skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I'm not really sure of the functional difference this provides over what we already have?

Here in NZ, you can already buy a phone and then put whatever SIM card you want in it. You can quickly swap between carriers in less then 30 seconds. The carriers give SIM Cards away like candy, usually with free credit on them so it's not like cost is a factor.

That's not to say folks always do this. For the most part, I think people just sign up with a carrier anyway because they want one of the $1000 smart phones or an iPhone and can't afford (or don't want) to pay the up front cost for one.

Basically, those that want to be on a Prepay plan with complete carrier freedom, already have that option. Those that are willing to be locked into a contract for a few years in exchange for a free/low cost smart phone can already do that too.
> One had a criminal history that included three assault charges, albeit more than a decade old, and on his arrest was found to have a knife ...

Is that illegal?
And here's the meat, since the article does come from Economist:

> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back.

> Many police departments now depend on forfeiture for a fat chunk of their budgets. In 1986, its first year of operation, the federal Asset Forfeiture Fund held $93.7m. By 2012, that and the related Seized Asset Deposit Fund held nearly $6 billion.

Proliferation of SWAT team setups may have been due to a perception issue, but they sure as hell are kept going because there is a real financial incentive. For that reason the answer to the article's title should probably be something like: "Neither. Try mercenaries."
Don't compilers and type checkers do rudimentary semantics ?
Cultured Beef
I thought that was partly how it works, similar to twitter ads. You bid on views/clicks.
Man, that is quite the hype video.

It doesn't look like it actually can print free standing carbon fiber parts though, just reinforce existing PLA printed parts, which seems like a bit of a nightmare from an alignment point of view.

Seems like that is a limitation of using carbon 'thread' as opposed to carbon sheets. Aren't most carbon fiber objects made from sheets that are shaped, baked and bound together? That doesn't seem like it would convert to fiber very well.

In short, it seems like a neat way to reinforce printed parts, but in no way does this seem to be the 'print carbon fiber' like they are selling it. You can't just plug in a model for a 3D printed piece and get out a gorgeous cabin piece.

As an additional aside, isn't there still a step of baking required? They didn't talk about that, is it a different process? (perhaps the thread is heated ahead of time?)
It's not responsive to AI as such, but it does offer a sufficiently different model of consciousness that it might meet your Kuhnian threshold. I'm not sure that it's right, but it's so elegant that I feel it ought to be.
I'm a daily python user, and mostly ex-R user. Agree data-frames in pandas help. But python really doesn't have much feature parity with R when it comes to statistical data analysis.
> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology), it is clear that the human brain does encompass something in addition to electromagnetism. [emphasis added]

Let's extend this to include chemical reactions (since we know that it's more than just wires and currents in our skulls), and my question becomes: what evidence do you have that this is true?

A few hundred year ago if you had claimed the sun was illuminated by the energy from the massive number of fusion reactions occurring under its surface, no one would have believed you, not least because there was no language at the time to even discuss the physical mechanisms that actually occur. At best you may have been able to persuade people that it was a giant flame, akin to the fire and candle they knew. That doesn't mean that there is some other supernatural thing going on, just that the natural goings on weren't understood.
Doing my part by hosting a relay, and so can you!

https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-relay-debian.html.en
If it's sufficiently better than the current technology to overcome the switching costs, it sticks.
These programmes provide useful defensive equipment, such as body armour and helmets. But it is hard to see why Fargo, North Dakota—a city that averages fewer than two murders a year—needs an armoured personnel-carrier with a rotating turret. Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier known as a BearCat. The local police chief said it would be used to patrol Keene’s “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations”. A Reason-Rupe poll found that 58% of Americans think the use of drones, military weapons and armoured vehicles by the police has gone “too far”.

Oddly enough, I was under the impression that a large part of the American population protested loudly whenever their tax dollars are spent for "useless" reasons. Do the complaints only apply when it's the Federal government doing it?
Why is this up here? Anything changed about WebP recently? Any news I might have missed?
i would also find it very interesting to see distinct mathematical approaches for solving these kinds of problems compared.

are finite-element models or some other approximation of the probability distribution used in practice as an alternative to simulation when closed-form solutions are not available?
We've been using WebP in production in our chrome-only web application for over a year now, works well but not sure why it's on the front page of HN!

Google announcement about YouTube supporting it?

http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/23/google-webp-youtube-thumb...
If I understand yc-kjh's point, their "semantics" are really just more complicated syntactic rules. No real understanding occurs within the code. Or, the code doesn't understand what it's doing it's just doing what it's been instructed to do by us. (On that note, the code doesn't understand anything because the code is a non-entity, it's a thing, like a book or a car engine. A car engine doesn't understand the fuel it's burning or the gears it's turning or why, it just does it because that's what it does.)
Do you happen to have a technical explanation for this? I don't think I understand how it is possible.

