skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
You misunderstood. I meant literally around me. House surrounded by at least a mile or a few miles of woods. If the houses were lined up in front of the forest you could increase the density, though. But the way I posed it originally, not so much.

What's your threshold for where a house becomes a "McMansion?" What would you think of ~1200sqft, two stories with a basement, with a good yard?
GloveTalkII: translates hand gestures to speech with unlimited vocabulary
I think she is mixing up:

1. Shading.
2. Motion parallax. When you move your head, objects in the foreground move more.
3. Microsaccades. If your eye points perfectly steady, your retina adapts to the constant stimulus and the image disappears. So your eye moves slightly, all the time.
No. I couldn't care less about political correctness.
Do you believe the line is incorrect, or does it merely make you dislike the writer?
Anki is wonderful; I've been using it for a while. One nice feature of Anki is that it can sync between the web, desktop and mobile versions of the app.
Videos are also available here

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJpGkroFP3o

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mb7K2IpZn6E
I guess this is why l / 100km is used in the EU instead of km / l.
Caveat: Totally not a lawyer.

No, it's really not a DMCA takedown notice. DMCA takedown notices are a mechanism whereby a hosting company can qualify for the safe harbor provision of the DMCA. If they comply with the rules of handling such notices they are not liable for any copyright violations of their users.

Youtube will still comply with those, or face liability, but they offer this tool to content owners that register with them. As such, it is not a DMCA takedown notice and is not subjected to the penalties of perjury that are laid out in the DMCA's rules about takedown notices. That doesn't mean that no law applies, just that the DMCA's specific rules for DMCA takedown notices don't apply.

One question I would love an actual lawyer to answer or comment on is: Does Youtube's prevalence make them a common carrier or have similar implications?
This is a very good point. I finished the book today. The most interesting thing to me is that the book pretty clearly (from the perspective of an HFT engineer) comes down on the side that HFT is not actually a villain and that the large banks (especially Goldman Sachs & Credit Suisse) are pretty much the devil (giving Goldman a pass for their last year of non-deviltry).

Yet all the interviews, press junkets, and face time on the Daily Show are saying the exact opposite (to the point that Jon Stewart of all people is extolling the virtues of Goldman).

It says way more about the book selling/exchange building business than it does about HFT.
Yeah; I had done this sort of stuff in 1998 using a custom HTTP server I wrote in VBScript.
It probably just backdoors any executable it sees on the fly.
I do deny that. Biblical marriage comes in a variety of versions, including slaves. Muslim marriages allows up to 4 wives. Traditional European marriage was mainly about an alliance between families. Families generally from the same town, and certainly of the same race. Your notion of "traditional" marriage is "what my parents grew up with", nothing more.

People wanting society to be a certain way are not monsters. People using the power of the state to force their views on others to the detriment of families and children? That is a monstrous action, although I hope most people involved did it out of ignorance, not monstrous intent.

The government's interest must be rational; you can't just make laws against people because you don't like them. Which is basically what happened here. In California, none of the offered bases were found to be valid. Ditto in Michigan. If you don't like that, go argue with the federal judges involved.

It may not be obvious, but as the saying goes, "It's all over but the shouting." This is going the same way interracial marriage did, but faster. Gay people were in the closet out of fear, but they are not going back. The youth today know actual gay people, and won't be trying to force them back in, and they won't countenance treating them as second-class citizens. E.g.:

http://dannikanash.com/2013/04/07/an-open-letter-to-the-chur...

Nobody today would try to resurrect the laws against interracial marriage because it is now obvious bigotry. And if they did try, courts would strike it down because our once-clouded understanding of equal protection is permanently clearer. The same will be true with gay marriage.

In a generation, gay marriage will be part of traditional marriage. Kids born today will wonder why it ever was a problem, just like 20-year-olds today are shocked that racially mixed marriages were once illegal.
Automation has never killed jobs, only dis[re]placed them.
What do you mean by 2)? I can't tell if you're saying that automated processes don't meet the bar for avoiding penalties or don't meet the bar to be penalized.
I'm assuming that the best and the brightest don't have time for a try-out period, because they're busy doing stuff, and don't need one because they can easily get another job.
> I guess all those famous Japanese brands just some how happened without any entrepreneurship and their products happened without any innovation.

The Japanese are very skilled at taking what others have done and incrementally improving it. By reverse engineering American cars, they were able to beat the Americans at their own game, producing more reliable, efficient, and defect-free cars. Thanks to the cooperative nature of their society, they avoided the antagonistic relationship between the UAW and the Big 3 American automakers that led to many of the financial problems faced by the Big 3. Similar success was seen in electronics by companies like Sony, allowing them to produce high quality TVs and other high-tech consumer products.

