skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's a little hard to apply in practice because a.) nobody knows just how many candidates there will be in their lifetime and b.) your idea of who the "best" candidate will be changes over time, based on your life experiences. Someone who you thought annoyingly plain in college may be a great life partner 10 years later, while the girl who was fun and exciting in college seems more than just a little crazy if she's still doing the same stuff a decade later.
i would like to see two jQuery plugins work harmoniously with each other :P
Yes, i think the scientific and medical investigations of these substances could take part in a sociostructural change that may allow these drugs to be accessible for responsible personal usage. That also could imply a paradigmshift towards a better general education and further cultural development which may help to elevate us beyond the puerile behaviour of yesterdays.
I doubt that this is optimal. The constraints in the secretary problem don't all apply to real life dating/marriage.
Performance Programming for Gamedev Students [pdf]
Yes, ouch. Dude that's a lot of important-looking files.
Show HN: Hack Lang Minimal RESTful Router
> You can't regulate taking advantage of stupidity out of the market, so the only answer is to come up with a redistribution mechanism that doesn't create such giant holes.

But what do you propose for that? Because in the world we live in, all attempts at some form of "wealth equality" led to either disaster or technological crippling.

Maybe there's an ideal solution. It's probably something you could even prove mathematically. But even then, it is not a solution that will happen in at least several generations; and in the mean time, behaviour like EA's is doing nothing but steal opportunities (when you indebt someone, you can ruin or severely cripple their entire life and sometimes their families') in order to pay for the CEOs' jacuzzis.
There hasn't been peace in the last 60-years for many non-Americans, specifically non-superpower adversaries.

That is because the American military is not a purely defensive construct, having been used far more offensively than defensively.
More specifically, a billion instructions is one giga-instruction. A 2 GHz processor can execute roughly 2 billion instructions per second (this is a very rough estimate, thanks to superscalar, pipelining, uops, yada yada). So 12 billion (typical) instructions will take around 6 seconds to run.

This sort of thing is handy when profiling: see a function taking a billion instructions? Half a second of CPU time. And this ratio hasn't changed all that much in quite a while (what has changed, of course, is how many threads can execute simultaneously).
So, the statement of our founding principles are just verbal chaff to be ignored? Hypocrisy isn't a legal state; its a moral one.
Very much so. SIMD is part of the cost of admission for video codecs, for example.
> Money is speech; protecting free speech is important, and protecting political speech (and thus financial donations to campaigns) is probably the most important form of protected speech.

The argument when it comes to PAC's is not that "money is speech." It's "speech is speech." Donations to PAC's are spent independently on fundamental, protected political speech: advertisements, etc. Functionally, they are no different than Sierra Club or any other advocacy organization: they just support causes the internet hive-mind doesn't like.

Also, if you limit PAC's, then you suddenly give rich individuals tremendously more power: they're now the only ones that can bring large amounts of money to bear on supporting a candidate. That is, unless you straight up destroy the first amendment by telling even individuals that they can't make this or that movie or political ad.
so when you're trying to do something else is the time to be making these decisions?
Build Rapport With Business Without Cover Images
I'm a bit jealous of anyone that doesn't have to support IE8. Thankfully we just moved our standard lowest-supported-version of IE to 9, but we still have plenty of projects from when we supported IE8 (even a few from the IE7 days), so it's far from a past problem.
could you point out some resources for the same?
People don't use it because it is terrible. I had to manage a 5-node Mongo cluster as recently as 2 years ago, and I still drink heavily because of it. It was a data roach-motel - your documents check in, but they never check out!!!

