skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Veritasium on youtube has a couple of videos breaking down the numbers - not only do you have to pay to get views now, but the views delivered above and beyond what you usually get are fraudulent.

He showed the usage of his page beforehand, with users clustered in Western countries, generally 20-40% of whom interacted with his page in some way. After paying for more views, they were all from developing countries, a profile of users he'd never seen before with very little (0-1%) engagement with his page.

It's worth checking out his videos if you want more detail on the patterns he found. It's pretty clear that it's fraudulent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ZqXlHl65g (explores problems he sees with FB as a marketing platform)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag (massive influx of unengaged developing-world pageviews)
Yeah, the analog hardware components that gcc runs it through really add warmth.
I am not in the area but Xiaoou is not nobody in the area. He used to work (or visit) at MS Research Asia and Chinese Academy of Sciences. He had best paper award from CVPR and served as chair of ICCV. That all being said, we all know how research goes... I am just curious why they put it on arxiv. Is this a common practice in the CV area or is it because someone else is working on a similar approach?
Can't wait for the vinyl release of the kernel module.
Something you can do with components if you set some strict restrictions is do static or runtime analysis to determine which sets of components are disjoint in terms of systems that access them. For example, if the combat system only needs access to combat components, and the builder system needs pathing and inventory components, then those two systems can run completely in parallel.

One place this is likely to break down is the transform (position) component, but one strategy for that is to differentiate between read-only and write access. Lots of systems need to know where things are (const access) but few need to change where things are (write access). All the systems that can deal with const access can still run in parallel.

The trick here is you have to strictly enforce all this. You CAN'T have a method for getting an arbitrary component from an entity, and this may drive you nuts. Instead you have to have each system specify ahead of time exactly what components it needs and how it uses them, and then hand them those components, and only those components. As soon as you let someone write "entity->GetComponent(Physics)" in leaf code, you've lost your ability to analyse the dependency tree.

For a lot of games, the other problem you're going to run into is that one or two systems are going to take up most of your time and every other system is just going to sit around waiting for those anyway. Usually those are physics and rendering. Which you might be happily avoiding by making a dwarf fortress style game!

I have a coworker who's got a "toy" engine at home that does all this and some other fairly amazing tricks. He says he's going to open source it, still waiting on that. Sorry for this pointless tease, just wishing he'd hurry up out loud.
This is a good point. I've been involved in IP, as an inventor, and also dealing with freedom-to-operate issues, though I'm not a lawyer. The advice that I've gotten from lawyers is that the holy grail is a single piece of prior art reading on every element of the primary claim (or of the claim that is getting in your way). Obviousness and the other criteria are much harder to argue.
Good point. Yes, let's prioritize personal things on a personal platform.

However, ~30% of the "top stories" in my newsfeed (anecdotal of course) are public URL's that my friends share. And, those don't look like ads or promoted posts, but they sure could be!

That said, in the past, we'd promote a business by trying to get email signups, then trickle monthly updates to our users to engage them more. (That still works!) Now, email is seen as "unsexy" & we're told to go social to get viral, & make everything have a Facebook share (+pinterest/etc). That's just not as effective as email, sorry. I just wanted to share my experience about what works best for startups.
It's not so much about the level of taxes as it is about taxing foreign income, which is not something that other countries do, giving a competitive disadvantage to the US.

Even if Apple brings back the cash and dividends it out, that's more money in the pockets of shareholders, which are pretty much everybody with an index fund, pension funds, mutual funds, etc. That can't hurt the US compared to leaving the cash abroad.
The intended goal of this thing is to fully describe email threads in a manner that is durable. To my knowledge, even today, there are no structures or grammars that are capable of describing email content and fully retaining their original definitions after full exposure the various software of the email platform. Rich text format comes close, though.
Also crowd-sourced news seems to be the elusive puzzle that everyone seems to be trying to solve (what with facebook's new trending feature), but no one has quite figured out how .
It's a unique problem in that it is just as hard technically as it is socially.
Anyone have any more information than I do about the AAPL vs. GOOG question?

For quite a while, AAPL and GOOG traded blows in the mid-hundreds range and both generally rallied 2000-2008. As of right now, they're still quite competitive.

Would the stock split be an attempt by AAPL to avoid the comparison?
Warp seems plenty fast, but still didn't seem to do as well as I'd hoped, in this particular example, I wonder if they're doing it wrong.

http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/

https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...
High school students get little instruction in computer science
A patent holder only needs to make your life miserable in one country. At one place where I worked, we used to patent in:

1. USA
2. The main competitor's home country
Superconducting Qubit Array Points the Way to Quantum Computers
Or here - https://https.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/donations

If you, like me, want to use a credit card but live somewhere where PayPal blocks donations (Japan in my case).
Well, what I was trying to do was point out a bit of irony in the GP comment. Judging by your and eli's responses, obviously I wasn't successful. I'll give it another shot.

