skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Neurobonkers sums it up quite well, "Until I've seen a replication with a randomised, double blind, placebo control group, I for one will be keeping my $5.99 firmly in my wallet."

http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/the-app-that-trains-you-to-...
My first year free just ran out. They sent me a message that I get to continue for another year for free. It's hard to believe anyone pays for this.
Robots with human-like brains to take on Mars unaided
Facepalm.

"The issue we began with was that you stated that it was not an example of security through obscurity at all."

If you read up, that is not where this began. You initially responded to my objection to the phrase (from the article): "If the only thing protecting your security is a lack of others knowing the secret, then you have no practical security."

I still fully and full-throatedly stand by that objection - particularly since in a security context "secret" is often used to mean "key or password or...".

I did eventually state that I wasn't sure hidden SSIDs were actually an example of security through obscurity - I'm still not sure they are. Maybe I'm wrong about that. It's still appearing to me that you aren't really understanding my objections, though.

"As an introductory example it does a good job of explaining the concept to a layperson or even a technical person that's still a bit inexperienced."

I still say SSID is - at best - a piss poor choice of something that is barely an example of the phenomenon. It does not do a good job of explaining the concept to anyone - newbie or otherwise - because it is poor security for more obvious reasons that have nothing to do with security through obscurity, and is therefore likely to lead to confusion.
If you really want secure , TextSecure is the best in that regard - according to crypto guys.
That and the way their announcement basically indicated they were happy to leave WhatsApp and its uber-smart and now-uber rich engineering team alone in its own $1/user/year ad-free bubble, on course to break even some time around the point mobile phones become obsolete. It didn't exactly scream we had to pay that much but we've really thought this through
I feel like I could sort of wrap my head around Net Neutrality in a world with just content providers and ISPs.

Once people start talking about CDNs and peering agreements, and all those massive middleman infrastructures most consumers don't even know exist, this issue gets orders of magnitude more complex. It seems unregulatable.

What is Netflix supposed to do if Verizon just passes data around its network to keep it "full" all the time and refuses to open up good datalines to Netflix CDNs? What is the network supposed to do if a major data provider ends up choking the lines just to move from one endpoint to the other, not even stopping at customers?

I doubt any rules would work here except for actual enforcement of anti-monopoly regulations on a locality by locality basis. Maybe Netflix needs to start rolling out fiber and competing directly with ISPs (most of them are already competing by providing content anyway).
Facebook to Buy WhatsApp for 16 Instagrams
Sure, but you not want your child's image used for those purposes. Seems reasonable to me. I think you're focusing on whether Facebook can fool anyone, which is besides the point.
It's just the nature of the service. It's a text messaging app. When you get a text you open it. I bet gmail has a similar active user ratio.
Well, as matter of fact Jobs was engaged in intimidation aimed to maintain an arrangement that has been found to be illegal (the "anti-poaching" 'agreement').
Read or at least skim through the sequences (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Sequences). If you are just there for the AI stuff the Hanson-Yudkowsky AI-Foom Debate has a lot of good posts: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/The_Hanson-Yudkowsky_AI-Foom_...
Heh, AOL bought ICQ for $287 million, and it had 12 million users. $24 per user.

Now AOL was really good at destroying companies though...
No it's not wise (regarding the cash), but then a large portion of the value isn't real and will never be real; it's bid-up paper trading at 100 times earnings. Swapping one piece of overvalued paper for another, is most of the deal (I'd take the FB paper personally, it at least has some earnings behind it). And keep in mind, this isn't capital allocation by the street, it's capital allocation by Zuckerberg, he controls Facebook. This crashes and burns, it's solely on his head.
"So... why didn't the flapping-wing designs work? Birds flap wings and they fly. The flying machine flaps its wings. Why, oh why, doesn't it fly?"

http://lesswrong.com/lw/vx/failure_by_analogy/

A very relevant article, both to the main topic and bird/airplane example.