This sort of societal cohesiveness (along with cozy government-industry relations) removed a lot of barriers to the sorts of large and capital-intensive undertakings that are common in manufacturing. But it rarely produces the sorts of game-changing innovations that Silicon Valley, and America in general, is known for. The nature of Japanese society also prevented companies from restructuring and outsourcing their manufacturing to China, which allowed South Korean (and increasingly Chinese) rivals to largely displace them in consumer electronics. There's a reason why Sony's products are so unpopular these days - they're expensive as hell. Even in the automotive industry, Toyota/Honda are starting to get overtaken by the likes of Hyundai and Kia.

> Sorry, I didn't mean for this to be snarky but seriously... Your excuses are BS and don't live up to any scrutiny. It's not an either/or thing.

Actually, the problem is that you have a very shallow understanding of the situation. This isn't the sort of thing you can really comprehend with some weekend blog-reading. The Japanese should be credited for exploiting their post-WW2 alliance with the US to rapidly transform their economy while much of the world dicked around with communism and most of the West was in no better shape than Japan itself after the destruction of WW2. But transient effects stemming from quirks of history, although intriguing, don't disprove the bigger theory.
Hunt for cool furniture or homewares on Couchelo
I'm Will from Couchelo, and we've recently launched our iPhone App, a curated marketplace to browse, buy and sell cool furniture and homewares. We're Australia's first platform to connect design enthusiasts with vintage, retro, upcycled and other awesome decor for the home.<p>Our iOS App is now available on the Apple Store and it's currently free to use. Check us out by going to www.couchelo.com or visiting our Facebook page.<p>We'd love to get your feedback in terms of user experience, concept or any improvement points.
My understanding of both of those terms agrees with yours.

I think in the case of "motion parallax" it's nearly the same, though.... whether you're "moving your head" or "moving the object", in both cases the spatial relation of three things is changing: your Center of Projection, and two other things (e.g. the two sides of a soda can, or e.g. a cloud and the moon).

Now that I found someone to discuss the nerditude of detailed depth cues... why on earth would eye-flickering change the shading? Am I supposed to believe that it's because the CoP moves (because my pupil moves)? I find it implausible that moving the CoP one millimeter, on an object that's 100mm to 10000mm from the CoP, while also changing which center-surround is processing the photons from a point, can detect a difference in shading, even on highly highly specular surfaces. Can anyone explain this to me?
An alternative view is that, if you make good handaxes, you'll have more money (or patronage), meaning your children have more resources and advantages. You may increase your attractiveness to mates (who value their children's welfare).

Beauty may be to do with simplicity. Simpler ways of seeing things (while retaining accuracy) are more likely to also be correct for situations not yet encountered - have better predictive powe, are better theories. Valuing those has a survival advantage. Simpler theories are also easier to learn, to use, to remember etc.

It's very fundamental: our eyes, when confused by a scene at first, will resolve it to the simplest interpretation.

I think this covers many instances of beauty (e.g. symmetry, neatness, non-arbitrariness, and even the simpler lines that emerge from averages), but it doesn't cover all.

For example, the sworling of ocean waves, the complexity of clouds, of a forest. It is possible that these are in fact "simple", to the theories we have in our minds; just not simple for an intellectual understanding. And of course, fractal patterns are indeed simple, in the sense that they are generated by a very simple process. So, perhaps we somehow intuitively grasp the simplicity of clouds, waves, trees. (Or maybe we just like nature.)
> A cop and a firefighter in SF are top 0.5%. A teacher in Palo Alto and a software engineer are too.

No, not even close. If the top 1% makes nearly $400k/year, then the top 0.5% is probably at least double that.
Right at the start, Kay pointed out that the innovation to get from Alto to Macintosh took more work than inventing the Alto. I don't think he was ignoring that. His point might be that someone was bound to do the innovation, but it took very deliberate choices for PARC to situate themselves where the invention was possible.
I like this. I'd love to see more ventures in this direction.

Ever since trying out Google's photo sphere feature (yes, they weren't the first ones in the space - Microsoft and others actually beat them to market), I've been quite interested in the concept of 360° by 180° ways to explore places.

I've used the feature to document, especially, my hikes, and a trip to Peru (https://www.google.com/maps/views/profile/111004183840840391...). I've experimented with using my DSLR to do the same (https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/111004183840840391992... and https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/111004183840840391992...).

And, after all that, what would I love to be able to do? Take a video with a setup that is something like in the link and be able to put together a 360° by 180° video that would allow a viewer to follow along with me skiing down a slope in the not so snowy mountains of southern California, or enjoying a zip line through a cloud forest in Costa Rica, or descending on bike down a mountain road. Imagine being able to view such a video but being able to pan side to side, up and down, looking forward or backward - basically, allowing the viewer to pan to any angle at any point in time in the video.