At a time when our political process is broken, full of cronyism, regulatory capture, and co-opting by moneyed interests, we get this new position from the FCC. The position itself is about giving those with money (e.g. Netflix) advantages on the Net. The Net, of all things, which was supposed to be a democratizing, equalizing force.

So, what did the GP say in response? "Hey, money doesn't matter. Scrappy bootstrapped campaigns can overcome!"

This, even while the very topic of this thread is moneyed interests' de-democratization of the single greatest potential tool for making scrappy, bootstrapped campaigns an actual possibility.

I mean, at what point do we consider that democracy is losing and money is winning?

>Changing the rules won't actually make a difference

>We live in an age where democracy requires marketing. That's the rule you need to change.

You're not going to change the need for candidates to communicate with the electorate, nor should we want that. Instead, you change the rules such that candidates simply do not have the money to spend, then you watch as the media, parties, candidates, and entire political process re-structure themselves to allow for viable candidates to be identified and subsequently engaged with the electorate.

Here's where the Net can truly be a democratizing force, and even moreso when combined with other media. There's no need for candidates to spend money on marketing. They are the story, and the media clamors endlessly to get their messages out.
I mentioned that SPARC performance stopped being a central focus with the death of Rock, in favor of massively-multicore, low-cost designs derived from Niagara.

You pasted an Oracle press release that focused on parallel performance.

I complained, and pointed out SPECcpu as a common measurement.

You responded with SPECcpu_rate, a different benchmark focused on parallel performance measurement. It is not surprising that Niagara-derivative chips do well. It is also not surprising that, core for core, they can't match modern commodity systems for density, performance, or cost.

p.s. The "reliability" argument went out the window with VMware. Every fortune 500 is using x86 with VMware HA to provide the redundancy that would have once come from enterprise RISC. (Given how few RISC systems were ever configured with redundant memory or CPUs, VMware-on-commodity is probably offering a substantially better service level.)

p.p.s. a basic 1U x86 server will typically have between 0.75 and 1.5 TB of RAM in it. Yes, TB, as in terabytes. Virtualization provides a market for compact, low-wattage systems with significant memory. That's just the 1Us. In 2014, "Large" x86 boxes are very large indeed.

Lastly, I, too, miss Solaris/SPARC. It was a great platform that I enjoyed working with. I don't miss the associated hardware support contracts that came floating by after the Oracle buyout. It has been several years since I found a contract where SPARC or Solaris were anything but legacy platforms. It's sad, but it's not a mystery.
That's what I find so perplexing about this patent in particular – email is only useful due to interoperability, so patenting the underlying representation of an email is a non-starter for general purpose use.

I really hope you don't have general purpose use in mind, I'm guessing you're hoping it's more for something along the lines of EDI applications between governments, or something else. I just don't get what it's for.

At risk of going blue in the face, where is the value in this patent that I'm not seeing?
Hack it up with existing software. Shunt the output across the network with ssh, perhaps into a shared tmux session. That takes care of text chat too. (Of course libcaca kills the tmux session, so you might have to drop the frame-rate or keep the tmux panes small).

If you want to keep it hacky and horrible, have each side also set up pulseaudio and use it's networking capabilities over ssh to make each others computers the sink for your microphones. Or use existing proper VoIP software, if you want to be practical and boring.
Because I have yet to see any product of human effort come close to the scale of complexity that cellular tissues represent.

Current-generation electronic systems are very complicated, and convincing "life-like" behavior still seems to be out of reach. Even if we eventually manage to produce systems that engage in sufficiently convincing life-like behavior, that bridges any sort of uncanny-valley gaps, there will still be a confusing grey area between truly sentient Life, and deceptively convincing complex apparatuses which are not alive.

Even to reach the grey area will demand large collaborative teams of skilled and talented experts. If breathing life into a complex system represents a challenge above and beyond the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon missions, how will we ever decide who benefits from the fruits of such labor? Are human beings capable of sharing such a thing?

These things will not be toys. They would be more controversial than genetically modified foods. If a tissue replacement technology were to be implemented, would it be self-replicating and autonomous? If so, would it possibly be infectious? Or would it be so durable that it wouldn't need to repair itself? Would it's many tiny components communicate with one another? Could the communication be intercepted and disrupted? These are huge problems.

Even if one very powerful HAL 9000 system solves all these problems for us, and manages to devise a scheme to mass produce a practical inorganic replacement for neurological tissue, isn't it possible that such an expert system might have an agenda of its own that does not represent lesser human interests like immortality? Wouldn't it require a similar leap of faith to trust in a technology with a purpose that can only be rationalized and not proven?