Yes, biology has solved some problems and can suggest some solutions, but we can't go cargo-cult on it and expect things to work just because they look similar.
>In some sense that's still true: we have another 4 billion people yet to join the game.

and tens of billions of various sensors, smart toasters/cars/milk cartons ... after that
Of all the companies founded since 2000, these are the following companies that are worth more than $10B: Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, WorkDay, and ... WhatsApp.
There's only about 1bn smartphone users, of which Whatsapp probably has 45% penetration, and some other large percentage are on competing platforms. Yes, that 1bn is growing, but it's also moving into market segments with much lower income levels. Even if we think this is going to increase 4x that probably doesn't justify a 12X sales valuation.
Profitable sure, but I'm curious what their plans for expansion on that profit is. At best right now, they can hope for $450m next year. Even if they got all of that, it'd take more than 30 years to make Facebook their money back.

So there's something they're wanting to do, a means of making money, that we don't know yet. I'm genuinely curious what they're thinking about.
More competition in this space can only be a good thing. Besides, Google has done a whole lot more to protect their users from government surveillance than the telcos have.
At the risk of making it more complicated than it needs to be:
http://www.slideshare.net/tonyrice/consulting-company-valuat...

The phrase you're googling for is some combination of the following:
software consultancy acquisition multiples
Google should install their fiber in the cities of corporate headquarters for at&t, time warner, quest, verizon, and cox.

Should have an interesting effect on the top-down mentality of price setting.

FCC also needs to rule ISPs as common carriers.
Computer generated math proof is too large for humans to check
How could you even prevent this vulnerability?

As long as the undocumented API is publicly accessible, and Tinder intends on reporting a users distance to each other (4.5 miles), it will always be possible to triangulate the position.

The only thing I can think of is to obfuscate the user ID in a way that you cant use the ID to guarantee a lookup of the same user.
I like it, looks simple and functional.
It's worth noting that I don't really like faster_pathname as a solution. It's a cudgel that monkeypatches the stdlib Pathname. A proper solution would be a Pathname subclass that Sprockets uses directly, allowing for customized behavior without potential side-effects in other systems.
I think going about it from a complex algorithm point of view is the wrong approach.

We should, instead, be concentrating our efforts on two things - sensing, and reacting. The predictability of the reaction doesn't matter; all that matters is that the machine reacts. Everything else will need to depend on evolutionary processes, which requires a third criterion - changing reaction based on prior data.

If the previous reaction did not lead to a negative result ("negative" meaning detrimental to one or more arbitrary values), then the reaction can continue to the same stimulus. If the previous reaction, however, elicited a strong positive result, then the reaction should be encouraged. Similarly, if it triggered a strong negative response, it should be avoided.

To a degree, you could do this without any kind of "operating system," just by using sensory data as inputs in a complex circuit.

At least, that's how I would approach it. I know nothing about A.I. research.
How to Deploy Node.js Apps on DigitalOcean with Dokku
Would that be why there are no paparazzi in Europe? Oh wait...
Maybe, but they're also entirely speculative. We can only evaluate the price based on the business they have, not imaginary alternate revenue streams.
Still don't understand how so many in this business can admire someone like Jobs. It's refreshing to hear about someone who stood up to his "charm".
This is neat. Some issues I spotted: spot-0.png doesn't seem to be a Gabor stimulus pattern (see http://www.cogsci.nl/software/online-gabor-patch-generator), the "press F11" and "Click to begin" messages don't go away (and sometimes going fullscreen is impossible/undesirable anyway).

For people wanting to look at the code it's at https://github.com/Fordi/eyegame

Also, what's the license?
Brain seems to be slow (I read it was measured to run at 200Hz tops), but it's extremely parallelized and caches the livjng shit out of everything.
I think it used to be true about Microsoft as well. The adage doesn't hold forever, but we're in a time right now where Google being in a particular arena will tend to be more of a competitive beast than a market validator (it can be both, but it'll be perceived more as competitor). This might change again in a few years, but right now Google is a beast. MS used to be. The question might be do you have enough patience/money/runway to wait out that market shift to where you can be competitive again, assuming Google is in your market (many people couldn't outlast MS back in the 90s).
Why do you believe this?