Edit: Ok, after reading a bit more, I think I understand. For anyone else looking for more info:
https://www.torproject.org/projects/obfsproxy.html.en
> Because of a legal quirk, SWAT raids can be profitable. Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime.

Isn't this true in general, and not only when SWAT is deployed to arrest the suspect?

> Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime.

I would have thought this to be contrary to the US constitution, since it clearly breaks the presumption of innocence, but it turns out that it doesn't feature in the US constitution explicitly, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence
First of all, this article includes only anecdotal evidence. Secondly, it fails to provide an adequate definition of the problem. You can easily find a single big, high-res panel that has more screen real-estate than a pair of 1080p panels, but would one of these be better for your focus because it's a single display? This claim is not logical. If you can augment your working memory with more screen real estate you should benefit. If you use screen real-estate to display extraneous, distracting data such as weather, email, news, etc. you might suffer. Whether or not your screen real-estate has a line down the middle dividing it into two chunks shouldn't make a difference.
The sensible way to combine classical REST and AJAX (which I think
original AJAX did open for, with it being Asynchronous JavaScript and
XML) is to allow requesting partial documents. So if you have:

<xml><d><p>I am initial document, I have only one thing to say, and that
is hello!</p></d></xml>

At, /document.xml

You should be able to get a partial: <p>I am p2</p> from something like
/document.xml?2 /doucument.xml/2 or something.

Then all that could be cached, and you only send new sections.

But yes, the client does need to keep some state, because HTML doesn't
support transclusion[1] of the "most important" html elements:
paragraphs, divs etc. So you can transclude an image, or (badly imnho)
an entire document through an iframe -- or javascript (henche modern
ajax, which is basically asynchronous javascript and javascript or json
which is basically javascript).

There's no real contrast between REST and AJAX as an architecture, as
such. What's maybe missing is server-to-client PATCH or something (eg:
client says I've got d1.html as of <some-date>, give me a diff).
Wouldn't that have solved almost all our problems?

[edit: I hereby reserve the http method "DIFF" as a reverse "PATCH", as for some strange reason no-one seems to have defined this before (as far as I can google, anyway). Semantics to be hammered out, but in general a client does a "DIFF /<uri>" along with a cache header/timestamp/sha512-hash, and gets back either an unchanged header, or a reply with a patch to be merged with the document/uri in question in order to get an up-to-date copy.

In other words, a DIFF is to GET as PATCH is to PUT ]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transclusion

[2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789
>I can't tell you how many times I walked into a store and the clerk was reading a book and when I tried to ask a question they just ignored me or shrugged me off without bothering to even try to help.

They do that plenty in capitalist Israel.
You don't have be a good guy to become successful. Just look at all the politicians and religious leaders, at least in my country they are highly corrupted but have a massive following. If you can deceiving exploit people then its usually good enough.
I am not agreeing with your argument, but let me play devil's advocate.

If somebody wanted to produce a real AI, every bit as intelligent as a human, he probably wouldn't go wrong by trying to reproduce in software what Pascal Boyer describes in his book "Religion Explained".
http://www.Amazon.com/Religion-Explained-Evolutionary-Origin...

Boyer fails, in my mind, in many ways, but at the very least by not providing a solution to the Frame Problem. The Frame Problem looms very large in all of Boyer's descriptions of folk psychology, and how the human mind works. Yet it is completely unaddressed.

For a good explanation of the Frame Problem, see Daniel Dennett's argument "Cognitive Wheels: The Frame Problem of AI" in chapter 7 of "The Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence".
http://www.Amazon.com/Philosophy-Artificial-Intelligence-Oxf...
In this article, Dennett is his own worst enemy, in that he proves that AI isn't possible. (Nobody has solved the Frame Problem yet.)
> The computer is still doing only syntax, even while appearing to do semantics.

Why do you assume people are not doing the same?

> But humans really do semantics. Nobody questions this, or challenges it, because it is self-evident.

It is no more self evident than your claim that computers don't do semantics.

Your argumentation is circular:

IF computers can't do semantics, and IF humans do, then clearly the humans and computers must be fundamentally different. But your claim that computers can't do semantics (as opposed to, a claim that we don't yet know how to program computers to do semantics) is assuming that humans and computers are fundamentally different - if we are not, and the materalist hypothesis holds, there is simply no basis for assuming that we are fundamentally different (as categories; clearly current computers are not structured as human brains).

> It is easier to be an idiot, because that doesn't put your funding in jeopardy.