Everything ran fine, until it was time to fail over - and the company had a 'full failover every quarter' commitment. Every single time we went from the 2-node primary site to the 3-node secondary, all he would break loose. Bad writes, lost partitions, it was a new 'thing' every quarter. Mongo, in my limited experience, was a terrible platform and I recommend everyone who is thinking of implementing it to run screaming. It accepts data SUPER fast, but so does /dev/null.
You are confused. What is considered beneficial to society is individual freedom, not fascism.
Design without color isn't just useful for the color blind it helps a designer get a better handle over visual noise. For this reason I operate under grey scale by default on my machine, and only have the option to turn it off for 5 minutes at a time (see https://github.com/cyphunk/grey)
Russia's first metal "clone" tablet.
But I am. For me.
Yea, that's how conversation works. Someone posts an article, then clever people talk about it. Some agree, some give experiences, some add additional facts and resources, and other people offer counter arguments. This is a counter argument to the article. What you posted, besides being blatantly obvious, is simply noise and does not add to the conversation.
Whole program optimisation would require a recompile at every system update wouldn't it? With lots of apps that would be pretty costly.
Thanks for the reply. I actually wasn't aware that there are forms of meditation where you experience the world around you and not just close your eyes, I'll definitely look into that.

Meditation is certainly the safer and less potent choice, nobody disagrees with that. Yet, I feel that the dangers of psychedelics are overstated, as long as you're careful and smart. Most of the bad experiences seem to come from a negative set/setting, not following the cardinal rules and too high of a dose. By starting with a small dose and gradually slowly increasing the dose for each trip you'll discover what your optimal dosage is in a gentle way with less risk of having a negative experience.

Research seems to back that up:

"One study found the most desirable results may come from starting with very low doses first, and trying slightly higher doses over months. The researchers explain the peak experiences occur at quantities only slightly lower than a sort of anxiety threshold. Although risks of experiencing fear and anxiety increased somewhat consistently along with dosage and overall quality of experience, at dosages exceeding the individual's threshold, there was suddenly greater increases in anxiety than before. In other words, after finding the optimum dose, returns diminish for using more (since risks of anxiety now increase at a greater rate)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psilocybin_mushroom#Effects
what's next? they will tell me I won't get a girl if I buy a bmw?

I'm pretty sure the ad told me that.
I didn't consider that. Reminds me of What Makes Paris Look Like Paris: http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/projects/whatMakesParis/
The 1/e concept doesn't quite apply. First of all, the "Secretary Problem" assumes a binary payoff structure: +1.0 for getting the absolute best and 0.0 for getting anyone else (and maximizes the EV at 1/e). However, for most people, getting the 2nd-best theoretical potential mate is quite a bit better than ending up alone (especially because people and preferences change, making the concept of "best potential mate" sketchy; the person you want most at 17 is probably a bad lifelong match.)

Let's look at it, though. For the first 15-20 years (subject to debate) you don't know anything about this problem. You don't know who you are, everyone's changing fast, you're blinded by sexual desire, etc. For the last 30 years, your reproductive viability is reduced for men and zero for women. This puts the "choosing window" at, say, 20 to 50. That would mean that one doesn't settle down until 32 at the absolute earliest, and that most people would do so in their 40s (and have only a few years to bear children). Most people don't want to wait that long to settle down, and for good reasons.

One major one is that the pool of available singles declines in quality as you get older. The Secretary Problem assumes a uniform distribution of quality over time. It's not true (and, in fact, insulting) to say that "all the good ones are taken", but I definitely noticed a change in the average quality of dates from 20 to 26 (when I met my wife and left the dating game). You still can find great people at any age, but the distribution evolves. Because people improve with age (fuck VCs and how they think about that) there's some push at the high end, but that's not offset by the disproportionate rate at which either (a) "the good ones" are taken, or (b) the messed-up people become better at hiding themselves, which is my preferred theory.

(I have no idea whether that decline of available mate quality continues after 26, or if it levels off or even reverses. I know some high-quality people who are single at 40, but have no concept of the aggregate dating scene at that age.)

