skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If you think only about creating content, I think you have a very good argument. Historically, not everybody was fit/interested in creating.

However, the underlying theme in these books seems to be one of freedom and our destiny. I don't think they focus much on creation but more on assessing reality and being able to change it.

In the past, at least in my 3rd world country, people were much more interesting in politics, health, education, etc. Nowadays, most people are happy to be distracted so I fully agree with the author here. Over and over, political scandals abound, corruption is everywhere and made plain clear to anyone who wants to see it.. yet, I don't see anyone complaining as they did in the past. It seems we've reached a plateau and we're comfortable enough. Distracted enough perhaps.

Perhaps the potential to create has kept the same, not very high, lots of wasted potential. But the potential to be angry/worried about things that matter seems to be going down the toilet lately. Just see how nobody besides IT people and the media cares about the NSA scandal.
Top Universities and Colleges in Norway
Yes, it is power, tons of it, in a wide variety of forms.

That someone doesn't care has little effect on how others can use the information - the only power that that removes is the power to embarrass. Any party that you depend on economically can still use the information to their advantage (and your disadvantage). And mind you that that might not only be for irrational reasons - any statistically significant correlation is a perfectly rational reason for some company to refuse you as a customer or to increase prices for you, for example. In securities markets, there even is a name for using private information about planned transactions to gain an advantage, it's called front running, and it's illegal, because it is considered to be essentially stealing the customer's money.

But also, much of the power is not power over individuals, but power over society as a whole, in that such direct access to inter-human communication allows you to find patterns in social dynamics and thus allows you to predict future actions, and what it would need to change the outcome. In essence, that is what marketing is all about - but of course, its applicability is not limited to selling you washing powder, but it can also be used to "sell" political ideas. And in the case of Facebook, they can directly manipulate what people get to see, of course.

And then, there is the intersection between the two, in that there are some people who themselves have more power than others, possibly over you - and if someone gains some power over them directly, that means they might transitively also be gaining power over you.
about an arms length..Eyesight is pretty good, not perfect though.
The thing i like most about it would be more vertical space for not so frequently used stuff and no bezels.
Actually that's pretty much how most of the country works. When you have tight liquidity and high inflation, you either quickly want good returns or exit.
fyi, it was working about 8hrs ago. broken now. guess someone didn't like the inuendo ;)
@pjc50 Thank you for your input, really appreciated. What you say is that proximity gives you more benefit than having antennas transmitting data 'wireless', right? I agree with that and I don't, firstly because "Quantum Teleportation (QT)" is available soon enough for a broader audience than just Physicists [1] and such "directed antennas" positioned in the same proximity to the datacenter as the 10G links can result in equal or higher bandwidth. Otherwise it's an unfair comparison.
Also QT is making rounds in the defense and aerospace industry now much more than ever, because they could use it to send data to satellites much faster than with earlier methods.

Please correct me, if I'm wrong, but I'd be grateful, if you had a source for your argument. :)

TL;DR: » If you're not in the same datacenter you're too slow; That applies to wireless and for cable.

By the way, what's your job title, if I may ask?

--

[1] http://qcmc2012.org/
Everyone is quite sensibly reviewing their US tech relationship and either going elsewhere or asking for an 'NSA tax'.
http://try.github.io/levels/1/challenges/1
Thanks. Will up the contrast on the buttons this evening.
And what's the problem with it?

I surely think a lot of popular culture is stupid/a waste of time, but as long as I (and others) have the freedom to freely chose more "fruitful" things to do with our time - then what's the big deal?
> The answer to all 3 is 1/2.

No, it's 1/3 as everyone has pointed out.

Go and play the coin game described. Seriously, stop arguing and go and play it.