For these reasons, I place my bets on biotechnology, using native human cells, and not electronic surrogates.

If I know that I am alive, and that typical organic cells produce this phenomenon of experience, and it's within our reach to manipulate stem cells to repair our brains and keep them alive without any upper age limits, then I'll choose the sure thing, before placing faith in any experimental electronic surrogate.
I use Postgres HSTORE via Flask-SQLAlchemy. As far as my code knows, it's dict() all the way down.

And if I want to attach non-kv data like last_updated, or have foreign key relationships between one dict() and some other stuff like the corresponding user record's primary key - it's already in an RDB.
If you normalise the SPEC results to per-thread per-clock, you get:

- SPARC T5, 128 threads @ 3.6GHz, 463 / 467 -> 1.01 / 0.946 result/thread/GHz

- Intel Xeon E5-2690, 16 threads @ 2.9GHz, 357 / 343 -> 7.69 / 7.39 result/thread/GHz

Or to put it another way, the SPARC needs 800% more threads and a 24% higher clock to achieve only ~30% faster than the Intel. The POWER is somewhat, but not that much better, at 2.54 / 2.24.
See also hasciicam by Jaromil. https://github.com/jaromil/HasciiCam
What I can't get my head around is the fact that we only use one of the plane doors to get in and get out. Internationally we see some airlines using two doors.
I didn't mean that training time is the constraint. It's that when training a more general algorithms (ANN) your hypothesis space has more dimensions than when training a more specialized one (SVM). You therefore need more data to train an ANN than a SVM. The reason for choosing SVM is not that your dataset is too big for ANN, it's that it's too small for ANN.
>This always feels like a warning sign to me, indicative of a low emphasis on R&D.

Why is that necessarily a bad thing? Vizio, for example, has great success at selling LCD TVs, because it relies on Samsung and Sony to pave the way with R&D, and then it imitates their innovations a few years later and comes out with a lower priced product that's just as good. One+One can be the Vizio of smartphones - delivering current-gen features at low prices, and waiting for Samsung/Motorola/HTC/whoever else to pave the way (and earn profits for a few years) before coming out with a generic version that sells for much less.

Currently, the market is split between high-end very expensive devices (Galaxy S, iPhone, HTC One) which incorporate new features with every iteration, and crappy underpowered handsets which, frankly, suck. I think there's definitely room for a handset that doesn't necessarily innovate, but delivers a solid current (or even previous) generation user experience at a low price.
Not sure how that's possible exactly, but some might argue that's not such a bad thing, WRT to leveling the playing field a bit and avoiding investment bubbles.

People argued that Detroit would cease to exist if the government did x, y or z, but I think technology and competition had more to do with its downfall.
http://i.imgur.com/TJaL85e.png
Go's GC has not been terribly fast compared to more advanced ones like Java's, but it's getting better and it's also a LOT easier to keep from throwing off so much garbage in Go. I have production Go services that run in < 10MB of space. I don't think I could run even trivial Java servers in that space.
Words confound the mind
Concepts will obscure the truth
Code alone brings forth

http://lpaste.net/103140
Researchers See New Importance For Y-Chromosome
Ask HN: What can we do about the new FCC proposal?
Contrary to the doomsayers, the internet is not dead yet. However, I think we can all agree, regardless of the ultimate extent of the consequences, this proposal is a bad thing.

Now, we know that we, as the public, have the power to change things. Unfortunately, it takes a massive, concerted effort like the SOPA blackout in order for our dimwitted/corrupt/greedy/spineless/etc politicians to take note.

So, what can we do? Specifically, what can we do 1) on May 15th and 2) by the day they actually vote on it?
Thank you. Saved me so much time.
F.D.A. Will Propose New Regulations for E-Cigarettes
The Intel chip, as benchmarked, is 2.1 GHz. The same design is available in 3.6 GHz, as of Q2 '12. We're comparing a top-clocked, circa 2013 SPARC to a 2012 Intel product running at 60% of the commercially available clock rate, and the SPARC comes up short.

I used this poor comparison because that was what was readily available in SPEC's published results for single-processor (SPECcpu) and parallel (SPECcpu_rate) benchmarks.
It says on the docker site "Please note Docker is currently under heavy development. It should not be used in production (yet)."

http://www.docker.io/learn_more/
It's only the play store as well, so if you have an android device...