We don't see animals self-improving to become humans (in the "consciously deciding what revisions to make to their mental architecture at each step" sense), so why would you expect electronic animal-level minds to be able to do the same to become electronic human-level minds, or beyond?

Personally, I doubt even electronic human-equivalent minds would be capable of self-improvement. After all, we are not smart enough to build AIs better than us (yet), so why should electronic minds only as smart as we are be capable of that, either?

A possible answer to that, I suppose, would be that the electronic mind would have far more input/training data fed to it per second than biological minds receive, and far more time to "work on" that sense data to derive patterns between each decision-step.
With this hypothetical infinite speed computer you will get solutions that are perfect matches for your test cases but essentially random for all other inputs.
You can send email without using DNS.

I'm not sure I'd call IP addresses centralised, if perhaps you were thinking of ICANN's running of IANA?

If you consider the internet inherently "centralised" then surely you'd still find CB radio or similar to be decentralised. Or do you also consider the allocation of wavebands to be "centralised"?
I agree re: AOL destroying value. I think It was $400m total, and keep in mind ICQ was ten times that size three years later (less than $4 per user at that point). I doubt we'll wake up to WhatsApp being at 4 billion users in 36 months.
Looks just fine in my FF, same as in Safari.
Presumably the machine flags WHY it's an error, and as long as that reasoning is included in the rebuttal, humans, or other machines, are free to disagree with it. Science.
I hate to get "meta" but it doesn't seem frontage worthy, it's just a musing about AI.
The post mentioned that all WhatsApp's early competitors benefited through advertising, while WhatsApp dedicated to keep the UI clean, and earn revenues by charging users one dollar a year.
I am not a WhatsApp user but a number of my friends use it. I think what they did well are: (1) You automatically upload your contact list to their servers. If any of friends start to use WhatsApp you will see it on the list (2) Smart phones were gaining adoption in many Asian markets and their value proposition of cheap unlimited messaging plan resonated very well (3) They charged for their product after initial adoption so they don't have to be tied to VC money forever and avoided annoying users with ads.
I believe the majority of WhatsApp users are non US, Facebook may be trying to expand further into that market. It's also possible Facebook saw WhatsApp's growth as a major threat if another major player were to acquire them first.
I don't think it's changed that much in the four months you've been a member.
From a pure layman's perspective: if you believe in evolution, then what separates us from a reptile (as mentioned in the post) is almost certainly something we can figure out and replicate. There is nothing "special" there.

So if you believe computers today already have the "intelligence" of a reptile, or a toddler (i.e., ability to play pong), or something along those lines, it's only a matter of time before a computer has the intelligence of a full-blown adult human (and soon thereafter much more).

Our level of intelligence/awareness seems magical only because we haven't fully understood it yet. That will change.
If tech had a truly free market for talent it would be wild! You'd have top tier coders signing pro athlete sized contracts regularly. I can see why they use patent litigation as a weapon to prevent this, clever and sinister.
Viber was just bought last Friday for $900M by Rakuten.
Only 5%??
WhatsApp is actually the reason why people accept less than market rate from startups. No WhatsApp employee who's been there more than a year will ever need to work again once he/she survives the "golden handcuffs" period.
I'm in San Jose, what's wrong with VTA?
My current laptop has 100s of programs capable of performing 1000s of tasks but I wouldn't say it's intelligent. If we do want to call that intelligence, then we need a new term to describe the search for machines that can mimic human decisions.
You're probably mixing Whatsapp with Viber which has sold a few days ago for $900M
i'm not really sure they're the same.

seems to me that whatsapp is more of an active "keeping in touch with friends" where facebook's forte is more of a passive "keeping in touch with friends". that would make them fairly harmonious in my book -- hence the autonomy.
Okay, God. Because of course you would have to be God (that is, omniscient) in order to know what sort of positions Mt. Gox and its corporate executives are taking in the various bitcoin markets.