I have to imagine this is not a novel idea, but I can't say I've seen any demos of such an experience. I'd love to see some if they exist.

Anyway, just some thoughts I had while enjoying the video in the link.
A typical person knows how many gallons their gas tank can hold, and thus how far they can go without needing to refuel. For day to day driving, it doesn't really matter. For long road trips, it can be essential if you're on an extended barren interstate highway.
I guess the same thing that makes me think I'm above people who are opposed to civil rights for black people, or any other group facing groundless prejudice.

Honestly, I don't think I'm above anybody in that sense. We all believe stupid shit, and sometimes that makes us do bad things. As I said, my problem isn't with Eich's action; a lot of people were on the wrong side of that issue. But until he has recognized that stripping a civil right from gay people was harmful and wrong, and until he says that he won't be trying to treat gay people as second-class citizens, then I think it's reasonable to ask whether he should have a position of power over the people he's helped oppress.
> Don't know enough about it but I think "there's no such thing as reverse racism" is true because it would be just... racism. Or just sexism. Actually the definition given before ("sexism is sexism by the privileged") would allow for "reverse sexism" ("sexism by the non-privileged"). So it seemed kind of inconsistent to me.

As I said in my original post, most feminists assert that society is a patriarchy that is fundamentally oppressive to women. They use the term "sexist" for an act that results from the patriarchy. Because their model of power dynamics does not allow for the notion of males being structurally oppressed, it is by their very definition impossible for one to be "sexist" (or "reverse sexist" as some people say) towards males.

> I know I didn't upvote your comment because of:

I'm not sure I really follow. Are you saying that (1) you disliked that I attempted to clarify that feminists use the term "sexist" differently from how a lot of us use it or that (2) I didn't do a good job in making that clarification or (3) something else entirely?

If the first or third, I don't get why. If the second, what I meant is that a lot of commenters on this thread found the title misleading. I wanted to clarify to them that there are two commonly used usages of "sexism", one in mainstream English and one in academia, especially in left wing contexts. As a linguist, I don't find value in prescribing one definition as "better" to use than another. I just wanted to point out that people were really just having a debate about definitions.
Google Now for Chrome
I initially agreed. It really depends on how this purported shape-from-shading-due-to-eye-flickering thing works. I don't at all understand danah's claims about how eye flickering gives you extra data, and my first-principles impulse is to say it sounds implausible to me... but supposing she's right, depending on what she means, maybe eye trackers would be required to produce proper depth cues. In which case it's a hardware problem too (though of course the game engines would also be required to support it, blah blah).
Agreed. My GTi shows an estimation of how much further I can go.

I was just pointing out that, in Southern Utah (too which I've never driven), it looks like it's not as barren as was commented on.
Lots of information on this type of thing here, including information on stitching softwares and methods, and many sample videos and photos: http://www.360heros.com
I use spiped every day the same way I would ssh tunnels, except spiped is rock-solid, dealing with flaky network with no problems. I highly recommend it.
Caveat: I am an actual lawyer, I'm just not providing any legal advice to anyone.

"but they offer this tool to content owners that register with them. As such, it is not a DMCA takedown notice"

The first part of what you said is exactly who DMCA takedown systems are for so I'm not sure I see the "as such" logic. The DMCA takes the uploading user into account almost never, except when they become repeat offenders or "red flags" otherwise. It's sole purpose for existing is to appease content owners.

You're intertwining "notice and takedown" with "safe harbor". They are two different sides of the coin. The former gives content owners power and the latter gives service providers a defense.
I have the Harmony 890 and aside from the disaster that is programming it, I also find it frustrating to use. If it's decided to turn off the screen, it does so with a slow fade out, and while it's doing that you can't do anything. It's like it has one thread of execution, and while it's changing backlight brightness it ignores the buttons. This is really annoying because then you have to shake it to wake it back up and hit your button again.

Another glaring problem is how it decides to carp about low battery levels right in the middle of what you're doing. When this happens, it ignores your input until you acknowledge the low battery warning. After you acknowledge, it completely forgets what you were in the middle of doing. As if that weren't all bad enough, the battery warning can come back at any time after you dismissed the last one, including immediately, one second later, etc.

I find myself using the individual remotes more and more often in the past few years. They are stateless, have excellent battery life, and are incapable of measuring their battery levels. They don't have any of the Harmony's bad habits.
Yes. It is very sexist imho
It "should" not, see the "Blues" option :)
gpg --print-md sha256
In a world without limited liability, investor Joe Blow is absolutely liable for the corporation's debts (even if it's simply a proportionate liability) and all of his assets are fair game towards the collection of said debts.