Empirically, people don't "hold out" during 1/e of their window because, unlike with the Secretary Problem, the payoff in choosing the 2nd or 3rd-best theoretical match is quite high (maybe 0.8 to 0.99) compared to the payoff (0.0 by definition) of never meeting someone as good as the best during your hold-out period.
Hush. The existential contradiction is part of The Conspriacy!
Yes, when RhodeCode went proprietary some folks wanted it to stay open - the result is Kallithea.
David, thanks a bundle for making your book available for free online, a decision so unselfish and so revealing of who you are and how much you love Meteor.

We're a small dev shop currently researching and evaluating Meteor for an in-house HTML5/PhoneGap hybrid mobile app. What we haven't found yet is a definitive, best-practice article or guide on how to "Meteor-enable" or integrate Meteor with the front-end Javascript UI frameworks we use or plan to use (DevExpress DevExtreme, Kendo UI, Polymer, Google's Web Starter Kit).

We're thinking that there must be a clear, definitive "right way" to get these frameworks work smoothly with Meteor. We haven't found such a resource yet to guide us through, and we're still looking.
This speaks to the real issue here. There's no right or wrong person to marry, it's a matter of compatability, and how willing two people are to resolve issues. Also, the question of friendship as well.
Invisible.im: Private instant messaging on Tor
I find this quite intriguing, but Optimal Layout,

http://most-advantageous.com/optimal-layout/

basically has most of my needs covered.
It seems that touching any surface causes instant death?
Restaurant Reservation Scalping Site Is Everything Wrong with SF
Your high IQ might kill your startup (2010)
sure I can roll that eventually.
Agreed. Did you do the logo yourself?
This is a good list of hypotheses... but shouldn't the article attempt to support these claims with some numbers to back it up or evaluations from experts? Feels a little hollow as it is.
I sometimes think of comparing it to a kind of voluntary Stockholm syndrome [1]. The important point to note from the wiki is the mistaking of "lack of abuse" as an act of kindness.

To elaborate:
The customer is attracted by the "free" game and how fun it looks. They are then kidnapped by the addictiveness of the initial gameplay - before any significant payment is required. Then they are tortured with the unenjoyable misery of the free grind; Usually whilst they are reminded of how much better their friends are getting on in the game (yay social networking!).

But they are told they can pay to skip the bad parts. This is where I compare it to Stockholm syndrome: They are confusing relief from abuse with an act of kindness. They feel the same relative bump in happiness, but mistake it for feeling good, when it's actually closer to relief from harm.

And of course, much like Stockholm syndrome, they don't even realise quite how much they've been suckered in. They just think "that was fun" - or in the case of the real syndrome, "they were justified" - rather than realise they've just had thousands of dollars extracted from them while they were held captive...

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

EDIT: I realise this may be a bit offensive to those of you who work in the free-to-play industry. But as a gamer, I really do wish the industry wasn't trending this way. What's wrong with paying up front? I'll happily pay large sums of money for a game + expansions. But try and nickle-and-dime me and it ruins the whole experience.
> The issue is Hallucinations are considered a significant side effect, so you need a vary large benefit to over come it or a low enough dose people don't notice.

Considered by whom? The "cost"/benefit balance is entirely a matter of opinion, and in my opinion the choice should be left to the sufficiently educated patient. If there are compelling reasons why the patient shouldn't be making that choice, I'd be interested to learn them.
Did you even read the article? It is a lesson on how to use panda to examine the memory of running processes. The spotify / music DRM is just an example to demonstrate the power.
Federer as Religious Experience (2006)
It also depends on your definition of "medically useful".
author here - it was an artifact of a common library that was used for TUI creation. I used it in the early 90s. Applications made with it all had it.
I believe it occurs only at compile time if it is possible for the compiler to evaluate the check; otherwise it's done at runtime.
There's also the question of evolving mate quality. Are the people who are available at 30 worse in quality than at 20, as most people tend to believe ("all the good ones" are or get "taken")? Or are they better (which is possible, too)?

