skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I told the one guy shortly after I started working on it, just casually, along the lines of, "Hey man, I started working on this thing and I think it could be really cool." There's still no public demo up (or I'd have linked it) but I showed him my dev build as it started coming together.
So the key takeaway from that, for me, is that this research does NOT prove that we live in a "simulation".
> What this explains is "spooky action at a distance".

So what's the explanation for why almost all interactions that we perceive seem to not be spooky or at a distance?
http://www.poetryloverspage.com/poets/kipling/dane_geld.html
Yes, copyright consists of five main rights which can be transferred or licensed separately. These are:

- to produce copies or reproductions of the work and to sell them

- to create derivative works

- to perform or display the work publicly

- to sell or assign these rights to others

- to transmit or display by radio or video

So assigning Elsevier your right to (only) publish the work is legitimate.
I wouldn't say "just a tool". It's an enormously powerful tool that has backups everywhere, is not corruptible without at least 50% of the hashing power on the network, and has a consistent, decodable, verifiable format.

No registry of deeds by the government, no bank vault and certainly no website has this level of security around transactions.
are companies typically forthcoming with information about liquidation preferences? At jobs I've asked and been told the percentage of allocation, valuation, and runway, but have never asked about liquidation preferences.

Also, does it really matter if I know? A later round could have wildly different liquidation preferences that wipe out my gains, right? Though I guess that's true of dilution as well...
In general, is this a good practice? You do loose the ability to re-use endpoints on mobile.
It was discussed (in tech media) much more back then ("This is the year of Linux on the desktop!" used in a non-sarcastic manner), but you're right in that it is actually more viable today than it was then, mostly due to Microsoft shooting itself in both feet in the interim.

It is still unlikely Linux will achieve any sort of mainstream adoption (for a few reasons, including Ubuntu following a very Microsoft-like policy of going all-in with touch at the expense of UX for traditional desktop users, continued fragmentation of the various distros, etc), but at least these days it isn't nearly as surprising to learn some of your more casually tech savvy friends use Linux as it would have been back then.
IEEE used to be a quasi-viable way for an individual to get decent insurance.

I love IACR, IFCA, USENIX. I kind of wish there were a "hacker con" organization equivalent to IFCA, covering the regional cons, defcon/blackhat, etc., for things like providing a searchable repository of papers, talks, etc., and maybe a common cfp repository.
How much did your car cost, including financing? How long will you have it? What will you sell it or trade it in for? You can't forget those costs.
You're right that it's not currently displayed in this signup process, but it's not meant to be hidden. We do always show the current price on the public home page: http://safariflow.com/ ($29 USD/mo)
Yet another example of how the government can use this information to "discredit radicalizers":

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_...
The ad is excellent and speaks directly to gender stereotypification - We do this, all the time.

"She's a pushy bitch" Vs "He's a powerful leader".

Etc., etc., etc.

Now I don't know why it wouldn't show in NA, I think many would love it!

(Those that hate it should speak up, loudly and repeatedly - it makes them easier to find and whack with a cluebat.)
Yeah, matching is really a psychological trick, which is very well illustrated on a more personal level if you volunteer to answer phones at a public radio pledge drive. Someone in the room full of phone answerers will say "oh, I haven't made my own personal donation yet...I plan to donate $100. Can you announce that the next $100 caller will be matched?" You then get $200 worth of donations that you might have gotten either way, but both parties get to feel great -- one person for having their donation "doubled" and the other person for feeling like they spurred someone else to donate.
In the same way Flatland was a real life story :)
This indirectly makes a great point. While everyone's been talking about the danger of a turn-key totalitarian state -- the danger of intentional totalitarianism -- much less has been made of the danger of an unintentional totalitarian state arising from overzealous use of these systems by law enforcement. I think that's a much greater immediate risk.

