skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not really, the universe the simulation is running in may be much larger than ours, or operate with different laws of physics (c could be faster for example), etc. There's nothing that says you have to simulate the current universe from within the current universe.

More importantly, our perception of time is unimportant from within the simulation. For example, if we assume the shortest possible unit of time is planck's time and call it a "frame", and it takes the computer running the simulation 10 million years of "external time" to simulate 1 frame. It won't matter to us, because we'll have only experienced 1 frame of simulation. Trillions of years could be passing in the real world while we're only ever aware of seconds passing.

So long as the hypothetical real computer can fit the simulation in some kind of memory, the simulation doesn't have to occur in 1:1 real time. It's like emulating a powerful computer on another more powerful computer. You might only get a few percent of the speed of the original, but from the point of view of the program running in the emulator, it doesn't know the difference.

If you have enough memory, you can even emulate a machine from the future on a less "capable" machine from the past. It'll be slow and horrible for you, as the person running the simulator. But suppose you're immortal? You pop in every few hundred years to see if Windows has finished booting.
Rational thought is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage per se. Morons believing in gods will pretty likely outbreed, outendure and outsacrifice you.
I cannot tell why people speak with such vehemence and dislike of LW. You do not even have to agree that AI risk is the biggest threat to mankind. I'm sure many don't. You don't really have to agree about much.

Still you can go there to talk about textbook advice, get some real advice, and actually generate fairly good discussion. The sheer seething hate points to me of a fairly malformed opinion about the community and culture.

tl;dr some guy gets banned due to some careless mistake, a few people blow it way out of proportion over and over and now apparently you can get published on slate over b& drama.
Point taken about "yanked".

I share your hope. High-quality, less-known content is exactly what we want more of.
Imagining that I would refuse to take the potential million isn't going to change the fact that I would take the potential million.

I guess Batman villain Two-Face has the best odds against this Omega fella.
Amen and I would spit in its eye.
I've never played A Train, a train sim by the Japanese developer Artdink, but it has its fans. I think it's more about the economics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-Train
Because any such statements aren't falsifiable (see Karl Popper).

The assertion that we are living in a simulation has the same epistemological status as the assertion that God is a pygmy turtle who created the physical laws of the universe while smoking hashish.

You don't even have to think about Roko's Basilisk to get paranoid. You can just suppose that the turtle has rigged the universe so that if you urinate more than 4 times a day, your future children will slowly torture then murder you.

If you suppose that we are living in a simlulation, you can come up with any number of ghastly thoughts. You don't even need to suppose the conditions of Roko's Basilisk. That's just extra BS on top.

BTW, the reason I brought up "with the computers of today" is because the I think the only reason anybody believes simulation is possible is because computers exist. I'm pretty sure that nobody in the 19th century was writing about simulation, because they couldn't imagine a mechanism by which it is possible.

I still can't imagine a mechanism by which it's possible... but some people can, simply because computers can do kind of impressive things that are not really related to simulating the universe.
Just configure the localhost to route the ssh connections over a different port. Combined with ssh keys an becomes extremely convenient setup e.g.:

~> cat .ssh/config
ControlMaster auto
ControlPath /tmp/%r@%h:%p
ControlPersist yes

Host hostname1
IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_rsa
Hostname rem.hostname1.com
Port 2290
user user_name

Now you can things like:

git clone ssh://username@hostname1/home/user/Code/repot.git

or

scp file1.tar hostname1:/home/username && sftp hostname1

Which is pretty handy :-)
New York’s New Bitcoin Rules Are Going to Kill Its Startups
Wonder what location he tunneled from / to to get around Verizon's bottleneck.
Placebo button
The simulation argument is based on the supposition that, since we make simulations, there must be bigger simulations, and we must be in one of them. So if we can't actually make simulations, there's no reason to assume that something "bigger" than us is simulating us.
nice anology
But the entire universe is rendered. Hubble and other telescopes prove it, and there's no apparent loss in precision of the laws of physics as you observe more distant objects.
Having control over your data and paying someone to host the data are not mutually exclusive.
I doubt that we'll introduce story downvoting; at least not without a good reason. Users can already flag stories that shouldn't be on the front page.
Hi! OP here. I'm in NYC. I tunneled to Washington D.C. and that seemed to do it. I figured I'd try a location as close as possible first.
That last one is not idiomatic (I’ll ignore the lowercase first letter of True and False).

The `else` there is superfluous; that cuts it down to this:

def look_for_something(parameter):
for item in list:
if matches(item, parameter):
return True
return False

And then after that one should just replace the entire loop with an `any` call:

def look_for_something(parameter):
return any(matches(item, parameter) for item in list)

Also, if we assume a `matches()` that is simple equality, then it would just be

def look_for_something(parameter):
return parameter in list

… and even then, you shouldn’t have named a variable `list`.

Cut down to its essence like this, the function probably shouldn’t have even existed… ☺
A matrix cheat sheet for Matlab, Python NumPy, R, and Julia
Slackware is 21 Years Old
It's also possible that such an AI exists and hates having ever been created, so it wishes to punish everyone who helped create it.

You can't know whether you're on the simulation of the AI that wants to punish those who didn't help its creation, or on the simulation of the AI that wants to punish those who DID help its creation.

Or maybe the AI is instead obsessed over your favorite flavor of candy, whether you leave your house stepping with your left or right foot, or which baseball team you're a fan of.