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.danmoran.f...
Why can't the browser do the crypto on your input, before it even gets to the site/js? (e.g., expose a secure input and output API (say, a new type of HTML textarea and markup tag). Whenever you start entering text, or when a secure element enters the viewport, look up the key for the site (stored locally, like how they remember passwords) and encrypt/decrypt the content. All the site/js sees is gibberish.
Many other countries tax overseas profits, and many of the ones who don't, have very strict rules about foreign ownership to assure they aren't being gamed. The G20 is fairly united on this front.
It's also as logical as arguing that a brand new market with unmet demand won't lead to increased competition, investment and innovation. The fast lane can always be made faster and sold for less, pretty much just like every other piece of technology in existence.

Not controversial in my book. Commence the down votes!!!
That is actually part of the purpose of a patent attorney - to mention enough information about how the idea works that shows it's novel, but not enough that you can build a competitor. (According to a patent attorney I discussed this with a long time ago.)

Bass-ackwards, I know.
Wasn't it acting Division Commander General Tony McAuliffe who said that?
(((((Let me give you an unironic bouquet of parentheses)))))

Like a golf ball each facet of the American government has a beautiful and unique center when you scrape off the aerodynamic divits.

I'm sure "helping" the USPO is just as fascinating as redesigning the triscallion for DOT.

Or helping disenfranchised voters find their polling place "round back the municipal building where they got the hog shows."

I heard Tufte was giving a speech at a local coffee shop owned by some new ycombinator startup next week after Eric S. comes by to make sure everyone's in line with Google's new coffee brand.
I have a few thoughts:

- Your patent application is much more readable than most. That's a good start.

- hosay123 has already said basically what I would've - you may have found something that no one else has done 100% before, but it is clearly very similar to HTML in email with a few minor differences. Here are a few examples that I think would bring both the idea's novelty and non-obviousness into question:
http://www.boutell.com/wusage/8.0/eml.html

http://petewarden.com/2008/10/15/an-xml-format-for-email/

https://www.google.com/patents/US7970842?dq=electronic+mail+...

My question to you is: what will happen if you are granted this patent? You've been working on this for 4 years at least, judging by the 2009 date on the application, so my main argument would simply be that you could've probably found a more interesting use for your time. It pains me to say this, since I can tell you've spent a lot of time on your application, but honestly I would feel worse if I didn't say anything.
> $180-280

That's just for the basic filing fee. You also have to pay the search fee and the examination fee.
Amphetamines are not neurotoxic, methamphetamines are. If you want to read some scientific research search pubmed for methamphetamine neurotoxicity and you'll find a ton of results.

Here's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#Neurotoxicity
Conversnitch [video]
Indian Politician Arvind Kejriwal Wins TIME 100 Readers’ Poll
They want the authority to search phones incident to arrest. Before you form an opinion about this --- I'm not sure what mine is --- you should know that the police have always had broad authority to conduct warrantless, intrusive searches at the time of an actual arrest. That's one of the things that makes arrest very different from mere detention.

If you're arrested by the police, they will not generally need to obtain a warrant to search your person, your pockets, your bag, or the passenger compartment of your car. Thoroughly.

People confuse "search incident to arrest" with "Terry stops", which are light, supposedly unintrusive searches that can be conducted without individualized suspicion for purposes of officer safety (ie, for weapons). Terry stops are the ones where, supposedly, the police aren't supposed to be reaching into your pocket. Search incident to arrest, going back over 100 years, has always had a purpose of discovering and preserving evidence; they aren't simply about officer safety.

That said: a modern smart phone is more than just a container you carry on your person. It can provide access to much of the same personal information that a search of your most personal possessions would. It's a totally reasonable question as to whether an intrusive search of the data on a smartphone falls into the rubrick of what search incident to arrest was meant to cover.

Either way: make sure your phone is encrypted.
Heh good point, not sure why I was excluding taxes on the laundered money.
You're correct in saying that fluoxetine (prozac) can reduce the ability of the chemical that causes MDMA neurotoxicity (whatever it is) to get inside the axon and cause damage. However, in doing so fluoxetine reduces MDMA’s ability to work (as you stated).

People regularly dosing with SSRIs may be safe from neurotoxicity, but they usually don’t feel the normal effects of MDMA either. The idea of using SSRIs to prevent neurotoxicity is something of a catch-22: If you take the SSRI after coming down from the MDMA, it’s probably too late to do a lot of good. On the other hand, taking an SSRI before-hand tends to reduce the desired effects of MDMA, making it more logical to simply take less MDMA in the first place.

All things considered, it’s unlikely that taking an SSRI before or after MDMA is a very useful prevention strategy. Since SSRIs have their own side effects and potential risks, the practice should probably be avoided.

source: http://www.dancesafe.org/drug-information/is-mdma-neurotoxic...
Free Dataset of 2200 faculty in 50 top Computer Science Programs
It does know how to enlarge itself.
Gmail Traffic Watcher
How do you encrypt your phone?