Replace "DUI pattern detected" with "likely child predator." Just the insinuation that a person is a pedophile can destroy a person's life.
Have you seen this?:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_...
Well the important thing is that they found a way to abstract it with less dimensions than they previously did. This means that the previous theory had unnecessary redundancy, so the new theory has less cruft.

The hologram is their way of describing how they changed their way of thinking to land on this new theory. So they looked at the problem with the idea that the interactions in our universe could be a projection of the interactions in some other universe.

The breakthrough is that they found such a universe ours could be a projection of, and that universe can be described with less parameters than the previous leading theory.

The smaller a theory is, the more clear its foundational relationships will be, so the closer we are to actually understanding why things are like they are.

So previously we had a big question, why does our theory of everything require 18 (or more?) dimensions to describe the universe?

And now we have a slightly smaller question: Why does our theory of everything require 10 dimensions to describe the universe?
Disclaimer: I'm Anglo Saxon, and I'm also a butcher in your terms despite spending reasonable amount of time and effort working to understand this stuff.

I think the key difference here is that code actually has to compile, so no matter how clever your lispy magic gets it's still grounded by that reality. Foucault (and Barthes, Saussure et al) are unencumbered by the constraint of their prose actually having to be parseable by anyone. Their prose is better thought of as an artistic performance than a functional machine.
Aereo testing Chromecast app
Fair enough -- 'cabal' was my loaded word.

I have no problem with Fabulous Fab going to jail, although I don't thick it's quite as cut-and-dried as you imagine.

I'm familiar with the Libor scandal.

But in both those cases particular people did specific things which were actionable.
Branded Pricing Differentiation (Cheaper Is Not Always Better)
tl;dr: It depends on who does the picking and the assumptions they hold.

In both cases, the entity with less power (PhD, male) initiates the selection, and the entity (company, female) with greater power says yea or nay.

A way to work around the problem might be for the lesser entities to not pre-select their targets and instead set up an "open picking" a la recess kickball.

It does fly in the face of the philosophy of "hiring people smarter than you", not sure if an analog in the realm of personal relationships exists.
A Deep Dive into RenderScript
By integrating anything shell-based with anything web-based you encounter a plethora of potential exploits and security holes. That said, if you need to run a script that requires command line parameters, and all you have is standard in, then write a wrapper script that reads N lines of text from stdin first, then parses those lines into the parameters you require.

You have to be very conscious of input escaping and validation, though; otherwise your box will be owned in no time.
What an awesome comment. Thanks for explaining the subtleties of ISO, RSU and 83b elections. I thought I understood it all quite well but I just learned something new in point 2 above about how and why 83b elections are not applicable to ISO except for early exercise. Bookmarked for when I need a refresher on this stuff.
The author specifically claims that to understand bitcoin usage, you only need to look at the trading activity. That is what I'm disputing. No, you can't understand bitcoin usage without actually understanding the protocol.

In your analogy, it would be someone saying that you can understand Photoshop by looking at how people use the resulting pictures. It's nonsense and that's what I'm disputing.
A secondary market investor is someone who will buy the shares from you after you've exercised. These people may or may not exist, depending on how attractive the company is. The shares you purchase from the company will likely be restricted, and you won't be able to transfer them for a year. After that year is up, you can sell it to whomever you wish. The company will have right of first refusal, but if it comes to that, you don't really care who buys the shares off of you (company or secondary market investor) because you get paid the same either way.

This is technically different that what Alex is proposing, but the end result is fairly similar. He's offering to loan you money to exercise. You keep ownership of the shares, and the loan comes due if and when there is a liquid market for the shares. He's allowing you to move on from the company before any other investor is interested in the shares, but still provide upside to you if and when the shares are actually worth something. And he takes some cut because he's assuming the (very significant) risk that no other investor is ever willing to pay for the shares.
You can forget those costs, because I'm talking about the difference between my car sitting in the driveway except for weekend trips and my car driving 45 miles per day. That cost is the same in either case, so it doesn't matter to the comparison.
How to Design a Happier City
They may not all be 'related to Rails'. But we keep a list of the top reasons our students have... and these are 5 of them that are worth knowing about for beginners.
Sounds good. I have no problem with anyone saying "this is a bad thing, I have a better one, check it out" - so long as they are honest and open about it - which this guy appears to be.