It did seem, as a man, that women with good personalities improved with age, but that women with average or bad personalities became worse. Age seems to spread people out, in that way, but the well-adjusted people being selected out tended to push down the mode. There were a lot of women I dated in their late 20s who had way too many psychological cigarette burns from Biffs and Jedds ("two D's because..."). Partners of low moral character definitely do lasting damage-- that's obvious in all genders-- and women have more opportunity to get fucked up (and fucked literally) than men in college and their early 20s.

That said, "all the good ones are taken" is probably more panic than reality. I remember in college, people used to descend on the freshman girls "before they get snapped up". It's a fucked-up way to think and maybe it actually has the opposite effect of taking bad people out of the market, because only a fucked-up person would think that for a college senior to stalk September-frosh ("froshing", it was called) is OK.
Yes, I think two reasonable people will usually have a fighting chance of a healthy marriage.
"today’s Wall Street is the first and perhaps only industry putting artificial intelligence toward actual productive ends"

What are you talking about?

Google (search, navigation, advertising), Amazon (recommendations), Facebook (advertising, whatever the hell else they do).

The United States Military (robotics, autonomous drones, scheduling, pretty much all AI applications). UPS (scheduling). NSA (data mining metadata to detect 'em terrorists), NASA (control systems, detection of objects).

You are right though, Wall Street's applications are much more productive.
No. On purpose. Screw those freakin weirdos.
Likewise, how do you think there's a snowball's chance in Hades to reform campaign finance?
Did you mean ambivalent, not ambiguous?
Ten: “Men marry women with the hope they will never change. Women marry men with the hope they will change. Invariably they are both disappointed.”
I was engaged once and everything in me knew that she was wrong for me, I thought that if I never gave someone a chance, so to speak, I'd be alone for the rest of my life.

Well we all have to make sacrifices in a partner, but when there is this overarching feeling that you're with the wrong person, then, you're probably with the wrong person.

I think the more conscious decisions you're making about someone, the more likely you are to be wrong, but that's my 2 cents.

Edit: My ex-fiancee was the one who gave up long before I did, when I was still trying to make things work.
Why would they have expected children to cheat? My family played games of all kinds regularly from a very early age, cheating was unthinkable. There's no game without honesty.
Pay Attention!
It's kind of funny to hear AOT compilation being heralded as the next step after JIT that will bring better performance because you only have to compile once, since we spend so much time hearing exactly the opposite, especially in the context of Javascript.

(Notwithstanding that, as other comments have pointed out, JIT vs AOT is at best a gross oversimplification of the difference between Dalvik and ART.)
For what it's worth, this article was written by a mycologist, not a drug expert. That's why some of the explanations sound a little off. I also don't know anyone who would describe psilocybin as being like a waking dream.
Lets not forget that the "failure mode" of ordinary consumer culture awareness can be pretty extreme too
The World Cup of Dirty Dreams: Inside Brazil's Most Infamous Brothel
Well huh.

> Vpython is a tiny(-ish) bash script to help with your day to day virtualenv needs.

> * You don't have to worry about sourcing the activate script.

> * You don't have to point to your virtualenv path.

> just use vpython instead of python to invoke your scripts.

That's basically why I wrote vpython: I'm the author of this vpython[1], which isn't the same as yours, nor what the article is. (I suspect mine is a little more immature, as I've not worked on it for as long.) I guess similar needs beget similar utilities.

[1]: https://github.com/thanatos/vpython
I think reasoning can convince us of anything. The sky is green, grass is blue, etc. People can make themselves believe anything, and sometimes if we get lonely/desperate enough, we rationalize someone's obvious incompatibilities away.
Why did you elevate Picard and Sisko morally over Kirk or Janeway?

Actually all officers on Star Trek seem to be of high moral character, I can't think of one who isn't.
No.

If you (being sufficiently motivated to read here and write this query) are still voting along party lines, why do you think it would change anything among your Daily Show / Fox News watching family.

