skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Well that's a convenient argument, given that Level 3 sends way more traffic than it receives on that link, and currently (it seems) isn't paying for that difference.

That is true if Level3 was sending traffic through Verizon to say Cogent or HE. But in this case, the OP is requesting this traffic through VZ and he is paying VZ to carry this traffic for him.
Kickstarter: 30 Second Charging, Rechargeable Battery
For me the pointer hand is a little too subtle. I prefer to have the border highlighted on mouseover, which gives a strong visual indication without obscuring the content.

I have to agree though that modern designs, while slick, are often no more usable than designs from the 2000s. For example, take the point about vague icons near the end of the article. Even though you can often guess roughly what those icons do, that moment of uncertainty when you click them to see what happens creates a jarring user experience that could have been avoided with a few words of text.

A major contributing factor to this trend in design is obviously the emphasis on mobile devices (e.g. sometimes you have to use those small icons due to limited screen sizes). It annoys me that a lot of this mobile-driven design gets copied over to the desktop even when the same constraints no longer apply. Unfortunately, this is not completely without reason. To me, words like "refresh" are less ambiguous than circular arrows, but maybe to someone who grew up using only tablets and iphones, the circular arrow is more familiar.
As I mentioned above, they have CPC erosion in both their AdMob numbers and their Sites numbers. This statement though I've heard a couple of times:

> (Except that right now growth in the sheer number of
> mobile ads is outpacing the growth in monetization
> of those ads.)

I don't think I understand it. I get that more and more ads are being shown (growth in sheer number) but this part I don't get (outpacing ... monetization). So Google is throwing more and more ads out there, and at some point they are going to discover how to make them more valuable to advertisers so that the advertisers will pay more for them? I get that this isn't like a commodity good which is racing toward zero margin, but I don't see mobile ads getting more valuable. I characterize what we do at Blekko as 'utility search', which is what a lot of mobile users seem to need. When they search on their mobile for a restaurant name you can give them "perfect" search results by returning, the home pages of the restaurant, a onebox with hours/phone/address, a link to a review site, and an advertisement for a coupon at that restaurant or a competitor in the same food pallete. Google gets that, its pretty much the formula they use, but it isn't special because pretty much a solid businesses database, set of navigation links, and an ad feed for restaurants is all you need to serve that up. And other people are willing to give the phone provider a bigger cut of the ad revenue.

That is why I'm having a hard time imagining a way that Google is going to pull higher CPCs here. It feels very commodity to me and that is a margin game.

As a margin game that 32% net margin which is funding free food, self driving cars, and moonshots comes under pressure.
I just started using React on my project this week. It's incredibly easy to use and get running, I'm loving it. It's really simplified my UI development. The UI for my project is something I need to just get done for now, while I build out the rest of the functionality. I'll come back later to make it prettier. But React makes that super easy to do.

Wish I'd talked to the guys at FB about it more before I left.
There was a while where interferometry was the "next big thing*, but it's proven to be considerably more difficult in practice than in theory. But perhaps with time we'll see it reach some significant fraction of its potential, which is enormous.
P.S. and Newcomb's paradox? A one-time gain of $1000 is useless in the long-term. A non-insignificant chance at $1m carries way more utility. (This is also why playing the lottery – occasionally – makes sense for individual actors. Unless you plan to repeat the gamble many times, the expected outcome is meaningless.)

I was bothered that there was no consideration given to taking only Box A. I mean, that's would I would do, even after learning about the alien computer's algorithm for deciding whether to place money in Box B. I'd leave the uncertainty to someone else in this case.
You can run your own VPN on a VPS and have a dedicated IP without needing to worry about Hulu getting blocked.
I read the Eff paper, and I was blown away. I find monad transformers to be extremely clunky in comparison. The mental tax of Eff seems a lot smaller.
Soviet Fighter – Shot Down Commerical Airline
Django Tastypie does that as well.
I always wanted to go back to C kind of language, let me wait for few more years to pick one Go,Rust,Nimrod...
While I understand this is a (unsolvable?) problem, a bunch of cowboys from the DEA throwing their weight around is a terrible outcome. The last thing anyone needs right now is more regulation around core economic activities like shipping and e-commerce.
Are you an accredited investor?

Do you have a net worth (assets minus liabilities) greater than $1 million after removing positive home equity? In the alternative, have you had income of $250k or more for both of the last two years with a reasonable expectation of hitting that for this year?

If you are an accredited investor, you're an angel investor basically as soon as you start calling yourself one, and what you now seek is "dealflow." Many YC companies are, coming out of YC, quite hot properties with many people attempting to invest in them, and probably need a fairly compelling pitch to be allowed to give them money. This would often include an introduction from someone the founders trust, a reasonable expectation that you'd be writing a fairly substantial check (minimum viable check for a new angel is about $25k, below that you need an extraordinarily high non-cash value to be worth the founders' time in closing you), or accomplishments which demonstrated that you'd add a lot of value to the company.