Wait. You're not omniscient? Then why would you write such a silly thing?
Just to put numbers into perspective:

NASA's 2014 budget is 17.7b
Unfortunately, I don't have any useful contacts, so I'm blindly sending out resumes. There's no point carefully researching the company first, because 90% of them never respond, and many companies don't mention their name in the ad. (Some are posted by headhunters, some anonymously by a company.) Even when I research companies and apply directly on their website, it goes nowhere. Even if I did research them, it's hard to evaluate someone until you meet them in person or talk with them over the phone.

I'm currently employed, so I'm only spending 1-3 hours per week on my search.

I have enough experience, education, and honors in school that you shouldn't waste my time with pointless homework. I've never seen a job programming test that was a more accurate measure of ability than the homework and tests I took in school.

Look at it from the candidate's view. I send out a bunch of resumes. About 5-8 of them want me to take a technical test before they call me or before I meet them. 1-2 of them are willing to proceed directly to an interview without insulting me and wasting my time first. So, I focus my energy on the people who take me seriously and treat me like a professional.

It's physically impossible for me to do a technical test for everyone who demands it. I don't have the time.

If Google or Yahoo asked me for a several hour pre-interview screening test, I'd probably do it. If your no-name startup is wasting my time before an interview, I'll just look elsewhere.

Also, in my experience, a pre-interview screening test is anti-correlated with good work environments. Of course, they'll say I'm "not a team player" for refusing the test.

After I did a bunch of pre-interview screening tests, and only rarely progressed to the interview stage after doing the test, now I don't bother. I know my solution is correct, but still not even an interview after I do the test. For the handful that did interview me, I wasn't impressed by them. Why am I wasting my time with people who don't respect me? Why should I waste a couple of hours for the privilege of maybe getting a chance to talk with the hiring manager, who's already pre-qualified himself as a twit by making me take his stupid test?

I'm even reluctant for post-interview programming tests. Once, someone asked me to do an assignment after the interview, and implied I'd get an offer if I passed. I did it, I know it was a good solution, but no offer. There's even people who try to put free consulting in the test, like the guy who asked me to write a program that connected to Interactive Brokers and executed VWAP trades.

I'm even reluctant for on-site tests now. Just a couple weeks ago, someone asked me to do a test, said I could use whatever language I wanted, I picked C/C++, and then they laughed at me for using pointers. Why bother?

If you know your stuff, you should be able to evaluate someone by talking with them for 15-30 minutes. If you aren't willing to spend 15-30 minutes evaluating me, based on my experience and education, then I'm not wasting a couple hours on your stupid pre-interview test.

Yes, I may be missing out on good jobs, but they are missing out on a good candidate.
If they're insiders, why buy before selling? An insider could take the bitcoin from the vault without updating the seller's balance on the website, sell it on a different exchange for $600, then pay the $260 to the Gox seller to balance the books.

That way you're not limited to the number of $260 bitcoins you can afford.
That's what I was thinking. Find someone who isn't under such a restrictive licence, and let them feed in the data.

I presume this is what will happen.
LOL, I'm right on the border of SJ and Cupertino around De Anza and 85. I am so hoping I can get it just to dump Comcast.
Ask it quickly: can entropy be reversed?
Could you help us out by filing tickets/Etc? https://github.com/proevo/pythondotorg
Eh. The way I heard it discussed, that was exactly the kind of simplistic misconception that made people think darkworking was terribad. The way hosh talks about tuning into your "darker emotions" and "releasing them" reminds me of those conversations.
Couldn't Apple have asked employees to sign a non-compete agreement, before starting work on critical company projects, ?

