skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Shouldn't we be talking content and not form?

Let's say a reader of mine is searching for a job and my site has a new great job at Apple. Apple advertises on my site because it attracts a certain kind of person. Shouldn't that person be shown my ad because it's both timely and highly relevant?

That the job is on my site is a valuable signal. I don't use an ad service, I place every single ad and I have done so since the start. I check every single link. I check every single ad. I personally talk with every single advertiser.

It's not hard for me to imagine an algorithm that does similar sorts of calculations. Oh, this link goes to apple. I've heard of them before. It's for a job. Scalability Engineer seems to be a valid occupation. Looks OK to me.

You are saying all such signals have no value and should be filtered by nofollow?

In actuality I've not given nofollow much thought. I guess I may now. I've lived by the idea of creating quality content, being honest, and doing a good job, thinking Google will figure it out. That unfortunately doesn't seem to be the case.

The irony in this age of targeting and personalization valuable signals are being lost.
The race is officially on!
Can the Telecoms retain their terrible monopolies by becoming streaming providers Faster than the Streaming providers (Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime et al) trying to become Content creators?

AT&T is running out of customers to squeeze in the cell phone plans market. This is the next frontier for terrible service, exorbitant prices and regulated monopolies...
I am reminded of Greg Bear's Blood Music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Music_(novel)#Plot_summa...
What ever happened to "apt-get" as the C package manager?
AT&T - and most major ISPs in the USA - already offer TV service. It's true that these consolidations will only give the big players more power, but the conflict of interest already exists.
At Amazon, I've seen quite a few positions:

http://www.amazon.jobs/results?str=machine%20learning

Goodluck! Also, feel free to PM if you have any questions.
I am sadly unimpressed by a lot of people who end up managing investment or research funds. I wonder if it is similar to politicians? It takes some specific social skill to get there, but it doesn't mean you are any good in that position when you get it.
It's not a "scam" per say.

Google has established these rules to prevent the commoditization of PageRank. They want links to represent an editorial choice and indicator of quality, not marketing budget.

There is nothing wrong with selling ads and visibility on your site to companies that wish to purchase this, but you should nofollow the links to prevent running afoul of Google's TOU.

Again, I don't care if you sell links on Fiverr and make a million dollars. I'm just explaining the rules to you.
Because it is very easy to be stupid with deadlifts. You should be following these simple guidelines but hardly anyone does:

1. If you are tired/hungover/sick/not feeling well/angry then don't deadlift

2. If you don't have the time to do 3-5 warmup sets then don't deadlift

3. If you don't have time to rest at least 3 mins between sets then don't deadlift.

4. If you can't lift a light/medium weight with perfect form then don't try and go heavy.

5. If you aren't competing and under the instruction of a trained powerlifting coach then don't try and max anything. If you can't do 7 reps with a weight then you shouldn't be doing 5 reps. Likewise if you can't do 3 reps with a weight then you shouldn't be doing 1. Leave 1-2 reps in the bank.
Worth watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnBbhXBDmwU
My statement doesn't preclude the reverse relationship. Each relationship is almost certainly bi-directional.

Altering the language is a powerful technique to shift views and change the debate. Totalitarian regimes have used it extensively (and Orwell parodied/warned about in 1984) but it is used in democracies too, see the battle over the language for abortion (life/choice), the US redefinition of liberal and I'm sure many other things too.
Funny. Another new loser joined.
> Most modern conflicts also present huge employment opportunities for the local populace.

That is one way to look at it. Another is that they are a way to extract big amounts of money from a population to put it into private hands, and these jobs being breadcrumbs falling off that table. Imagine throwing 20$ in the air, getting 10$ back, and saying it's raining money.

Penicillin, plumbing, or washing hands weren't invented for war, and I would guess for every invention made for it, there are many, many more made without war in mind. And for most if not all of the beneficial ones, there is a peaceful path; computers were imagined long before they were built, that WW2 triggered them actually becoming a thing doesn't mean they would not ever have been built without war - we don't know.

And there is the question what speeding up inevitable progress a little, so you can have it right now, rather than "just" generations down the line having it, at the expense of the lives of others, makes a person; search on youtube for "kill the poor" by Mitchell & Webb.
So in this scenario, my competitors can spam links for my website and put me into trouble. Google will notice that my website has some spammy links (which my competitor created), and then penalize me for it. Then I have to contact every website that links to me to ask them to remove links to my website... else their website would get penalized too. I get such emails every week.

Rather than these fear mongering tactics, why can't Google just ignore spammy links instead of penalizing the whole websites and all the websites that link to them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT&T_Broadband

The cable/telco consolidation 1.0 play.
Even if you join an existing session (eg: pairing) you can type "set -o vi", then type " set -o emacs" when you're done to return the shell to "normal" mode.
In danger of feeding a troll - our arguments are not that it's been that way for thousands of years, but that it's part of our nature as self-expressed beings, and that the thousands of years of history and spanning all cultures is evidence of that.

