assumption that the (enormous) efficiency gains you get from Clever result in higher prices for anyone. This is only true if the integration was otherwise free for the people selling products to schools.

It's not. It's actually incredibly expensive to perform these integrations on an ad-hoc basis. I'd bet this solution ends up cheaper for everyone.

I guess you could argue the downside of there being fewer programmer jobs available since people are having to do less work. That's a bummer I guess.
The simple solution to that is to make the Basic Job worse than other jobs - for example reduce the pay to $7.00/hour and don't make them easy jobs. Then any private sector job will be preferable.
It still blows my mind that they didn't at the very least make Metro optional for Professional and Server SKUs. Or, better yet, off by default unless the setup detected a device with a touch panel.
Quite ironic, isn't it, how "abuse@example.com" is a conduit for abuse?

Spammers effectively killed that RFC.
I built a 4 bit microcontroller the same way around 2000. We flashed the gates to an Altera EPROM and other than external memory chips, the state machine, ALU, and other sub systems were assembled using logic gates we burned. We supported 16 instructions and could access 16 words of memory. That was enough to code a "password" based security system that would either grant access by raising an external line or it would output an alarm state if the code was invalid. As I recall it could only handle about 25Hz max. Still one of the most influential projects I worked on in college.
This is definitely not usable as an early intro to CS book, as it's pretty dense. There's a wide variety of introductory material that you can pick from, depending on your interests (what kind of stuff are you interested in doing). But TAOCP is aimed at someone a bit more advanced. Since you have a math background though I think you could give it a shot and see how far you get.
Amazon Workspaces: Amazon launches cloud desktop app for iPad
> I left unstated the fact that many OECD governments are greatly increasing their roles in healthcare, because I thought it was readily apparent. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

It wouldn't change the basic problem; you first started with the claim that public health care usuually means destroying private health care and have progressed to define "destroying" private health care as government either not decreasing (your penultimate post) or increasing (your last post) its role in health care.

Which means that, stripped of the peculiar definition of destruction, your claims is that public health care means the government either not decreasing or increasing its role in health care. Which is trivially true, of course, but absolutely vacuous.
Gary North is Wrong: It's Not a Ponzi Scheme, Here’s Why
Can't speak to this particular book, as I haven't read it, but the best starting point for you depends what you want to learn CS for - do you want to build apps, or do research, or dabble in a bunch of topics just for the sake of learning, or something else entirely? The basics of CS "theory" (ie. Big O notation, searching/sorting algorithms, etc) are useful for any programmer - but beyond that, there are many directions you can take.
I sometimes explain it like this:

"Consider the following idea; there is a billion dollars[1] worth of Gold sitting in one mountain in the Sierra Nevada range just south of Lake Tahoe."

This isn't theory, you can read the US Geological survey reports, you can do your own assay. There is a billion dollars sitting there for the taking.

That the gold is there is the "idea", that you have to process an entire mountain (roughly 50 cubic miles of granite) to extract that gold is "execution."

Now here is the punchline. There is no place left in that mountain where you can just dig a hole and pull out a profitable amount of gold. That is because all the ideas for getting the gold out 'easily' have already been tried.

There are not a lot of genuinely new ideas, but there are new versions of an idea when things change in a fundamental way. If someone created something like a Tunnel Boring Machine which could suck in granite, pull out gold, and return the results (with equivalent structural integrity :-)) as it passed through. That would make getting the gold out of the mountain more feasible.

[1] This used to be a 100 million dollars worth of gold when it was $100/oz, now at > $1000 it is more than a billion dollars. And like oil, which cost more than $50 a barrel to remove was 'worthless' in the 70's is now profitable in the > $100 a barrel days of oil.
Hackathons are pretty bad ideas, I think. I think they've crossed the threshold into doing more harm than good. I've seen people get excluded. I've seen the same project 10x over. Further, teams are realizing they can stack the odds in their favors by having more graphic designers than programmers. For judges, prettyness outweighs function at these public, often broadcast events.
The very rigid picture of language described here and used in this and many other lesswrong essays might be compared to early Wittgenstein (Tractatus), to be contrasted with later Wittgenstein (Philosophical Investigations), alongside Derrida and a litany of less famous philosophers.

Of course, the reason Wittgenstein ultimately rejected this picture, as in rejected describing the meaning of words by formal definition, is that it doesn't accurately describe the way language is used in practice, and leads us to misunderstand situations.

"Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound?"

Albert: "no" => "Berkeleyan idealism makes sense"

Barry: "yes => "I refute it thus!" kicks rock

Of course, the question of course, is do we really want to understand the situation, or beleaguer Albert and Barry until they stop bothering us? The argumentum ad nauseum on lesswrong, by now an encyclopedia-sized blog, hints toward the latter. And there are plenty of bare, wrong assertions:

>Most philosophers would advise Albert and Barry to try to define exactly what they mean by "free will", on which topic they will certainly be able to discourse at great length.

"Most philosophers" probably wouldn't, unless you're at a conference of the Vienna circle. Philosophy admits a great many ways of approaching these questions.

If a tree is in a forest and nobody can ever hear or see it, is it really a "tree"? Is it in a "forest"? And can it really "fall"? After all, all of the trees and forests and falling we refer to in natural language (this is an empirical claim) are ultimately derived from (this is actually a propter hoc fallacy, but that's inevitable) our real experiences of trees and forests, in which falling makes a sound (this is not a definition, but a description). This is a sort of lame analysis, but at least I'm not trying to dodge the question.
- Good One.
Paywalled. But I get the impression that it's equating Bitcoin to the Tulip Mania. Again.

That argument has been discussed ad nauseam. There are plenty of sound, technical arguments against Bitcoin - some are even implemented as altcoins.
Oh yes, big park up on a hill. I was there during a four-day national holiday, and the whole place was heaving with people having barbecues and so forth.
Can you stop begging the question for just one moment so we can have a real conversation, instead of you just shoving platitudes down my throat?