As to how to figure out which companies are raising after YC, you have access to the same AngelList, TechCrunch, and Hacker News that every other angel investor uses. A lot of the "hot" deals only appear on these retrospectively -- to get in on them early enough for it to matter you have to have your ear to the ground and know people. If that's a priority for you, I'd make it a priority to have coffee dates with people who have lots of YC founders / etc in their social circles and impress upon them that you're Good People.

If you're not an accredited investor, you'll find it very difficult to invest in YC graduates unless you somehow identify them prior to YC. You're legally capable of investing in private placements -- sometimes called "friends and family rounds" -- but part of the magic of YC is that YC companies have much, much better access to money than F&F rounds and, as a result, they don't often have to resort to raising them after YC.

This is orthogonal to the question "Should you invest in YC companies?" I feel obligated to say that they are, universally, extraordinarily risky investments with a high probability of going to zero, and if this would discomfit you, you should not invest in them (or other tech startups).
Indeed, the series is far more enjoyable if you picture Bauer as the pawn of an elusive cryptoregime furthering its dark agenda. Lots of things work better that way. I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there.
If a poor person with no other options stole a loaf of bread from someone well off to feed their kid, I would consider it entirely moral. But theft should still be illegal.
Aereo: So, we’re a cable company, right? US Copyright Office: Um, no
"Verizon absolutely has the right to bill for providing transit."

Even if we agree that Verizon has the right to bill Level 3 for transit within _Verizon's own network_, it seems odd that they are not taking advantage of Netflix's CDN boxes, which would drastically reduce the amount of transit required.

If you just dump your data on the nearest Verizon peering port, you aren't fulfilling your end of the bargain.

So, let's say I build a new skyscraper with 10,000 apartments, and I set myself up as the exclusive ISP to the tenants of that skyscraper. I wire up the building nicely, and have some big switches and routers in the basement. Does every content provider (e.g. Netflix) or company working on their behalf (e.g. Level 3) now have an obligation to build new circuits, and deliver the traffic all the way to my basement?
Tried the same thing on TWC from NYC with no difference in speed. Will experiment with other setups.

Also would like to note we pay for (and can get) 50 Mbps down. Netflix comes in at ~560 kbps and just stays there.
This is where the simulation argument falls apart. If the simulation we live within is being run in a universe that is larger than ours, or slower, or operates with different laws of physics, then it is not being run by our descendants.

It is being run by whatever creatures inhabit that other universe. Our actual descendants will live in this, the simulated universe.

And if they decide to run a simulation, they will simulate a less or different universe, meaning they will also not be simulating their ancestors (us).

The simulation argument relies on a loop of logic that is broken by entropy.
I didn't intend my comment as a personal attack, or even a direct reply. So I apologize that my wording gave that impression.

However, I stand by my position that it shouldn't matter what FedEx knows or "could/should have known." FedEx is not the police. I also stand by my slippery slope straw man, because history has already shown that this type of expansion of civilian liability and law enforcement powers doesn't have an end goal. There is no "enough."
No doubt you got the "OMG 10 billion people by 2010, we'll never be able to feed them!" stuff I was exposed to as well.

The interesting thing about this to me is that it implies we will also reach 'peak energy' which is to say that once everyone in the planet is at the agreed upon 'median' lifestyle/perks we will have a fixed number for the amount of energy we need from that point forward. Kind of weird thinking about a planet with humans in equilibrium.
Quite true, because at the moment, the proposed Singularity may not come to fruition for a variety of reasons. Hell, one of the obstacles could be an asteroid collision tomorrow and we'd never know.

EDIT: I don't know why I capitalized "asteroid"
What's the incentive for the AI to actually simulate and torture anyone? Either we'll all be dead and can't call its bluff, or we'll be alive and it doesn't matter anyway because we can't travel through time to rectify our actions.

Since simulation requires energy which can be better used for other things, the only AI which would actually carry out the torture is either irrational and therefore unpredictable, or sadistic and therefore would torture anyway.
Maybe I'm missing something, but where does fail2ban come in on the "keys vs. passwords" debate? Do I become more vulnerable if I run fail2ban on a keys-only ssh setup? If not, then why is the argument "don't use passwords or fail2ban" rather than just "fail2ban doesn't provide adequate protection for allowing passwords on ssh?"
Actually, I played F-19 and that's what I remember him most for. It was a lot of fun actually, you had to evade radar but it was a little tricky. I mean come on, how can you not love this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kCvSyJaYbc