It's sort of like Linus and his "I've written a controller, check it out" email, eh? :->
Maybe.

Let's simplify our model a bit.

Let's say we have a bag of devices of two types. Both kinds of devices, you push a button and a light turns on. One type of device (type A), the light stays on forever (we're ignoring physics for now). The other type of device (type B), the device has a mechanism to randomly turn itself off, calibrated such that over any 10 minute span of time where the device starts "on" there is a 10% chance it turns the light off.

You pull a device out of the bag. You push the button. The light turns on.

Is "this is a type B device" a meaningful claim?
Lots of people don't want to live in a city.

For me, living in a city is a horrible existence. So living in the unspoilt countryside a car is pretty useful to get around.

A car is freedom. Do you really want to be completely dependent and beholden to some public transport system?
Uber hints at delivery service
We reuse all controllers and models for our mobile views and for our API. We just do that reuse at the server instead of through the client. So no loss there.
While I love Shoup's work, I'm not enthusiastic about Glaeser's work.

In particular, I observe that Tokyo, Paris, Barcelona, and Mexico City organize people at adequate density to obtain all Glaeser's benefits without much of his beloved skyscrapers. Because of the shadows, streets, elevator columns, and infrastructure that skyscrapers need, they don't add much to urban life. A comfortable 15k/km^2 density (like Tokyo or Mexico City, half the density of Paris) is plenty enough to promote transit and network effects and build diverse and concentrated arts and business districts without concentrating them in only one part of town. That density is comfortably achieved with median two and three story buildings and plenty of open space in Mexico City and mostly short free standing homes in Tokyo.
Stanford Computer Science Lectures about "Compilers" by Alex Aiken
It always cracks me up when people are so confident that they are right, simply because they believe the "official" version of a given story.

I think, "wow, this person is literally dupable without limit."
We already see the "intense, relatively widespread, sudden, superficial interest in bitcoin", so what remains to be seen is if it "will eventually be followed by a sudden loss of interest in bitcoin." Since we already have the first half of the bubble phenomenon, it is not unreasonable (or BS) to suspect the second half will follow. Especially since we are seeing lots of bubbles these days.

Remember, a bubble doesn't mean something is worthless, but only overvalued, e.g. the housing bubble didn't mean that housing was worthless, but it was overvalued.
Why would you loose anything? If you want to use JSON on mobile you just need to add .json to any endpoints and JSON will be returned (If you do support it).

domain.com/posts.json

domain.com/posts/1.json

etc.
It should be self evident: all firms are hierarchies and all employees are hired by superior rather than inferior rank. The more controversial implied judgement is that man seek to outrank women in marriage, in effect making the spouse an inferior 'vp' to 'ceo' relation. Although, there is plenty of data to support such a preference empirically (ie, partiarchy). <dons flame suit>
It's the first thing I look for when evaluating a PM tool. Now I just need to be able to use them in calculations (so I can calculate a priority).
The same reason you don't see each dot on your monitor as separate light source, unless you take a magnifying glass.

Or that you don't experience theory of relativity when accelerating.

Senses are imperfect and the information such as those aren't vital to our survival. And their effect is tiny, tiny, tiny. I'm pretty sure spooky action (iirc quantum tunneling) at a distance keeps our sun running, or at least computers.
I think the antibiotic example is quite telling. Let's press it a little further. As you correctly point out, killing in self-defense is considered legitimate by most (but certainly not all) people. If someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting at me, most people would agree that it is morally acceptable to pull out a gun and shoot my attacker. But the legitimacy of that self-defense is limited by the principle of proportionality. If instead I pull out an AK-47 and rake back and forth with indiscriminate automatic fire, killing not only my attacker but also 15 innocent bystanders, pretty much everyone would agree that I acted immorally. The death of my attacker would be in self-defense, but I'd still be on the hook for 15 murders.

