skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Edge in one of its recent "Question" issues ran a piece by Charles Seife on capture, in response to the question "what should we be worried about".

It's a tremendous problem, and not just of government (principle-agent problems in management and business are also rampant). Recommended reading:

http://edge.org/response-detail/23674

And the answer isn't "don't regulate". It's "regulate appropriately and effectively". Just realize that this is an eternal challenge.

NB: Sadly the formatting of the questions and responses is horrible. In particular, navigating the full list by title is all but impossible. I've highlighted the specific essay in question.
It's still using the old OpenCV calls, so I did a quick port to OpenCV 2. https://github.com/techwizrd/terminal-webcam
I'm not sure that works unless everyone else they do business with also gets up an hour early. DST solves this problem.
What? Apples and oranges. More people watching TV means more people wanting different things. If I like something on FB, I don't want FB deciding for me if I want to see it.
I have been looking for a single board setup that can run flash in the browser. Have you tried running flash in a browser (e.g., youtube)? Would love to know. It sounds like a great little board.
The JVM, for one. The JVM far exceeds Haskell in this regard. Superior libraries and equal if not better performance. I didn't say you couldn't, but for production purposes if I had to choose.
I'm afraid you're right. On Ubuntu I tried rolling my spin locks and ring buffers, but it just didn't produce the deep soundstage that I would expect from raw source.
> Enough that they choose to use much more obtuse code?

They certainly had it profiled before they optimized it. There must be some numbers somewhere. "Enough" is hardly an acceptable answer.
> Forget looking at my ugly face, how do I watch movies in my terminal?

Everything looks beautiful when rendered in ASCII.
19 year old Stephen Sutton reaches £1m cancer charity target
And so with the mouldy artificial fruit, so with the spam email and the blog and YouTube comments, so with in-app advertising, so with cloud server user tracking, so with clueless legislation. All were bitterly complained of at first, and then acquiesced in and forgotten. Things went from bad to worse unchallenged.

"No ideas here," murmured jodrellblank, and hid the discussion thread by clicking back to the frontpage.
It's a startup. Why are you here?
You're right, Google is by far the best. I tried using bing,duck,yahoo and none of them even come close, but that doesn't mean everyone else who uses Google values the same features that I do. Pretty soon people might want to search based on what their friends like, and suddenly Facebook becomes the new discovery engine. It's not too far fetched.

And yeah, not 100% of revenue, but it's like 95%
throwaway2048 really hit the crux of the argument but let me be a little more specific: you too are being robbed.

And I understand that Australia is a HUGE country with a tiny population/sqmi so at least for the next few years they kinda have to "steal" from you to make it profitable in the long run (same thing happened/is happening with our wireless services here) but still it's not really a fair rate to charge you and you should be always lobbying for less.
Scientists create graphene in ordinary kitchen blender
One other consideration is that, at its current price, Apple is not able to be considered for inclusion in the DJIA since that index is price-weighted and Apple would account for a huge portion of the index.

After the 7-1 split, Apple will be a likely candidate.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/23/apple-just-...
Bruxism (jaw clenching/grinding)

This happens when MDMA is cut with meth. I think he mentioned "pure", but when it's illegal it's hard to guarantee purity, so legalization would have at least that benefit.
discussion from 2 days ago - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7619439
> Apple banked on the lower price offering

This is a common mistake. The 5C was not lower priced, that was a pre-announcement rumor that turned out to be incorrect. The 5C was lower costing to make. It was intentionally made to "look cheaper" because they didn't want to offer the 5 as the 2nd phone they felt not enough people would buy the high end 5S. Now they sold fewer 5C's than they would have if they used the 5 but more 5S's and made more money because of the cheaper parts for the 5C.

> larger market.., instead of opening themselves to a real market. Big mistake.