A) drone strikes are just a means to an end, the end being "attack our enemies".

B) The people being attacked are classified as "enemy combatants". Do you realize what this means, as far as a "due process" conversation goes? We're not about to start trying enemy soldiers on the battlefield for breaking laws they're not even bound by (our laws). It's a perfectly reasonable conversation to talk about whether or not the people being attacked are actually "enemy combatants", but can we have that conversation, instead of you just ignoring the implications of what you're saying?

It's immensely hard to talk to people who speak in your terms, do you know that? Your cause is hurt by this behavior, not helped. If someone like me can't stand it, just imagine the feelings of someone in actual power, capable of doing something about it.
Slideshare revamp homepage
the values of bitcoin, as I understand them, are ability to quickly transfer to any location without 3rd party, predictable total quantity, and exceedingly hard to counterfeit
heartbroken, I wish we could do something over there.
China just legalized Bitcoin (for individuals and web exchanges)
Am I wrong to read the Chinese comments as essentially "We can't manipulate, control, or interfere with Bitcoin, therefore it is bad?"

That sounds like basically the entire argument in favor of BTC to me.
Been waiting for something like this!
> can anyone explain to me why I am wrong

Because you appear to misunderstand Clever.

Clever is simply replacing the existing processor of schools having to coerce CSVs and other horrible formats and them them off (over email sometimes) every time data changes.

Schools may or may not buys apps that help determine teacher performance. Clever may or may not be used for moving the data. However regardless teacher unions not be effected differently with Clever as opposed to without.
Why thank you! Once we get settled in SF, the rest of the Bay Area is next (~6 months) :D
Security Startup The First To Bring Full Document Privacy and Security to Gmail
"two operating systems: a locked down mobile-oriented one and a full-strength one for tasks that need full flexibility."

Why a locked down one? Why not a full-strength mobile OS?
> Specifically, Intel realized a while ago that "real mode" sucks and is obviously not the "real mode" that actual applications expect to run in, so they introduced v8086 mode in addition to real mode.

Actually, no.

Real mode is your shiny new i7 quad+ core CPU pretending to be nothing more than an 8086 from 1978. It does that because upon initial power up, none of the data tables required for protected mode operation are setup. So there's a chicken and egg problem at power-up. You need the protected mode data structures setup, but they are not present yet, so you have to start somewhere. Real mode on anything 80286+ is intended as a way to provide a CPU that can run a program that can setup the protected mode data structures so that protected mode can actually be entered.

v8086 mode was introduced in the 80386 chip as a way to provide hardware support for visualizing multiple real mode processes/applications while remaining in 80386 protected mode. I.e., it was some amount of hardware support for what VMWare or VirtualBox provides today. The faulting into protected mode on illegal access is/was intentional. To remain "protected" the code running in v8086 mode can't be allowed to do things that might bring the system down. So v8086 faults those accesses over to protected mode, and the assumption is that there is a protected mode handler that performs the operation (or denies it) on behalf, safely, so the system can continue to chug along. The capture/rewrite state is the intended design consequence.

An extremely good book on the 80386/v8086 design and how to make use of it is: "Advanced 80386 Programming Techniques" by James L Turley, Osborne Publishing, 1988. A very easy read, and extremely well written (assuming you can find a copy).
I was wondering if it was just deja-vu on my part.
Yeah well an answer would be to solve problems entrepreneurs have, or "selling shovels" as some might like to say.
But it's an interesting conundrum, I don't have any deep or special knowledge of some other field that would allow me to see problems faced in that industry, so going by the advice of solving my own problems translates to solve the problems of starting a business.
The metals in your smartphone may be irreplaceable
You're making the assumption here that the only way that money can be invested in a "job (and wealth) creating venture" is for the rich to make long term investments. Furthermore, you're assuming that taxing the rich more would decrease their job creation efforts and thus lead to less economic growth.

I don't think that these are valid assumptions. You're basically making a "trickle down" argument (if the rich do better, their heroic efforts will create so much economic growth that everyone benefits), and I would argue that our economic experience since 1980 argues pretty convincingly against that. In fact, studies on this topic (see http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42111.pdf) find virtually no correlation between top tax rates and overall economic growth, contrary to the belief of proponents of supply side macroeconomics.

I think the burden is really on you (or the supply side proponents) to demonstrate the truth of these long term economic growth claims, rather than just asserting them. In the absence of such proof, I would argue that concerns of economic equality and reduced suffering on the truly poor in our society far outweigh any of these nebulous assertions of promised future economic growth.

Finally, this doesn't have to be limited to a "welfare" vs. "investment" question. Government taking in money doesn't have to just give it out to people in welfare programs; it is perfectly capable of making investments too (infrastructure, basic scientific research, correcting market failures, etc.). There's no reason that a dollar invested by the government in infrastructure creates less growth than a dollar invested by a wealthy individual; in fact, given the propensity for wealthy individuals to park money in investments of questionable social value (see much of Wall Street's activities), I'd argue that the former is actually MORE beneficial to overall macroeconomic growth.
- Good List. Loved the photos as well.
Best response.
For sure. In some sectors of our society, that doesn't seem to be enough, though.
I find it heavily disturbing to blame engineers for something they had no part in deciding. If a politician/general/manager decides to use some technology for "evil" purposes (for whatever definition of evil), the responsibility should fall primarily on whoever makes that decision.

Engineers who are unhappy with how their work is used are free to quit their jobs and work on something else (in most cases). However, since they get little say in how their work is used, they should also get little responsibility over it.
Mobile App Framework for WordPress
"local-sourced organic quinoa meat substitue" hahahaha so true