See?
Well, this could be the catalyst for a resurgence in EU industry. Do it yourself or get exploited by someone else?
Basically, when discussing these supposed problems, are they really problems

They are problems for those who think of nations as teams locked in a giant competition, always striving to one-up each other. On another level we have corporations doing much the same thing. It's a rude mêlée and the stakes are very, very high.
A human eye with 20/20 vision can distinguish ~150ppi at 2 feet (a typical screen-to-eyeball distance). Beyond that, it's overkill. The apple thunderbolt display is at 109ppi, so there's a bit of room for improvement, but not 60% improvement.

Beyond this limit, I suppose there are people with 20/1 vision or something, but they're pretty rare.
If this turns out to be true for human beings (and I can't think of a reason, a priori, why it shouldn't be), then it has massive implications for both practical ethics as well as more abstract ideas of morality.

If what you do to someone affects not just him, but also all his descendants up to N generations....
Triggering Deep Vulnerabilities using Symbolic Execution
The authors post reminded me that I had not upgrade my linode from 24GB to 48GB and I went ahead and did it. Then I realized that I had originally been in the ssd beta. I messaged support to find out the beta had recently closed, but the support agent did say this.

http://imgur.com/HBLQVZ4
This topic is so subjective and has been so widely discussed (having github vs not github, having issued foss code vs not issued foss code, prior experience in the field vs non-prior experience in the field, etc) that I'm not sure if there's anything that can be taken for granted.

Of course it's good to have experience, (good) github repo, foss contributions and so on. But which one is better and why I guess depends on the specific:

If Google needs to deploy large private Git repositories, they will search and hire Git core-team members. No matter if they have experience or they are students. They are able to work hands-on, from day one.

If MS wants to compile the universe, it hires D. Robbins, creator of Gentoo linux which has a soft spot for compilations (joking of course, but you get the idea ;-) ).

So it's a case-by-case scenario, not some generally accepted truth that applies here.

IT is a huge field with very diverse technologies coming into game (programming languages, frameworks, network structures, databases, robotics, etc.)
> Why were you running a "computer simulation" of the
> problem? Were you, even?

I was reconstructing what happened when Erdős was first told of the Monty Hall problem. He answered 1/2, and was very frustrated for a time. In the end he said something like "But you're not telling me the why!"

Moving on ...

>> "The two" ?? What "two"? Your "explanations" are
>> very unclear.

> The only two there are: the two children. The sex
> of one is independent from the sex of the other.

So we are assuming that this chap has exactly two children, and that their sexes are independent with probability 1/2.

> Monty Hall is different because it precludes upfront
> the possibility of there being any ratio other than
> 1:2. If we were, however, to say that any door could
> have either a goat or a car, then it wouldn't matter
> whether you stayed or switched. Monty's elimination
> of some other door would not inform you on the odds
> of your door YOUR door. Yea or nay?

Yes, agreed.

> The only way for Monty to give you any information at
> all about whether to switch is if the rule binds him
> to tell you something about the odds of the unchosen
> doors.

Yes.

> In the original problem, this happens, because the
> ratio is bound 1:2.

OK.

> In our revised problem, this does not happen - unless
> he tells you he can't remove a door because neither
> is a goat.

Yes.

> Using this as an analogue to our children problem,
> we've already precluded that possibility upfront
> by eliminating GG, thus Monty can't provide us any
> information because his B-G choice is unbound by
> any rule.

I fail to see how that is in any way relevant. There are four equally likely possibilities for the children. If we label them older first then we have BB, BG, GB, GG. Only by labelling them in some consistent order to we get equally likely possibilities. The father says that at least one child is a boy. That eliminates the option of GG. Are you somehow suggesting that the probability distribution of the other options is changed by this?

If so, how? Just as Monty's choice gives no information about the door we have selected (and which therefore remains as chance 1/3 of being the winning door), telling us that it's not the case that both children are girls gives us no further information about the other three equally likely possibilities.

So in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022615 I asked you this ...

A: So now let's take another experiment. I tell
you I'm going to flip two coins until at least
one of them is heads. I do that. Now I ask you
to bet on whether or not there is a tail. What
do you think are fair odds?
B: ...
C: ...