Less name calling, and more of an argument that isn't resting on a logical flaw might be preferable.
I'm using Interactive Data Visualization for the Web by Scott Murray

http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920026938.do

You can read it for free at Oreilly's Chimera labs

http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000345
I've been developing from a single screen for 17 years and have never desired a second. Part of the reason is I work from a laptop and rarely at a desk. But practically speaking I get a lot of work done on a single screen. My eyes can only focus on a single window at a time, so I have no problem using swipe gestures to quickly jump between tasks. Another advantage is I don't need to twist my head every which way to view different windows. The window I need meets my eyes rather than the other way around. While the article is mainly an opinion and offers little scientific research I do agree with his opinion.
Transparency on lossy compressed images is something that I really crave.
You apparently don't understand how computers work.

There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.
http://www.picaxe.com/Hardware/Add-on-Modules/Budget-Serial-... This is open firmware and has IIRC four GPIOs free.
One Of the biggest pain point i see with micro services architecture is the amount of data that is transferred over the wire and number of HTTP calls made for a simple operation.
>... since the human obviously has both intentions and goals ...

You're just arguing past people.

Humans obviously do this, computers obviously don't, therefore computers cannot do what humans do.

There's nothing "obvious" about this. It's a completely subjective interpretation. How do you respond to people who say humans obviously do act precisely like a very-complex computer?
I couldn't think of the word I wanted and that sounds like the word that would mean what I wanted it to mean, so I was very enginuitive in my wordification
TL;DR: when you want to focus, don't keep your email and social media clients open on your second screen.
Unless they established new Linux distro, say ATMLinux, where most ATM operators pays to maintain and contribute, it's going to be interesting how it will work.

I assume each operator paying to different opensource-shop of their choice is going to be more problematic than all of them paying to only Microsoft.
Who Is Fethullah Gülen?
Ask HN: Australian hackers working in the US?
I'm an Australian programmer curious about work in the US. I recently started working at a medium-size company (2k employees, at least 100 other programmers) doing C# web dev and Perl systems stuff. I have 2-3 years prior experience with Python + JS web dev, and a math(s) degree.

I like my job in Australia, but in the future, I want to spend some time living and working in the US — ideally in SF or NYC which I've visited and liked. It seems like I wouldn't have any trouble getting an E-3 visa, bypassing the H1-B lottery, if I could get a job offer.

Are there any Australians who have managed to do this? How did you find a job? I've seen a few positions advertised on HN that look appealing but they tend to require you to already have permission to work in the US. Is it worth applying anyway, since I wouldn't need a H1-B?

Is it realistic for me to ask a company to sponsor me at this point in my career? Reading HN gives me the impression that developers get better pay and more interesting work in SF, but I'm not sure if that's true for more junior developers. Would I be better off working in Australia until I have 5+ years experience under my belt?

Thanks in advance!
Perhaps they are annoyed at the attack surface bloat of modern browsers and operating systems. I've been thinking of switching to w3m/links/elinks/lynx.
As usual the uptake or not of Linux for this or any other use case will be moderated by quality drivers or the lack thereof.
> Since electromagnetism cannot cause intentions, or goals, and since the human obviously has both intentions and goals (teleology)

You're begging the question here. If the world is materialistic, then physical processes can cause intentions, hence this claim is false if your conclusion is false.
I keep this tiling window manager on a USB-stick in case I have to work on a Windows machine:
https://code.google.com/p/bugn/
Feels like dwm and has virtual desktops too.
8 Ancient Beliefs Now Backed By Modern Science
You don't think it's a logical response to companies colluding to hold down salaries?
We used to have these tracking "competitions" for fun on IRC #trax.

Someone would create an empty .IT file containing only a bunch of samples. Then he'd DCC it to everyone that wanted to take part in the tracking compo. You then had something like 60 minutes to crate a track from those samples. Everyone would then DCC it back at the end of the time limit, he'd zip it up and DCC it back to everyone else and you could listen to what the other guys wrote. After this everyone would vote on which track they thought was the coolest. .IT files were really small back then, typically between 200k and 500k. Those were really fun times.
But he was only at one position behind Job, and at that point he was still more successful than many a-holes.

Unless we are only scoping the discussion to "a-hole being successful in business founding".
Actually it is Google Pagespeed where the magic happens. You serve jpg, gif, png, pcx^H^H^H and then your nginx/Apache converts them to webp for you, on the fly, cached. If the person requesting your page runs chrome they get webp.

So that means everyone else gets a slow image format? Yes, but you have saved bandwidth and your pages have loaded quickly for ~50% of your users.