Last I checked Apple makes more than half of the industry profits. I'm sure they would shocked to learn that they have missed the "real market"
Forget about retina displays, imagine on a VT340* in glorious sixels!

https://github.com/saitoha/PySixel

*Or even xterm compiled with sixels support ;)
It's probably your apache, actually; 2.2 can't do ECDHE, even though the openssl in Debian 7 can.

Sadly, this means IE doesn't get forward secrecy, because it can't do do DHE with RSA keys, only DSS.
Implying that encryption is not already mainstream. What do you think that lock symbol in your browser means?
No. Just no.

The architecture is, at best, an anachronism.

Designs of much more elegance have been explored (qmail). But as a matter of fact, neither postfix, nor qmail, nor exim, nor (god forbid) sendmail belong into our day and age anymore (I have run 3 of them at scale).

A modern MTA is way overdue. Please keep writing MTAs kids!

In modern languages. Until you get one right. Thanks!
I wouldn't call monads "hard to grasp" so much as "hard to explain" or "easy to obfuscate." That's what the "mumble mumble endofunctors" joke is getting at: sometimes they're a useful generalization, but more often they're a way to make easy things sound hard, or to make bad teachers sound smart.
I'm a computer vision grad student. A few things concern me about this work. Maybe they're incidental, but I'm not ready to throw my hands up in the air quite yet.

- Why wasn't this accepted to CVPR/ECCV/one of the well-established computer vision conferences? I would love to read some of the reviewers' comments about this work before I give further judgment. (If this really is some CVPR preprint, or if it actually is peer-reviewed, I'd feel much better about this.)

- Why isn't this work listed on the official curated "LFW Results" page that Erik Learned-Miller maintains? http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lfw/results.html Is this work so new that Erik hasn't had time to review it yet?

- Human performance on LFW is 99.2%, which is higher than what the authors think it is. The performance drops to the (claimed) 97% when we only show humans a tight crop of the face: http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/CAVE/publications/pdfs/Kumar_ICC... They discuss this difference in a paragraph in their conclusion, but I consider it dishonest to use the lower number in the abstract and imply it in the title. In fact, I consider it misleading to put "Surpassing human performance" in the title to begin with, but that's another matter :)

- Showing good performance on one dataset (LFW) is certainly not enough to show that this "outperforms humans" in the general case. Getting a state-of-the-art result on LFW these days is like squeezing a drop of water out of a rock; in my opinion, we should turn our attention to harder datasets like GBU now that these "easier" ones are solved.

I'm not terribly familiar with Gaussian processes so I'm not sure whether the math works out, but it is a pretty uncommon thing to try in this domain. (Perhaps that's what makes this work interesting, especially since this year seems to be the "Deep Learning is Eating Everyone's Lunch" year)

I also wish they describe what final-stage classifier they use for the "GaussianFace as Feature Extractor" model. Often, that's the most important step; it's strange that they didn't compare with POOF/High-dimensional-LBP/Face++'s deep-learned features/any of the other state-of-the-art feature extractors, especially considering how much worse "GaussianFace as a binary classifier" does (93% vs 97% is a huge difference in this dataset)

Just my two cents. It definitely demands further exploration. I don't see any obvious mistakes, but I'm not sure why their approach works as well as they claim it does either.

Edit: I don't mean to start a witch hunt or anything, but if the authors have the guts to put "Human-level performance" in their title, they're just begging for the community to inspect every detail and point out all the flaws in every minutiae in their work. It's our community's hot button. It's similar to the old adage about how if you want a Linux user to help you, you have to tell them how much Linux sucks. That's where much of my skepticism comes from. The most astounding papers are often the most humble, but "humble" certainly doesn't describe this work.
Lawrence Lessig learns there are no laws on his son’s Minecraft serve
What's the point in limiting yourself to small datasets? It forces you to be "clever" about preprocessing, because the levels of freedom in your learning algorithm must be limited to match the size of the dataset. Being clever like this is precisely what we're trying to avoid with machine learning algorithms. It's better to just shove the raw data into a very general algorithm like neural networks and let the data do the configuration. And do that you need _lots_ of data.