There are three options.

1: Your answers to A, B, and C are not all the same;
2: They are all the same, and not 1/3;
3: They are all the same, and all 1/3.

In https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7022707 you answered:

> The answer to all 3 is 1/2.

That turns out not to be the case. The answer to A is 1/3. Write a computer program to simulate it and then post it here. Seriously, don't just theorize about it, try it.
> But what if the vast majority of the population is right?

Honestly what would be the odds of that?

The track record of the vast majority of the population isn't exactly stellar. We tend to be concerned about whatever some smaller minority tells us to be.

(Note that I say "we". We are not immune: Just look at the amount of strictly incompatible opposing viewpoints on HN. At least half of those must be wrong for each viewpoint, making the aggregate of even this collection of relatively smart people, dumber than a sack of bricks. Okay, maybe two sacks of bricks)

So what then? My point is, it's much better to base your assumptions and viewpoints on the particular merits and flaws of an idea, than on whether or not the majority of the population agrees with it.

It's just not relevant. Not at all. The only relevance might be how to steer the majority public opinion, if you want to affect change. A very wise man once said: THINK FOR YOURSELF, SCHMUCK!

My personal view is that the "security conscious" (which includes myself, to some extent, I guess) is in possession of a lot more facts than the majority of the public. Also their track record is pretty good. Especially since the Snowden revelations, nearly all of the things that used to dismissed to tinfoil territory turned out to be exactly right. Even RMS' "wacky paranoia" turned out to be not so crazy after all.

Heh, even the "tinfoil hat" itself turned out to be useful, in a sense: wrapping your phone in tinfoil prevents you being tracked (and it's easier than removing the batteries). At least this works perfectly for GSM signals (just try calling a phone wrapped in tinfoil), haven't tried with Wifi or Bluetooth.
Bruno Latour - Scientific Humanities MOOC
I can imagine that conversation.

> Well, they can just leave the number blank and we will allow NULL on the database.

> No can't have that. Staff are lazy and won't bother entering the number. We must make it mandatory and force them to enter a number.

> Okay, how about a tickbox they can tick to indicate that no number was present.

> Nope. We'd have to re-design the form. And that means re-designing the OCR system. Costs too much.

> Ehmm. We could have them enter a special, 'NOPLATE' code. Of course, you'd have to choose a code that isn't currently used, and inform your colleagues that it is reserved, so it isn't assigned to some joker. Ha.

> Oh that would never happen. Okay, we'll put it down on the Project Risk Register. Someone remember to do that.

...
Its "Why tough teachers get good SAT scores" not good education results.
It'd be like somebody sticking an extra hard drive or NIC in the computer you built at home and you not noticing it.

No, it'd be like you buying a NIC and installing it without realizing there was a backdoor in its firmware. Not everything in a satellite is a one-off custom piece, a lot of it is COTS and integrated by the builders.
"Would those of us who are amusing ourselves to death not simply do something else 'mindless' in previous generations?
"

Yes. They would probably have to work more to feed themselves, which is also wasted time. The world requires some sisyphean work from everybody, like doing the dishes, but this is increasingly automated.

"All these people mindlessly consuming memes on their devices could be creating something new instead. That's wasted potential. "

At the same time, someone is creating the memes. That's a creative process, as easy as it is today, some of them are irrelevant, some are slightly more involved.

"All these people reading bite-sized articles could be reading meatier material instead."

Yes, I personally try to vary, I think the bite-size material has a role as well.
Graphs by MIT Students Show the Enormously Intrusive Nature of Metadata
So the vast, vast majority of people then.
I did look at exetel and one other one I can't remember, and they had similar pricing (all with ethernet-over-copper). We're going with Internode because their support is a known good.