Joe Blow doesn't even have to be very sophisticated. He could be a mid-level (or any level) worker who works hard to sock money away in his 401k. Everything is going along fine, until one of the company's his managed 401k invested in gets hammered with a massive judgment in litigation. Now, he and everyone else who invested in that company regardless of their size or wealth, is on the hook. Even if the small size of his investment simply means that he's only liable for a few thousand dollars, that's still one hell of a hit.

And that's not even touching the issue of smaller firms (such as family businesses, startups that issue their employees stock benefits, or employee-owned firms) where the potential risk per individual investor goes up significantly simply because they own a greater proportion of the company.

Every time I stumble across people arguing about limited liability (or corporate personhood... oh boy, does it seem like people confuse personhood with citizenship), I walk away with the impression that those seeking to end it don't really understand what they're asking for. It's sort of like opening Pandora's Box, but without hope lingering at the bottom.
Pretty cool article / research. I kind of wish the author hadn't intentionally brought sexism into it because I think the research is interesting enough on its own and it just distracts from the actual information. She does address this a bit at the end though.
> ...cases of sexual harassment and misconduct. Nobody condones that.

No, that would make us feel bad. So instead, every time something happens that we really can't ignore (and that is just the tip of the iceberg) we deny, justify, rationalize or otherwise deny that sexism, sexual harassment etcetera have actually taken place.

You can read any thread on HN about any incident and you'll find it full of apologism and denial.

And it's not just about women. Anything concerning minorities will get the same treatment. Or in a more recent example, all the threads surrounding the Eich debacle were full of comments suggesting that having a raging homophobe in charge one of the most prominent tech organisations is not an issue and disparaging the "liberal" lynch mob.

No, we don't condone anything. We just deny, deny, deny, and round it off by shooting the messenger.

Your comment is an excellent example of that.

In fact, it's pretty much a textbook example of how this so-called tech meritocracy functions. Including the small print that says "and oh, you'll also have to be one of us...".
Not sure why you're downvoted. It's a good question. I think the main reasoning is that if that were true, then we'd see that magnitude of inequality across much longer periods of time (rather than only growing over the last 40-50 years). But that assumption might be false, also.

I know that the inequality is accompanied by all sorts of bad acting that has helped "cause" it, but I think that's beside the point. I wonder more if there's some reasonable policy we could have put in place that would have actually kept things consistent with where they were in the 60's and 70's, or if larger system elements were already in play that would have overwhelmed things even if our various bits of deregulation hadn't happened.
One giant party room – Facebook
In a sense, it's the replacement that someone who has their bike stolen is paying for, not the original. If it gets stolen, you'd need to get a ride home, find a new bike without transportation for a bit, and put in a decent amount of time and money to fix a bicycle at that price.
Probably not a Great And Proper Tragedy of Social Justice, no. But...

It's still pretty important, right? Like, if she's right about all her preliminary biological results, and if you were Palmer Lucky, wouldn't this kind of make you super super sad? Like "oh crap, my revolution is only going to be available to boys? that is NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND!!!" Right?

Also, what if VR ends up being as big as web browsing? In that case, it might qualify as a tragedy of social justice for an utterly important information vector to cause nausea in say 50% of bio-females.
The spinning woman mentioned above: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinning_Dancer
It wasn't false. "Why UPS Trucks Don't Turn Left" is not "Why UPS Trucks Never Turn Left." If a truck does not turn left at an intersection, you can ask why it didn't turn left, even if it has and will turn left at other intersections.

But really, who cares? What is the obsession with the titles?
[Edit: Removed discussion not relevant to parent's question for reposting as a top-level comment.]

I've been assuming that this bit about "eye flickers" is boyd's way of describing for a general audience the phenomenon of optical saccades, which are automatic and very fast eyeball twitches which allow the brain to gather enough information to construct a visual scene through an eyeball with a (usually) very narrow area of focus.

I'm not sure how that affects shape-from-shading, though, because saccades are movements of the eyeballs only, not of the head. Saccades therefore don't affect angles of reflection or refraction, which would seem to make it impossible for them to change the shading of a given scene.
This is a throw-everything-and-see-what-sticks... kind of article. Financial crisis, long term unemployment stigma, business cycle, technology, demographics, all crammed into 1 page, and doesn't really answer its own question. A very frustrating read.
Analyzing VC investment strategies with Crunchbase data
Notepad++ checks a known URL for updates. He'll have spoofed the URL to tell Notepad++ that there was an update, his.