There is a conflict between an algorithm's performance and its learning speed. Restricting ourselves to low amounts of data means we get algorithms with lower maximum performance than we otherwise would. These are then claimed to be better than algorithms which need more data to generalize well.
You can just SSH into a modern z. It has a full POSIX environment, so you could run real EMACS.

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/features/unix/library...

http://pic.dhe.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/v1r11/index.jsp?topic=...
A big problem is candidates with little cash might have problems getting their existence out there. More than limiting spending, providing more airtime for registered candidates might go a long way.
What's up with the mailing list. I am very excited about this phone, would like the email updates.
I'm a tenant with Comcast cable and internet including in my rent. I have not had proper service in weeks. Comcast says nothing's wrong on their end. Have checked out house. But I'm constantly getting a pixelated picture, followed by the standard "comcast has noticed a disruption in your service message..." Well duh? It's not my tv. First off, it's brand new and just to make sure I brought it to my friends place and it works fine. They don't have Comcast. They have dish network. If I owned my house, I would have ditched Comcast and gotten Dish Network. No wonder there's only one couple and one ad by Comcast that states thy went back to Comcast because it's improved so much. Comcast service I'm 413 Northampton area is ridiculously bad!!! I wonder of they'll ever improve the quality and more importantly consistency of their cable and internet services??? Because it's horrible, and the customer service reps are are almost always rude. Oh look my cable went out in the time it took to type this. Will it come back...??? Who knows, watching tv should not be like playing the lottery and that's what it's like when trying to watch comcast cable. Th
I know someone who makes a little more than that and only works part-time (although with MDMA, not pot).

This guy is talking up his role because he obviously likes the image of being a drug dealer. Chances are that he is the mid-level supplier in one of thousands of organizations serving the East Coast. There is no real 'east coast head' of all pot supply, the drug business is very very broadly distributed.

$30k+ a month for a guy in the middle of one of these orgs sounds right. Remember, there isn't much work - you aren't going door-to-door 12 hours a day and grinding out, you are handling a package or two a week plus some re-packaging.

He'd likely has a normal job (the person I know does) and a business that he uses to launder his extra income.
AirChat Releases PoC of Infrastructure-free Communications Platform
Barrett Brown's gag order vacated, crucial court documents unsealed
Bruce Schneier: "NSA Surveillance and What To Do About It" (talk)
It won't matter until we have end-to-end email encryption by default, which doesn't seem likely very soon, given history and government power. Right now most email travels in the clear at some point, even if your connection to your server is encrypted.

Unencrypted incoming SMTP email won't be closed off anytime soon, for practical and economic reasons.

StartMail is a start in the right direction (pun intended).
I don't give a rats ass about being "open sourced" I want to be able to watch my frogging tv. Comcast is horrible!!!
Yeah, but ISAs exhibit so strong network effects that anything not x86/amd64 or ARM is irrelevant, sadly.
Why Simple Forms Get Higher Conversions
Chatham Asset Management just sent Pando this seven page legal threat
The paper is really interesting, but a lot of the references have been omitted.
Does it cost a large company more to file a shitty patent than it does the community to crush it?
Should be required reading of every single startup person, period. Well, every person in the world, period. It describes our future pretty well. Stay calm and continue chatting on Secret or WhatsApp, nothing to see here.
Hmm. Someone doesn't agree that Pincus made the world net-worse for his efforts.
Your product can be the best. But i, like google and others use siesta-js for unit tests and interface tests with mouse simulation. Its all js and runs natively on every browser

See the demo: http://www.bryntum.com/examples/siesta-latest/examples/brows...

It can record your actions and generate the tests.