That second example is more akin to taking antibiotics. If we accept that killing microbes is wrong, and accept your argument that using antibiotics is moral because it's legitimate self-defense, we have a problem. Antibiotics kill a lot more than just the invading bacteria. So does radiation and chemotherapy. In fact, they kill a lot of microbes who live in a symbiotic relationship with me and live in my body because they help me break down food or fight infections.

The point is, things are a lot more complicated than simply saying that all forms of killing are immoral. At some point we have to accept that there is an ordering of life forms, and killing some of them to save ourselves is acceptable. If we don't, using antibiotics, chemotherapy, radiation, or other similar forms of care crucial to modern medicine is immoral. Once we accept that not all killing is wrong, it becomes an issue of line-drawing.
It's a little surprising, in a "no-bullshit" discussion of "theoretical and computational aspects of linear algebra," to see matrix inversion touted as the way to solve linear equations. The guide literally introduces the examples by saying "Dude, enough with the theory talk, let's see some calculations." Yet standard numerical practice avoids literal inversion, in favor of factorization methods.

E.g., It is common practice to write the form A^{-1}b for economy of notation in mathematical formulas... The trouble is that a reader unfamiliar with numerical computation might assume that we actually compute A^{-1}... On most computers it is always more effective to calculate A^{-1}b by solving the linear system Ax = b using matrix factorization methods... (Dennis & Schnabel, "Numerical Methods for Unconstrained Optimization and Nonlinear Equations", section 3.2).

E.g., As a final example we show how to avoid the pitfall of explicit inverse computation... The point of this example is to stress that when a matrix inverse is encountered in a formula, we must think in terms of solving equations rather than in terms of explicit inverse formation. (Golub and Van Loan, "Matrix Computations", section 3.4.11).
This is great! Too bad they sold 2,800 of their 3,500 BTC in 2011: http://philanthropy.com/article/Can-Nonprofits-Benefit-From/...
(correction applied)

Thanks, fixed!

Because I can go wherever I want, whenever I want, with my whole family (pets included), with a trunkful of cargo, as I see fit.

But at very high cost, per The High Cost of Free Parking, and at high time costs: I'm struck by the way that, when I lived in Tucson, it took seemingly 30 or 40 minutes to get anywhere. Now I live in New York City and it takes about the same, but the default transportation mode is different!
People who are wealthy today but don't own bitcoins have little incentive to welcome the bitcoin nouveau riche to their ranks. Typically when you swap out old pesos for new pesos, you have a fixed exchange rate such that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor.
Water seems to flow freely on Mars
I'm a huge Susskind fan. One of the coolest books I've read was his "The Black Hole War". And he's got tons of his lectures (full lectures from Stanford) on YouTube -- so if you're curious you can hear it straight from him.
Here is a article I read earlier today talking about how they are basically trying to patent BitCoin's features

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/jpmorgan-chase-building-bitcoin-k...
It's easy to imagine the kind of data government has, imagine its ability to process that data, and easy to interpret that they will do it. But it's also important to recognize that this is conjecture.

From my experience in government: they nailed the user experience (check out http://dsbs.sba.gov for some awesome gov UI), but really overestimated government's capacity to build intelligent technology like this.

I know this will make me unpopular amongst this crowd, but The truth is, I'm far more afraid of data like this getting into the wrong hands because it's being stored improperly or insecurely, than I am of government being malicious with it. Heck, I'm more afraid of my insurance adjuster than I am a malicious cop.
Nice piece of marketing dressed as troll-bait. 10 points.
I'm not an expert, but based on my experience I can tell you following:

1. it is not a Linux, it is a Unix system; 2. it used mostly on servers, stable as centos/red hat/other solid linux; 3.
can be used on desktop too; 4.it has a great support for ZFS

I personally used it for a few years, but when I started to develop using java, had to switch to linux...