It even had an ILS landing system at the airport!
Oh I didn't say they weren't bastards. That's a whole other discussion.
brilliant one, cant wait to get it in android
It seems Roko's Basilisk is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more people believe it will exist, the more likely it is going to be created, which in turn makes more people believe that it will exist, etc. This holds completely independent of singularity, "super-intelligence" or the simulation argument.
Right, I was considering that. However, that opens up a whole can of worms regarding whether knowledge can be known in a deterministic universe, not to mention a simulated one. Fascinating possibility for discussion, a welcome change from the mostly programming-based threads.
Based solely on your quotations, I would use the following analogy:

Suppose you like to buy and sell bags full of chocolate eggs. You know from past experience that roughly 10% of the foil-wrapped eggs are spoiled, but the only way of knowing which 10% of the foil-wrapped eggs is to cut them all open, which would be uneconomical and destroy the entire value of the product.

So maybe FedEx knew that P(illegal|pharmacy) was greater than P(illegal), but that P(illegal|pharmacy) was still too low compared to P(pharmacy) to justify shutting down all pharmacies.
Welcoming CardSpring to the Twitter team
Haskell introduced monads as a way of solving certain problems Haskell had. So if you want to use Haskell effectively, you have to learn about monads. Monads are useful in Haskell.

But that doesn't mean they are as useful in every language. So other languages don't NEED tutorials on monads as much as Haskell does. This isn't because those other languages are worse (less "principled" or "explicit") than Haskell. It's because they aren't structured to make it important to have tutorials on monads. Instead you worry about whatever the specific issues are for those other languages.
I don't think the idea is that it can show a sign.
Well, it could do that to the simulation, I guess.
But I think the idea is for reality to be indistinguishable from the simulation, up until the time of death, after which the simulation either does or does not contain torture.
(I suppose the switch could happen at any time, but in any case the threat is based on the idea that one cannot tell if one is the simulated version or not, so as to avoid torture/decrease one's chances of torture, one does the thing.)

If the AI gave a sign it would be giving the sign to the simulation, which could not actually change what happened in the AI's past. The AI does not literally cause things retroactively, just based on predictions of its future actions.
Giving a sign to the simulation would be useless.

I do not believe that such a machine will be created, I just wanted to clarify some things.

The hypothetical machine would supposedly motivate real people now due to their inability to determine whether they are in the simulation or not. If they cannot tell, then the idea is that the person in the present and the simulation in the future would take the same actions (until the simulation differed), and as such would both have the same incentives (they would in essence be the same person), and so to avoid a <some probability> of being tortured, would do the thing.

I reiterate that I do not believe that such an AI will come to be (it should be preventable easily enough, even if it is possible) and in any case I do not believe that enough information to create an accurate simulation of me would be available by the time that such a machine would be created, even if such a machine is possible. (I think quantum randomness and uncertainty principles are sufficient to prevent obtaining enough information about me to create a sufficiently accurate simulation of the world and me)

Also I am not entirely sure that I should count a simulation of myself as being a person, let alone consider it to be me.

Also I am religious and don't believe that God would want people to act in accordance with such a machine/I believe it would be wrong to worship such a machine.

(though I expect that for the majority of the people here my other arguments would be more convincing.)

Also ok yeah $1000 might not be the best value for the example, the specific value isn't the point.

(but yeah I also generally would one box it)
Recently on Adwords, it's more difficult UX-wise to stop mobile targeting or bid less for tablets (or mobiles). I guess G is intentionally pushing people to bid as high for mobile & tablets as they did for desktops. As a careful observer (not as good as ChuckMcM), I see them popping up new and new tricks to give a better quarterly report.
Wow, this is down in the weeds. E.g.

(4) include procedures for the maintenance of back-up facilities, systems,
and infrastructure as well as alternative staffing and other resources
to enable the timely recovery of data and documentation and to resume
operations as soon as reasonably possible following a disruption to
normal business activities;

...

(3) Source code reviews. Each Licensee shall have an independent,
qualified third party conduct a source code review of any internally
developed proprietary software used in the Licensee’s business
operations, at least annually.

A lot of these regs may have started out as Best Practices, but shouldn't regulations focus on the What, not the How? Also, the right place for these regs, if we must have them, are under FinCEN at the Federal level. If you watch some of their presentations, some smart people working there whom I'm sure would love to tackle this in a way that doesn't create an quagmire of conflicting and overlapping state regs.

A little passage in some old document about interstate commerce comes to mind.

The great thing about Bitcoin is this only applies to 3rd party companies wanting to assist you in transferring bitcoin, it doesn't apply at all to individual transfers between private entities. So this will do a lot to encourage private wallet software over centralized points of failure and intelligence gathering. For that, at least, you can thank NY.
If you're willing to assume that it's possible to simulate the universe deterministically, then by definition you know everything about the universe (both simulation and real). But I don't think that is a justifiable assumption at this point.
- boring
- stupid
- false
- linkbait
- spam
The possibility of the Singularity coming to pass (as its boosters depict it) depends on the following being true:

1. Human-level intelligence is sufficient for creating an artificial intelligence that is superior to human-level intelligence.