Worth looking.
That good performance is not trivial to achieve is not really here nor there. Haskell is a difficult language and many people come into it with assumptions that come from imperative or strict languages and don't hold up in a lazy functional language. That there are programmers who are using the language in a non-optimal way, and coming away with reduced performance, is not a mark against the language itself. To the extent that the benchmarks prove anything, they prove that you can write Haskell code to be competitive with or any other language, at least in regards to those specific problems. Of course, it certainly doesn't prove that there are no areas in which Haskell - as a language, not in regards to specific uses - is not in the upper level of performance. As to the web frameworks benchmarks, I can't speak to them, as I don't know whether they were written expertly or with the latest available libraries. Maybe they aren't as fast. Regardless, it's clear that it's more than possible to write very performant code in Haskell, so ruling it out on those grounds makes little sense.
> Of course you can tweak things to be fast in hakell, but to be able to actually program haskell in such a way to, beat other languages in performance, is not a trivial skill.

No kidding:

http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/program.php?test=regexdna&lang=ghc&id=2

It's mostly a matter of knowing C, then knowing how to torture GHC into doing what the C would do.
Did your design principle make it so as I type this 75% of Comast customers are reporting internet problems, 18% are having problems with cable tv and 5% are on total black out and have been for at least the past three days. Go check is it down. Comcast is almost always down in some way. Again in the time it's taken me to type this my cable has gone out and come back intermittently 5 times. This is ridiculous.
When Jobs came back to Apple, Apple was not in solid financial health. That's not a good time to have a dividend.

If they needed to deploy all of their cash for growth, I'm sure they would. The trouble is that they have so much cash that it's likely not clear how to deploy it in a way that is true to Apple (ie they could buy some big companies or add 100 products to their portfolio, but that's not the way they roll)
But we're not talking about FOSS. We're talking about software in general, and some types of software can't be sustained by any traditional FOSS monetization model. These kinds of software will usually be distributed as binaries, and you'll just have to switch to whatever OS and ISA the developers care to compile for.
That's not the only way of making a more educated electorate. Another method would be to limit the electorate.
Interesting - I just made something exactly like this (screenshot looks exactly the same): https://github.com/billyeh/termchat! I even had to publish a Node package to do it (pixelr).

Except it's got a chat function with other users as well :)
No matter angle and illumination? Come on.)
You're criticising this dude's writing and he got a meeting with Mike Moritz. Even if he didn't receive a positive outcome (and if this story is even true, I'm not doubting just saying) total props to the lad for getting a meeting via a cold email with one of the biggest venture investors in history.

How many other people can do the same thing?

In fact, it's actually irrelevant in this case that the writer made mistakes and could be better (all of us could be better). The most impressive point of the story is he showed enough courage to write to someone at the height of the VC industry and get a response and invite for a meeting.

Props to the lad.
Apparently the reports are incorrect and the FCC will issue a statement shortly refuting the claims by the NYT:

https://twitter.com/fmanjoo/status/459154485793656832
It costs the companies quite a bit, and a reasonably knowledgable person about 10-15 minutes to find prior art that, once discovered by someone at the USPTO, can help to fast-track a denial. In any case, you're at least helping to make sure that none of the ridiculous claims get through (these are common in patents, just to see if they can get away with it since they're already spending the money)
QA is all about situational ethics. It's the very epitome of tactics and triage. Unit testing, integration testing, black box,beta testers, internal QA, outsource...-they are all arrows in the Quiver. Anyone who tries to sell you one fits all is setting your snakeoil.
That's a great point, and it's exactly why the LFW results page makes a clear, distinct separation between algorithms that use outside training data and algorithms that do not: http://vis-www.cs.umass.edu/lfw/results.html#notesoutside You can probably guess which ones generally do better.

(Note that this is separate from the "unrestricted" vs "restricted" issue)
I grant there are problems that are relatively more tractable or intractable, but I challenge the notion that limiting how much money can be spent on political campaigns is the solution to a problem of an uniformed electorate. Why does limiting every candidate to some level n of spending necessarily lead us to better governance?

Further, in your analogy, I'd argue that the equivalent to teaching abstinence is the idea that we can somehow legislate political contributions and then large political contributions will disappear from the surface of the earth.
Your initial implication was that SPARC wasn't setting any world-records anymore, when I proved that wasn't the case, you then proceeded to complain about an arbitrary benchmark.