I'm sure people with more experience can tell you more... but I personally like some parts more on FreeBSD than on Linux (like directory structure, device naming (no eth1,2...)) it just makes sense. IMHO
As correct as you are you'd be surprised how many features we use where implemented in Opera first. Surprisingly large amount, which they then threw away...
Yes, because this is a fairly standard copyright agreement. The DMCA is not adding anything new here, see my reply to darkarmani above. Copyright's rights are already divided up in such a manner by definition, it's not something that their lawyers have arbitrarily devised.
Ryan and Murray to unveil budget proposal Tuesday night
FreeBSD X?
Please Make My Startup Obsolete
Colin Powell Endorses Single-Payer Health Care
"The template is just JavaScript instead of straight HTML" I guess that's one way to make this work. But for everyone that is serious about writing a web app with a slick UI should build things around api calls and move the views to the frontend (backbone.js & handlebars templates are great).
We're debating elsewhere in this thread. You tell me. I know the results of many short and long term observational and experimental studies of veganism and several other chosen diets and veganism, and the long-term health outcomes of the diet, do not inspire confidence that the majority population of vegans know almost anything about basic nutrition. In fact I've never even seen a study where less than 50% of any given vegan population were not deficient in something as basic and well understood as B12.
Maybe I am missing something but who is doing the matching? Is it the group of people on the bottom right?
> And a fair number of pre-automobile European cities are built with tiny streets. Hence, part of why micro-cars are so popular in Europe.

Fuel in europe costs about as much in euro per liter as it costs in USD/gallon. Well, that's a bit exaggerated but last week I paid ~ 1,50 EUR per liter, so a fuel efficient micro car does not only help you navigate narrow streets but also saves quite some money.
>This argument can only hold on water by having a complete lack of faith in the rule of law.

What "rule of law"?

The one who predominantly targets blacks and latinos?

The one that sends people to life terms in prison for non violenet BS crimes, if they do three of them?

The one who, in 2014, jails people for smoking a joint?

The one who, in 2014, in a western democracy nonetheless, still uses capital punishment?

The one who big corporations make a laughing stock of?

The one who has the highest incarceration rate in the world, by a large margin?
When I see "experiment X backs up/supports/proves conclusion Y" in a headline I always mentally correct it to "experiment X does not definitively disprove conclusion Y" where X and Y are random variables operating on whatever the actual scientific experiment and conclusion respectively are.
A piece of hologram film doesn't look anything like the image, but it does have a certain distinct "look" to it. Much like the famous quote about not being able to define pr0n but I know it when I see it. Holograms have a certain "look" to them. It's what happens when you project a 3-D image onto a 2-D piece of film using all manner of weird wave interactions from a coherent source blah blah blah science talk blah.

So the terrible awful analogy is they're saying their simulation of a projection of some weirdness into normal space looks like our gravity and space and mom and apple pie.

The awful analogy being that the squigglies on holographic film are to the actual object, as their weird theory is to something vaguely like the space we live in, at least in some aspects. Take two things and there's a certain look to them and a certain transform in between and thats pretty much kinda whats going on in both cases.

This post exceeds the US recommended daily allowance of "kinda" "sorta" "mostly" so take it with a death star sized grain of salt. I'll laugh at anyone flaming me for not getting it exactly right cause this is simplified almost to not meaning much.
I understand your explanation, but I'd still like to see evidence because I haven't felt the same. I've interviewed many dozen's of individuals over the past few years, and when I reflect on those that received offers from me they were practically always those with the best credentials, and I can't think of any of them who doesn't have a better education than I had.

I'm likely the exception rather than the rule - but still - I'd like evidence on the assumption, as GP said.
Linkers are amazing.