I'd like to see your arguments on how putting on makeup is not like cutting your hair or shaving, or should we also "destroy" haircutting/shaving? I'm not talking about haircuts out of convenience, but the ones you do to look decent in front of your clients. Do you have long hair in a ponytail, convenient and haircut-free?

It's ironic how you call us "masses of duped souls in the general population" yet you're the one campaigning against a core tenet of expression as a unique human - the way we make ourselves look like the way we want to.
Yup. Lush is an amazing shop. I know lots of women who buy soaps and such almost exclusively from there.
Do you often go interview for these jobs or just humor recruiters to keep the doors open?
There are a couple of differences between this and Hyperloop.

1. The hyperloop white paper proposed air bearings as the levitation mechanism, rather than maglev. This could be swapped out without much change to the overall concept (and, in my opinion, should be if it's ever built - maglev gives much more generous tolerances and ease of control).

2. The hyperloop anticipated a low vacuum; around 1/1000 atmospheres. While that sounds like not much air, it's still quite a lot when you want to go around the speed of sound, especially if you want to do so in a tube; pressure builds up in front of the vehicle and causes huge drag. The hyperloop addressed this with an integrated compressor stage in the front of the vehicle; basically sucking in air to avoid the drag. This used quite a bit of power, required cooling, etc... and the resulting drag was still significant to the point that regular medium power 'boosters' would be required along the track to keep the train at a reasonable speed. It also meant the speed was still limited, despite the partial vacuum, to around 1000kph (aircraft speeds).
If you want to get away without the compressor you need a much higher vacuum - I don't know exactly where the equation changes but the number usually thrown around is about 1/100,000 atmospheres to 1/1,000,000 atmospheres. This is basically hard vacuum. If you can achieve it then it means no compressor, no significant onboard power source, and no meaningful limit to the top speed (you could go 2000 - 3000 km/h easy if you could make the track straight enough). The bad part is that, all else being equal, it's roughly 100 times harder to make a vacuum of 1/100,000 atm than a vacuum of 1/1000 atm.
So... if you're really confident you can build extremely well sealed tubes then you should go for the hard vacuum approach. If you're confident you can't, you should go for the low vacuum compressor approach. If you're not sure, you should build a prototype :-)

The limitations regarding straight lines and the safety issues are roughly identical for the two concepts. The hyperloop is arguably less safe due to having a big spinning compressor right in front of you and a large onboard power source, high pressure steam storage etc.
Agreed. I read the call for donations and thought, "I and my company could afford give a couple hundred bucks to this cause, but I wouldn't even want to waste this guy's time writing to him about such a measly sum."

A Kickstarter, or similar (there are open source tools to create kickstarter like campaigns, as well) automates the small-time contributors like me into a form that is useful to an organization like this.
Storing antimatter is an engineering nightmare. It's hard enough to store chemicals that react with lots of things, imagine storing something which reacts releasing insane energies with all matter. You have to confine it perfectly using external fields. In other words, not an easy task. (CERN has a trap that was demonstrated to have formed just a few antihydrogen atoms)

Not that we have any applications for it with the current production efficiency.
How to tell your friend that their startup idea sucks
Text is its primary output. JPG is never the right choice for text.
Google I/O schedule mentions Android Wear and camera API, disses Google+
Everyone wants to dismiss this as an ad-hominem attack but it's still a valuable datapoint. At best maybe it would make one more skeptical of the arguments put forward by katz because I think even the brightest person can be easily persuaded by a written piece or incorporate its "facts" into their beliefs and not pursue further scrutiny of it.
I think "BitTorrent Sync" already provides a shared folder that works this way, does it not?

I guess it could be integrated into the app, but often if you can share a link you can also just share a file. For the serverless case I guess pledgers and project owners will often not be online at the same time anyway.
... can only be achieved if basic needs of the scientist are met ...

This has an obvious interesting long term evolutionary effect. If via mandatory poverty and celibacy we force everyone out of academic science who cares about the future, the long term results will be (insert something probably very negative for the future here) Or another way to put it, is if everyone involved has a predisposition for extreme recklessness, maybe its time to close down dangerous areas of research before its too late.

Aside from absolutely everything else mentioned, if you strongly select for recklessness and lack of concern for the future, historically the occasional misguided soul would leap off a building, and in the future you might end up with organic chemists, nuclear physicists, internet-era programmers deciding to take an entire city with them.

So even in the most self centered inhumane analysis of the humans involved, not enforcing a vow of poverty, celibacy, an recklessness on scientists is at the very least a security matter. At least issue food stamps or welfare or something?
The NSF has supported Arecibo for decades now, along with a bunch of other observatories (http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/nato...). NSF has re-evaluated its commitment to these observatories and decided to pull out of several of them so they can pursue new observing opportunities, such as LSST (sky survey for transients) and ATST (solar telescope).