When I pointed out that results were provided for that benchmark, you then complained that it wasn't for the general benchmark but a portion of it.

You then proceeded to claim it wasn't an Apples-to-Apples comparison, but Oracle doesn't offer anything less than 16 cores for a T5. I don't think comparing products that don't exist is very useful so attempting to extrapolate what an 8-core version might be seems silly, especially since there's not a one-to-one correlation between cores and performance.

In addition to that, at last check, you can't pick the number of cores (precisely) that you want a processor to have when purchasing so it doesn't make any sense (in my personal opinion) to strictly compare core-to-core performance, since, as the other poster pointed out, core is essentially a definition at the whim of a vendor.

So, I'll just stick to refuting your original implication -- that SPARC isn't setting world-records anymore; it is in fact doing so. And in fact, SPARC continues to have far greater memory bandwidth, I/O bandwidth, and memory capacity compared to general Intel offerings.

So if you want to find out how fast a T5 will actually run your application, try one out and get real data instead of relying on benchmarks to make your decision. Personally, I think you'd be shocked at just how well most workloads perform if you actually tried a T5.

As to the price argument, the companies I've worked for or with in the past generally didn't care about that so much as the reliability of the system and it's capability. They have workloads that consume multiple terabytes of memory. They're using the servers to process transactions that are netting them millions of dollars with the servers they use, so saving a few thousand bucks doesn't matter to them.

In the end, you have to use the right tools for the right job. There's a reason that Oracle sells x86 servers too.

Personally, I don't care which architecture is being used as long as I get to use Solaris/ZFS.
Remember Intel's Itanium? It was sold based on the concept and hardware capabilities, and there was an assumption that a "Sufficiently Smart Compiler" [1] would just fall into place. Knuth mentioned it later as "the Itanium approach that was supposed to be so terrific—until it turned out that the wished-for compilers were basically impossible to write." [2]

This is quite similar when you put it the way you did: the hardware exists, it is intentionally stripped down to provide the theoretical minimum required to produce the results people want, and we hope that software people will figure out the rest.

[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SufficientlySmartCompiler

[2] http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1193856
When the People Cheer: How Hip-Hop Failed Black America
I turned 40 and my metabolism went south.

I don't care if my Fitbit flex isn't the most accurate device, it's helping me put some quantification where none was needed a few years ago.

When tracking my intake, I don't care that I have to look up how many calories that Founder's breakfast stout is, now I actually know is 260.

I've gone from 'not looking at my credit card statements' to 'balancing my checking account'.

Knowing roughly where you are is half the battle.
It was about open-source hardware: monopolies can limit freedom in hardware too. The Pentium FDIV bug was trivial to validate at that time, since it was common even for an undergraduate at a small university to have accounts on Sun SPARCS, HP PA-RISC, and DEC Alpha in addition to POWER Macs and Windows x86. And there were other choices in the ecosystem like SGI MIPS.

Granted, that may seem like ancient history, but RDRAND is an indication that Intel still makes mistakes.

Less fragmentation is more efficient in many ways, but just like any monoculture, it is also fragile.
This is so significantly out of line with my perception of how planes are boarded that I must just have terrible perception.

Every plane that I have flown on recently seems to have boarded front to back with executive boarding first.
Petition | Prosecute teenagers for beating up defenseless dog | English
"It didn’t capture my runs properly so I had to manually input those"

I don't understand this bit. I have a Fitbit Flex and best I can tell it captures my running just fine. I haven't checked that it gets the distance 100% spot on, but it seems quite close.

In my experience, Fitbit has been awesome. Keep in mind that 100% accuracy is not the goal for me. I'm interested in the lifestyle change that it starts. I nearly always hit my daily goals, over-estimate my food slightly if unsure, and have managed to lose ~12kg since mid-January. Having everything fully automated would be nice, but I think desiring that out of a device or else chucking it is missing the point.