I don't think webp is really a source image format, more something that is browser and Pagespeed specific. Try it, you will be impressed.
You are afforded rights such as a presumption of innocence. Your property however, not being a person, has no rights. That's why they sue your property, not you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States
If anything in this thread is absurd, it is your outright dismissal of the notion that users will ever change the status quo, using Tor of all things as your example.

If Tor can create an adequate UX for an onion router, why couldn't someone create a decent UX for a distributed secure messaging system?
>E.g., can you imagine TechCrunch announcing a new startup and then criticizing its concept? it would make startups would think twice about giving them any releases, writers would be able to produce less content, no kool aid.

On the other hand, that's the only thing that would make me read TechCrunch and take them seriously.
Could've used joins in Java a couple weeks ago when I was doing the CCC (Canadian qualifier for IOI)!
or they could just run Red Hat...

There isn't really anything special about the Windows builds ATMs run. It's all in the ATM software.
Apache Commons StringUtils#join does that same.
Shortest Path through all Nodes in a Fully Connected Nondirectional Graph
Ooo HN #trax virtual meetup! Which irc network were you on? Nickname? I was eggbird on IRCnet. Organized my own fair share of those fastcompos.
brilliant - except the implication that liberal arts should be all we need by now
"CEOs at large companies make a tonne of money. This is usually justified by saying that they are more skilled than the average CEO but this kind of skill is also hard to quantify. Why does this argument work for CEO pay but not programmer pay?"

Because it's much easier to measure performance of CEO's, at least artificially. If Google does well, then you (supposedly) know that Larry Page is doing well. That's how the market treats it, at least. But can you really tell me that you're able to tell me which of the 10's of thousands of engineers that Google has is responsible for that success?

Also, there's the issue of leverage. Just like a programmer can build software that is used by millions, and therefore has a lot more leverage and creates more wealth, so a CEO usually influences even more customers than the programmer. Paul Graham has an article about exactly that - the idea of a startup is to give e.g. programmers a lot more leverage than they usually have.

And arguably, the fact that a few engineers can build WhatsApp and earn billions is an example of that in action - getting more leverage by building a company, proving success, then gaining the money it gives. But the average exceptional programmer, while being 10X better at programming, won't necessarily also be better at business or money generation, etc.

Lastly, the fact that there are cases of companies colluding to keep pay down proves the opposite of your point - that salaries should have been even higher!
> People are saying that Jobs was being an asshole.

You say this, and then you say a bunch of fancy words that boil down to "he's an asshole."

I feel like this is a big part of the problem with...hell, with capitalism and corporatism in general. You people have gotten the idea that being an asshole doesn't count as being an asshole if you GET RESULTS. No, that's not right. An asshole who gets results is still just an asshole. That's not a good thing.
If you have domain registration and DNS hosting from the same company, then it should ideally be possible to log in, check a box, and have all the keys and records computed and updated automatically.

Is there a single registrar in the world that supports this?
I agree. They've really diminished the value of a like. Rather than encouraging unliking they're making the content providers pay to make their likes more valuable than the likes of their competitors. It makes business sense for Facebook, but it really destroys the value to the user. I'm tempted to delete my Facebook page, but I still do get a little engagement. We'll see how long that lasts.
This assumes the hardware from one ATM to another varies wildly. This is hardly the case. Thus, driver implementation costs are a very small factor, not the primary one.

License restrictions are more likely to make them choose something else, like Sony chose FreeBSD for the Playstation. (Again, no need for drivers for many different configurations.)
> You apparently don't understand how computers work.

You appears to like to jump to conclusions.

> There is no "meaning" associated with any variable or its value, and there cannot be.

Please give me a definition of "meaning" that can be applied to a human brain and not to a computer. And what is the evidence that it can not be applied to a computer?

You are also jumping to the conclusion that, if as you claim, the brain depends on something that can't be explained under the materialistic hypothesis, that a computer cannot, yet you have not even presented an argument for why that would be so.
given that even London Barristers operate on a pretty hefty meritocracy (assuming can they afford it and speak nicely in English for the judges), immigration policy in that case is competing to attract the best.

that seems a sensible immigration policy
You can still get most of it from ftp://ftp.scene.org/pub/music/

Tracked music will always be inexplicably linked to the demoscene for me. If you didn't live through that era then it probably won't have any meaning to you. Much like the Amiga scene means nothing to me because I was never a part of it. Much like this guy I'll forever remember seeing Second Reality for the first time and thinking it was the most amazing thing ever created for PC at the time.
> What I Learned Negotiating With Steve Jobs

I read the headline and thought, "that he's an asshole?"

Then I read the article. I was right!
Good development which really had to happen earlier. As usual, MS shoot themselves in the foot.
Former Yale researcher files lawsuit over sabotaged research