Some scientists are unhappy. The complaints I have heard are that these less-centralized telescopes allowed small investigations to get off the ground, and the new ones are large consortia.

For more: http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/08/major-u.s.-telescopes-fac...
A Dozen Things I’ve Learned About Marketing, Distribution and Sales
He discussed alternative encodings, and that he wanted to find out how short he could make the identifiers.

The 47-bit scheme (3 version, 32 timestamp, 8 sequence, 4 parallel), when encoded in base62 (see his discussion) yields 8-character identifiers. That's potentially much better for a user than a 22-char Base64-encoded GUID.
$28.50 of the $95/share is cash while the rest is AT&T stock. From the PR release[0], "AT&T intends to finance the cash portion of the transaction through a combination of cash on hand, sale of non-core assets, committed financing facilities and opportunistic debt market transactions."

[0]: http://about.att.com/story/att_to_acquire_directv.html
I think it's really shifting away from TV. As a college student, my friends and I have been completely satisfied with Netflix and the like. I can confidently say that there is nearly a 0% chance I'll be getting cable/directv/whatever when I can just get Netflix/Hulu/etc instead.
So, this is like any of the WordPress email subscription plugins out there? [1] No wait, I'm wrong. You have to pay for this. And moreover, it quickly gets you to pay if you are successful at getting people to sign up ($10 a month for just 51 subscribers?!).

You might not be locked into the service ("Export emails anytime"), but still.

Conclusion, you don't need this service, unless you are a hipster too cool to run software on a server and so need to outsource any interaction with your readers. (Disques users anyone?[2]) Even then, this is an expensive service, the money could be better spent upgrading your shitty hosting service to actually allow you to run software on your (virtual) server...

[1] https://duckduckgo.com/html/?q=wordpress+email+subscription+...

[2] Face the facts. Disques is a shit service for users and commentators. If you use it, you are doing everyone (and I mean everyone, except the Disques company and similar who make money off your anti-social actions) a disservice. Not only are you risking your the comments on your website (Disques might go bankrupt tomorrow), you are training people to be OK with using a centralized service. Moreover, you are contributing to the tracking of people across the web, and helping advertisers push their shit. The fact that you are cutting off people who don't, for whatever reason, have JavaScript enabled doesn't help your case. Please stop.

Edit: footnote 2 added. Edit 2: fixed spacing.
According to a tech industry source, Leahy has changed his position in part as a result of pressure from the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, a lobbying group whose law firm Akin Gump recently hired Leahy’s long time chief-of-staff. The source added that Leahy is prepared to let the reform bill founder, and then draw political cover by casting blame for the failure on committee members’ inability to produce a suitable compromise. Meanwhile, the bill’s momentum has also been sputtering as a result of the trial lawyer bar pressuring other Senate Democrats to slow the bill

Crux issues
Big fan of Taptalk and Onno. It's remarkably fast and the one-to-one emphasizes personal communication.
Think. How would the content providers - any of them, from Disney to Facebook - get their content at the consumer without the data-distributors, from Comcast to AT&T ?
The saying is internet kills the middleman, but this is the real middleman that needs to be killed, and just as our roads are free and open to everyone, so should the digital roads be.
This article is a good overview-- one of the most informed I've seen from the HPC side of the world.

I don't think "HDFS is very slow and very obtuse" is true, though. If you use HDFS for what it was intended for-- reading large files that are mostly local-- it does pretty well. MapReduce and Impala explicitly support this paradigm by looking at where files are and scheduling computation there. If your workload has a ton of metadata operations, this can become a bottleneck, but that is not unique to HDFS. For example, if you use "ls" with the wrong options on Lustre, things can get quite slow due to the large number of metadata operations generated: https://wikis.nyu.edu/display/NYUHPC/Lustre+FAQ

Lustre is a cool filesystem in many ways, and has been battle-hardened for HPC. However, I think Lustre is relatively unlikely to gain ground in Hadoop due to the complexity of administering and upgrading its in-kernel server. Ceph might have a chance, though-- we'll see.

The article also doesn't discuss a lot of the areas in which Hadoop is way ahead. Hadoop handles faults in individual nodes, rather than just assuming we will use gold-plated hardware with infalliable RAID. Node failures happen, and HDFS and Hadoop can recover-- even from NameNode failures, these days. Google's Spanner paper points the way towards having strong consistency without sacrificing (as much) availability.

I agree that cramming traditional HPC problems into the Map-Reduce framework is not really a great idea. Instead, it would be better to use something like Spark (which, to his credit, Lockwood mentions). Spark is getting a huge amount of attention right now, and I think it's going to resolve some of these issues.
The nofollow attribute is a way for site owners to say "I don't endorse this link". nofollow is very handy for site owners because it removes the incentive for users to include spam links in user contributed content.