2. The ease of a human-level intelligence or higher building a comparatively improved intelligence either:
* Stays constant
* Increases (becomes easier)
* Does not decrease (become harder) to the point where further improvement is impossible before a Singularity-level intelligence is reached.

Neither of these two is a given, but I would wager the first is quite likely and the second is unlikely. As well, I would argue that it would not be unreasonable to argue that second is not a given, even if the first is true.
You should capitalize it again, quick - what if it gets upset and decides to crash into us? Better not to think about it!
True, but an ATM one thing, big transactions are different. And the high volume, highly available transactions are constrained to pools which are themselves handled with pessimism. You won't be able to walk away with a large wire transfer without the the money shifting thru locks.
I would hope that the cursor changing from an arrow to a pointer hand is obvious enough that something is clickable...

Surely there should be some indication before you even interact with it though, no? At least an underline, a different color, etc.
ALL OF THEM.
In all likelihood, some manner of viral marketing.
Thanks for catching that error, as I typed out asynchronous I was saying to myself "this isn't right, the a is in the dang acronym" and then I was too lazy to double check.
Show HN: How to integrate and automate iOS deployments in TFS environment
> ...it is true that when you have a peering point with unbalanced traffic flows, the side sending more traffic is supposed to pay the side receiving more traffic.

Up until very recently the only time you paid for peering was when you were actually buying transit. Level 3 is definitely on the right side of this argument, not only logically - but also from the perspective of precedence. Anybody interested in learning how the internet actually works should read "The Internet Peering Playbook".
I have a need to integrate my iOS development with TFS repository. The dev ops that only use Windows boxes need to be able to build and deploy iOS code to TestFlight and App store mainly accessing remotely a Mac Mini server.<p>My solution was to add some script steps to the scheme and a build script to each project that can be executed from a TFS task accessing the Mac Mini via ssh. I describe my solution in more detail on the url above. I'm wondering to hear other solutions to similar problems and suggestions to improve my solution. Thanks
basically they build their own hardware: https://www.netflix.com/openconnect

you can't put your own hardware at AWS.

they are the poster child for using AWS for what it is good for, general purpose compute (storing your play list, the list of all movies, controlling the CDN etc)

but I imagine for streaming you need bare metal
you lost me at 'npm install -g ...'
Ok, so in the MP3s folder under data, Air - Sexy Boy wasn't the song I was expecting, instead it was "Never Going to Give You Up".

I suspect some sort of marketing ploy...
You are right, I wrote some of my comment before fully understanding the article, but I left it on purpose:

I contend that the AI would need to give us such a sign. If it did not, how are we feeble humans to know whether we're contributing to the correct cause? Maybe donating my life's savings to SI is actually detrimental, and I should be giving my money to DARPA instead!

So therefore either we're un-blackmailable, because we have no clue what we're doing anyway, or we need a sign from the great AI as to what to do.

Re: Newcomb; yes, but I see a different utilitarian solution when the values change. Say the values are $10m and $100m. Well, then $10m is the obvious choice. Both are life-changing amounts of money; more than I would know what to do with. I'd much rather not risk throwing away a life-changing amount.

If you get the numbers right, you can get closer to the intention of the paradox. Something like $100k and $10m; I'd really hate to lose the $100k, but it would not be life-changing like the $10m.
This is one way that the government forces businesses into law enforcement. Look for a settlement that has FedEx reducing anonymity, snooping in packages, and snitch...er, disclosing evidence to proper LEOs.
It's also how a whole lot of non-scientific enterprises work. I feel like science is better characterized by referring to observation, production of hypotheses, and experimental testing of same. You can be a hermit and still engage in scientific activity, although it would somewhat limit your productivity.
It was later. The news stories about Color came out around 2010/2011. It couldn't have been 2007, because Color is a mobile app and the iPhone didn't come out until 2007 (actually, it apparently launched 4 days after Marc wrote this essay).

I'm looking through the TechCrunch headlines of June 2007 and coming up empty. No idea what it could be.
Bill and Melinda Gates are abortion ideologues, in fact the biggest private funders of abortion in the world (at least $117 million in direct funding, cf. http://www.lifenews.com/2014/06/16/gates-foundation-gave-117...). Bill's father was apparently a bigshot in Planned Parenthood. One has to wonder if they really support abortion because they perceive a population problem, or if it isn't the other way around.
The page size is a minimum of 4KB, so you can't really allocate anything smaller from the OS.
Or maybe it's just another name for a pre-paid account.
How Music Affects Your Productivity | Business + Innovation