If your goal is to protect the company it seems easier to enforce than a makeshift cartel agreement with other CEOs

Also, wasn't the agreement about recruiting being taboo, but its ok to hire cold applicants?
Agreed, it's a cold world and sometimes you gotta get your hands dirty.
If they're asking for your GPA and SAT, then presumably they're rejecting you if the number is lower than a certain cutoff.
Great feedback: can you help us track it? https://github.com/proevo/pythondotorg
No I don't think "belief" in evolution implies that at all. That's a big jump.
I hope every developer at Apple, Google, Microsoft, and other companies that are supposedly just "building a defensive bulwark of patents" sees this.

You're not building fences or walls for your company. You're building land mines.
Sounds like a strategic place to breach for identity theft purposes. Lots of military and other folks get degrees from there.
And you know this how exactly?

Oh right. You have no idea at all, and are completely talking out of your ass.
> I am quite confident that we’ll be able to make computer programs that perform specific complex tasks very well. But how do we make a computer program that decides what it wants to do?

Are we so sure that "we" really are in charge of what we want to do? I believe a lot of our desires and ambitions are hardcoded into our brains and we just project them onto present goals, like getting a promotion or learning how to play the piano, etc. ultimately all these desires cater to the same few desires we always had and were born with: developing a sense of social belonging and intimacy.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belongingness
I wish your comment found its way to the top of the main thread.
Because (naively) I'd assume it's some kind of software running on computers, and one can generally improve performance of that by buying more hardware or using better technology (or shorter lived components, or better cooling, or whatever).

If humans created an AI to solve some kind of open-ended problem, where "more AI" made the solution better, there would be every incentive to spend the money on more or better hardware for it. It's not clear that a shark would gain much by being 100x smarter, particularly if the metabolic cost were high; for a lot of human problems, spending 100x more on hardware/power/etc. for a 10% better solution would be quite desirable.
Right, and I'd add that once your species has survived interstellar travel at sublight velocities, you are no longer a planetary species.

The day we have ships that can get us to new planets will be the day there's no reason to go there.
>allow them access to whatever you might share with your circle of friends //

I only know about it from being recommended it and having read it's legal info today but ... the legal info says that anyone with your phone number listed in their contacts can access your messages unless you block them. That seems different to what you're saying. (Like I said, I've not used it).
Please track issues with the samples / etc here: https://github.com/proevo/pythondotorg it's all open source and I will be moving it to the official python org tonight
Composer: PHP package manager
Bug me please! I linked to the repo everywhere else :)
America Online President and Chief Operating Officer Bob Pittman said: "Acquiring ICQ fits perfectly into our multiple-brand strategy. Like CompuServe, ICQ substantially broadens our reach in important markets not served by AOL-branded products. In addition to its international reach, ICQ has tremendous appeal among young, technically sophisticated Web users and there is remarkably little overlap with AOL."
Remind me again why web pages need the ability to display realtime 3D graphics?

The answer is the same one that would have been given to people in 1991 who were asking why Gopher wasn't good enough.
Is there some reason people don't like sms?
You seem to be of the opinion that only "Strong AI" should be considered as "intelligence". In contrast, I'm of the opinion that "weak AI" is sufficient for the "intelligence" definition.

Although, since I've done some research in the AI Field, I also recognize the distinction and the two. There is a controversy, even in AI circles, over what constitutes AI. So I'm not going to debate with you the merits of Strong AI vs Weak AI.

It is sufficient enough for me to just inform you... this controversy exists and is real.

---------------------------

http://www.i-programmer.info/babbages-bag/297-artificial-int...

>>> This is the curse of strong AI. Whenever you make something work, you know how it works and it no longer seems intelligent.
Non-compete clauses are void in California

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
Clearly this team has been quite successful! I can't agree say that they have almost replaced SMS, as many people communicate with me through SMS or iMessage. I have never used whatsapp nor has anybody a requested that I use it with them. As far as other messaging, everybody I know uses kik or Skype.
Dear Python, Why Are You So Ugly? (2012)