However—and I think this is the point of the article—use of nofollow doesn't just disincentivise spam links, it also means that many valid and useful links no longer contribute to PageRank.

It would be great if we could have a way to allow all to links contribute to PageRank, but still protect ourself from spam.

Which got me thinking…

At the moment the only options for site owners are to say "yes, I endorse this link" or "no, I don't endorse this link" (by adding nofollow). Instead I could imagine something more fine grained, a system where site owners could tag specific content within their site as coming from specific users.

Content tagged like this is neither endorsed nor disavowed, instead responsibility is pushed to the user who wrote the content. In other words site owners would be able to say something like this to search engines: "this content is created by user X, don't blame me if it's spammy!".

Smart search engines could use this more fine-grained content ownership information in their search algorithms. That means they wouldn't need to throw out all user contributed information on the internet just to protect the internet from spam.

There are a few challenges, of course. :)

* How to identify users? (Anonymously?)
* How to have users endorse content on different sites?
* How to work out which users are trustworthy?
* Building a PageRank algorithm that incorporates fine-grained trust information.

But it's fun to think about technical solutions.
Hi, I'm the author. Thanks for your interest! If you'd like to follow the project, you can sign up for email updates on vinumeris.com (they will be quite rare so don't worry about being spammed).

Once launched, I plan to host a curated collection of projects for upgrades to Bitcoin and related software. In fact Lighthouse is partly software I'm writing for my own company, because that's how I would like to make money - by implementing open source upgrades and raising the funds to pay for it through per-project assurance contracts.

As mentioned in the other replies, obviously a decentralised solution can't have any central curation built in, but people are free to run their own curated collections of projects if they like. Often though, it won't be necessary, because the creator of the project already has a good reputation and the reputation of an aggregator is inconsequential.

In other cases, the entire notion of curation may be irrelevant. Consider micro assurance contracts like someone who wants to rent out a house with a pool and organise a big party with friends there, but only if enough friends commit to going for the party to be fun. This would not be allowed on Kickstarter, but Lighthouse lets you do it by simply attaching the contract file to the announcement email. Replies can have the pledges attached (you can drag the pledges right out of the app into an email compose window). So this is the kind of ultra light weight contract that might be possible in future, when you have a totally decentralised solution.
Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7761760
When it comes to security tools, one uses a different approach to selecting your tools. At least, you do if you want to be secure. The best presentation and the prettiest website are nowhere in the selection criteria. You look at the history of the people involved, primarily. What have they done in the past? Was it believed to be secure by other researchers? Is it secure today because they have actively maintained it? Have they used good practices that allow their code to easily be audited by others? Have they welcomed feedback from other competent developers?

Using Comic Sans and bitching about the quality of another project is irrelevant in this scenario. OpenBSD project brings with it an almost two-decade history of seriousness about security that I think one would be a fool to ignore.
> Nobody has asked for it, probably because unsafe pointers aren't used enough for it to matter.

Which is a good thing!
The atmosphere isn't a liability for Maglevs, you could make hyperloop with maglev tech and it'd still work fine.

The tracks don't need to be powered for most Maglev concepts; superconducting maglev doesn't use powered track. Superconducting maglev is also energetically extremely cheap from an operating perspective - it's arguably energetically expensive during construction because you need a shitload of permanent magnet material (the entire track surface is coated with it). The superconductors are the cheap part from a system perspective.
Electromagnetic suspension - like with shanghai maglev - also doesn't need a powered track, the relatively small amount of power required can be supplied by onboard batteries and periodically refreshed.
Inductrack can be combined with magnetic propulsion, it's just not a form of magnetic propulsion in itself. There's no obstacle to integrating a separate propulsion stage into the track (as is proposed in the inductrack based container movement system proposed for... LA?)
Don't most ISPs make it economically infeasible to get internet services without also getting cable TV? Comcast here bundles servies such that internet only is more expensive than internet + cable.
> I'm no fan of imperialism or the military, but I think it is possible for a self-interested nation to treat its own citizens well while acting immorally abroad.

Is there a historical example of it though? I am not exactly a history buff, but so far I am drawing blanks. And I have trouble imagining it in theory, even; I mean sure, a person could theoretically be very dishonest to one group of people, and very honest to another; but at least with people, such stuff generally leaks all over.
While carnivore does mean of the order Carnivora (which includes animals like the Giant Panda), the term carnivorous does simply mean that the animal mostly eats meat.
Put that WhatsApp acquisition in your pipe and smoke it, Zuckerberg.
And ATT already provides horrible internet service and doesn't care!

Defeatism!
Doesn't seem to recognize bridges - https://www.google.com/maps/dir/40.7104202,-73.9608626/40.71... is considered "mostly flat".