My experience with TPG-by-friend is that they're wonderful until you need support. My personal experienc with Optus is that they obscure their help services, they have no tools for techies in small-medium businesses, they obscure their billing, they outsource support to terrible staff (last guy I had refused to even say anything), they have intentionally misleading marketing... and ugly corporate colours :)

I'm also not sure that fibre comes to the building (we're in an old building in the CBD) and assumed a high connection charge if it didn't... and we're only a dozen or so in the office. It's just that we have a couple of video editors, and when they upload, everyone moans...
I have a coworker who does this but it usually takes them 30 minutes to respond to me, even when I respond to his "hey", even if I respond right away. It drives me insane.
Mexican Cartels Are Using Firetruck-Sized Drillers to Make Drug Pipelines
Thanks for the feedback. I'll read this tonight!
Thanks. I realized a few years ago that that was the question I would have asked myself, if I were to interrupt myself when I was in the middle of doing something important. It has served me well ever since... :)
Another take on Huxley's dystopia (if you can call it that) is this: http://www.fimfiction.net/story/62074/friendship-is-optimal

Much deeper and scarier than you'd expect given the setting.
About twenty years ago, while day-hiking in the southern part of the Peak District, I got talking to a guy who was walking the same section of road as me. He was pretty shabbily dressed and his shoes were worn-out, and he said he was walking from (I think) Birmingham to Carlisle to stay with his brother because he had no money and nowhere to live. He told me he was keeping away from towns and sleeping in forests and barns. All his possessions were stuffed into the pockets of his coat. We walked a couple of miles together and he seemed like a nice guy.

Not exactly a "gentleman of the road" with a spotted-hanky-bundle on a stick, but the nearest I've seen to an archetypal tramp. I hope he made it.
I don't think this issue is related to creativity. There are plenty of talented creators who choose to waste their time on meaningless stuff because it gives them more fun/fame/money(largely used for meaningless stuff).

And a creator in today's world can waste much more potential than a common man.
> Most papers (especially tabloids) in the UK are owned by News Corp.

They only own The Sun and The Times. The other ones are owned by various others.
> In the past, at least in my 3rd world country, people were much more interesting in politics, health, education, etc.

I've been thinking about this too, but I can't help but wonder if the higher interest in "politics, health, education, etc." wasn't just mindless distraction in disguise. I grew up in a developing nation where it appeared that people were more engaged with these sorts of things, but it every discussion could be appended with '...but hey, that's the way it is'.

There are periods in time where a society is more engaged as a whole, and there are subsections of society that are, among other things politically engaged. Of course. But I truly wonder how different all that 'reading the papers and discussing politics' actually is from 'looking at funny political memes and reading short blog entries on what's wrong with the world'.

> Just see how nobody besides IT people and the media cares about the NSA scandal.

That is a good point. But have we historically really done much better in this regard (other than some 'flare-ups' like the sixties)?
There's a very strong bias here on HN that everything is software. But Satellite assembly is very much a HW thing as well. Attributing whatever it is to a specific country lends itself to being hardware more than software, probably some parts that have very few or one supplier so the country of origin can be determined.
Could an Android desktop replace your Windows PC?
This was my first webapp
An Awesome Gift For Your Children
Maybe opium ? It was more loosely used before the 1926 law that created stronger controls.
I wonder what would happen if I changed my name to null.
Ha! I'd probably add it to the few nice cities, and strike it from the singular industry list. But the rest still applies I suppose...particularly the difficult socio-economic environment.

In some ways I'd say Israel is like a very compressed and magnified U.S., huge military industrial complex, lots of immigrants, racial and ethnic segregation issues, big hi-tech industry, intense religious conservative red neck types...it's just all in an area the size of West Virginia.
I'd suggest to drop the traditional speakers altogether and start using headphones. The industry standard Sennheiser HD650 or Audio Technica M50 will bring more sound quality for the buck from any loudspeaker I can think of. Of course, this is just an uneducated suggestion. Maybe you love to share your music.
> For driving games, there's one solution for simulating turns, and acceleration/deceleration. That's rotating your seat. When you accelerate, the chair rotates backwards, and gravity does the work of pushing you back in your seat. The faster you accelerate, the more the chair leans back. When you brake quickly, the seat leans forward, and you feel your seat belt pushing into your chest as it holds you in place. Turn right, chair rotates left, etc.