So you make a site, and the first article says this:
"Raising the minimum wage helps working families and is good for the economy."
and the second article says this:
"Raising the minimum wage destroys jobs and is bad for the economy."
What, exactly, has been accomplished?

You can go find countless examples of such articles on the 'net already - free for the reading. And most still vote along party lines.

I frequently read articles that argue a different position than the one I hold. They're occasionally interesting, but rarely even make me think, much less change my mind.

If you want to improve politics here in the US, it appears the only solution is some form of balkanization ... not another useless website.

And even if MayDay PAC does "fly", all that really means is that they got some crowdsourced money - this does not mean they will have any influence at all on US elections. Color me skeptical. Perhaps they will, but worrying only about how campaigns are financed strikes me as rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic - it's debatable whether that is even in the top ten of our list of dire problems.
I'm 29, turning 30 in a few weeks, but I'm meeting more women now, and in general it seems that most have grown up, so much so that I wonder where these women were in my early 20's. I mean I had my growing up to do as well, but I was never big into the college party scene etc.
Show HN: Tambayar.com, the easiest way to get real-time opinions
On the subject of cracking streaming music DRMs, a realization I have been sitting on for a while about what people can do with it... Considering the common wisdom that:

- storage will get exponentially cheaper

- data transfer speeds will get higher

It makes me think that eventually there will be illicit torrents of all the worlds music, plus the index, plus the metadata, and plus the interface/app for browsing it. In other words, people would not only pirate individual songs or movies, they would download their own complete copies of Spotify / Netflix. It isn't feasible now but it could be sometime in the next 5-15 years, depending bandwidth speeds.

I'm not sure how many people see this coming or take it seriously but I wonder what the effect could be and what the remedy attempts would be.
Perhaps it’s only a Internet myth, but I remember a comment that said that in Russian the submarines swim (not the ships).

I tried to google it, but I was unlucky, especially because a submarine crew decided to swim (without the submarine) in the arctic and make a video.
What you just described would increase the amount of work involved by a factor of 10 (in round numbers). So "should" it? Given that you paid nothing for it, the better question is why should anyone give a fig about what you think if all you have to day is "Interesting, but how about doing a lot more work...for free."

If you're truly interested, why don't you get in touch with the writer, tell him what you'd like to know, and ask how much he'll charge to supply it. He's likely to be pleased, and you may get what you're after.
Many people are happy in relationships that make no logical sense whatsoever.

Or rather, the relationships do make sense, but they are unaware or unwilling to consciously recognise the reasons why.

On the other hand, feeling when you're happy or not is something anyone can do.
I wouldn't call this a BDD framework yet. It's speckled with both standard assertions and semantic assertions, and an "It" function that simply takes a block and a string. I can replicate this with using underscores in my test function names and avoid the complexity. Not trying to be a jerk, but what we should be driving for is something closer to:

func Describe("The system I want to Test"){
When("I click the red button")
Then("I should see the light turn on")
And("I should see 4 lights")
}

func Step("I click the red button"){
buttons["red"].click
}

func Step("I should see the light turn on"){
lights.on.should().be_true
}

func Step("I should see (\d+) lights"){
lights.count.should().be(4)
}
I have no idea why you were down-voted. It's true: even if, somehow, evolution had managed to at some point kill off all cultures with a certain trait, the same trait is likely to develop again in at most a few centuries.

If somebody has solid arguments against emiliobumachar's point, I'd be interested to hear them.
This is of interest to me because my wife is disabled by chronic refractory migraine, a close relation to cluster headaches.

Stories like this

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2011/06/lsd-allevi...

make me deeply regret the current political/conceptual barriers to research on psychotropic compounds. I think we're missing opportunities to help quite a lot of people.
ive a much easier analogy.

we'll let you start a shop. then at some point we'll ask you protection taxes. if you dont pay we'll make sure to make your life hell.
You can also choose to close the shop of course, and change city/country. nobody's forcing you.