> You're limited to 1G though. This is enough to give the experience of driving and turning in a fast car, but you're not going to be pulling Formula 1 level Gs, although I don't think the average person wants to experience that anyway.

These motion simulators are cool but they are really big and very expensive, not something that average people will have in their living rooms. A commercial motion simulator for gaming (ie. not a "professional" sim rig) costs around $60000. Even if I had that kind of money, I couldn't explain that to the missus.

And the motion is limited to way less than 1G because the platform can not turn fully horizontal. Maybe some kind of spherical rig could get up to 1G but these things are limited to 0.3 to 0.5G, less than you get driving around in your car in traffic.

I've tried a motion simulator like this once and it wasn't a positive experience. I'm a hard core racing sim fan so maybe my expectations were a little high but all I got was a sore back and a bad lap time. The motion platform can't pull many G's but it shaked and rumbled like hell.

If you could have one of these with a nice seat and strap yourself tightly in, it might be a nice experience but this is never going to be something that will be in people's living rooms.

Btw, this here's someone's cool DIY home rig made with windshield wiper motors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg_la_IzrZ4
+1 to the other comments here -- it's the enforced monopolies through local government/provider agreements that has failed in this case, as with other systems often considered failures of the free market.

There is nothing about what you described that was ever free market. Were Verizon not have been granted what I'm sure was exclusive rights for laying cable in your town, there'd be many providers vying for your business.
This is precisely the type of problem Jelly wants to solve: to get the right answer, you have to ask the right question.

Take for example this search for the statue of Anteros, in Piccadilly Circus: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=statue+in+london+with+bow

Conversely, I bet posting a photo to Jelly would get me an answer. And it only becomes more likely that my friends (and their friends) will find an answer easier than I can the more obscure and difficult to search for the subject is.

Search engines are getting much better at interpreting the question you wanted to ask from the question you actually asked - "Did you mean..." - but they still have a way to go before they can do a better job than a human.
I don't understand or accept it. While your point about unintended financial consequences is very valid, I find this the lowest threshold of decision making.

I don't steal staplers at work, not because I might get caught, or because everybody does it, or because it may adversely affect my company, or due to some other unforeseen consequence. I do it because I've thought a lot about stealing and have concluded that it's wrong to do so.

The US has overwhelming military force (a house full of staplers). The US and/or France could have easily taken the decision to not deliver military satellites to the UAE (or to use political means to block it).
Back in high school, our journalism teacher was legendary for his scathing, but usually humorous criticism. And yet the Friday after we published the newspaper, critique day, was one of the most-eagerly anticipated days, as he would alternate between complementing people and then ripping others apart for not just things like punctuation and sentence structure, but higher-level failures such as failing to interview key people and providing fair coverage. A lot of students cried and even though he's still a teacher today, I can't imagine that the discipline and excellence he demanded would go over well today.

But it worked, the newspaper and yearbook were consistently the best in the country. It wasn't just a niche club, they were actually credit classes that filled up. It was actually cool* to be on staff, despite how seriously it was taken (though thinking back, my main contribution was installing NES emulators on all the machines, so it couldn't have been that serious)...

Edit: to clarify, I can't recall if he "ripped" into people for spelling errors/grammatical mistakes, though he'd point them out in a funny way and move on. But boy, if you did something like a professional breach...such as interview your same best friend for an article that you did last month, he might go off on it. Sloppy writing (burying the lede) was also jumped on, but in a constructive way. But that kind of constructive criticism...singling someone out in class...I didn't see it much out of high school.