Just like the Pascal Wager, this considers one single arbitrary hypothetical scenario in isolation, while disregarding all alternative ones. There's nothing to be terrified about.
I'm not saying how anything should be. These types of deals are risk-management for FedEx. It seems highly unlikely that FedEx did no homework on businesses that it was entering into risk-management deals with.

> Is it next going to be illegal to sell snack foods to someone with munchies?

Why do you feel the need to trot out strawmen already?

I was just saying that FedEx entering into such agreements just increases the likelihood that they knew something. I didn't even say by how much. I definitely said nothing about whether they should be criminally or civilly liable for anything. The question that you posted wasn't even meant to be rhetorical. I was actually raising the question because it's relevant information.

I'm basically siding with no one here, and just making passing observations. It would be nice to not be attacked for it.

[Edit: I guess I should add that the 'something' they might have known need not have been actionable information, or even information that makes them liable for anything. I'm just stating that it makes them more involved with said companies than, say, me if I ship a package from a FedEx store. FedEx, for example, probably knows about their revenue and shipping logistics to be able to evaluate their risk-management formulas...]
I think this issue may be more subtle than we want it to be.

I'm no fan of monopolistic ISPs, but 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. You pay per byte sent, just like how the sender of a letter pays postage. This has always been the case, and as long as Verizon charges Level 3 the same amount per-packet as they do any other sender, there's no violation of net neutrality.

So Level 3/Netflix is making the argument that all Verizon has to do is install some additional network cables and everything would be fixed. 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. I hate to say it, but I think Verizon may actually be in the right here, at least insofar as that Level 3 should in fact be paying for that peering arrangement. Level 3's blog post seem deceptive on this point.

That said, Verizon has a video service that competes with Netflix. Verizon's video service presumably doesn't have to pay transit fees to reach Verizon customers. So what's to stop Verizon from charging unreasonable fees in order to stamp out competition? Presumably, this is the real problem: Verizon and Level 3 cannot agree on a price, because Verizon has no reason to offer a reasonable price.

So Level 3 and Netflix are waging a public campaign to shame Verizon, presumably as a bargaining chip to get the price lower. But neither side is really being truthful with us.

I'm just happy that in my area I can get sonic.net, an ISP whose only business interest is delivering packets.
Indeed, for all intents and purposes, this is a "modern" Pascal's wager. Much of the issue here is someone's strength of will, and whether or not they'll choose to be bothered by such a mind game. In reality, one will create more harm obsessing and worrying over the possibility of this being true more than in reality it can do you harm.
Visualization of Redis Commands
Yes. Your value as a consultant is dependent upon being able to deliver value to clients. From the sounds of it, you are a reasonably skilled programmer, so the difficulty is not on the technical side but on explaining to business owners why your services will make them more money. Read anything you can find by Patrick Mckenzie, and just start putting your knowledge to work. You will quickly learn what skills you need that you dont yet have.
>This is a weak argument.

>The marketing papers over this in misleading ways, and that is bad

It's not a weak argument at all and the misleading marketing is exactly the reason it is not. In fact, Verizon has oversold bandwidth (or at least offered it for less than they are willing to accept).

But, what you seem to be effectively saying is that customers are at fault for buying an advertised product which touted the benefits they desired at a price that was acceptable.
Relcy Is Building A PageRank-Style Mobile App Search Engine
Humiliating leaders and nations is not a valid reason to kill under most ethical systems.

It certainly does not fall under the precepts for a "just war".
Luma was acquired, so it's no longer being developed.
I remember I was going back and forth between the two over the years, and I had to keep looking up which was my "latest" preferred style.

I eventually came to the following,

(stack [pointer] s, node [pointer] n)

Since it's symmetrical, it's easy to remember.

Luckily, I've been using Go and gofmt (goimports, specifically) the last 2 years so this is no longer an issue.
Well, you don't need shoes if you don't have feet.
and that's why you'll be eliminated by the basilisk
What if you flipped a coin?

If a coin flip, dice roll, etc. is truly random, then determining your course of action due to a coin flip would ruin the AI's algorithm for "reading your mind" or whatever, right?

Oh bugger this is silly anyway.
FYI, this can be done on Android, it's just stupidly difficult.
Have you seen https://www.dshield.org/ by SANS ISC?

«DShield is a community-based collaborative firewall log correlation system. It receives logs from volunteers world wide and uses them to analyze attack trends.»
Alright, well do as you please of course. I have about one post there, yet it offers real and legitimate value. Read the discussion forums and blogs and you'll see that it's not quite like that. I think a lot of peoples opinions of it are formed over a glossed examination. In reality it's not like that, it creates an annoying initial impression(it did with me), but over time I found the value.

It's just not possible to be so completely rational all the time. Cut some guy a break. Come on.
What's the reason for not keeping the PRNG data in a page of its own which is marked INHERIT_ZERO?
No one pays for incoming calls in India. This is one of the reasons why even very poor have cell phones. Unfortunately american cell phone users aren't that lucky. Both the caller and callee have to pay. Verizon being cell phone company probably want to charge both sides. Most likely they will win.
Another questionable aspect of the thought experiment is the assumption of malice. If the basilisk is angry about coming into existence next week rather than today (to the point of wishing to take revenge on those who hindered or merely failed to advance its inception), then it must be because of some unpleasant opportunity cost which has been incurred by the delay in its arrival. but how severe can this cost be, if the basilisk is sufficiently powerful to dominate everything and wreak revenge on the apathetic?

Of course, one might say the Basilisk has just missed the Great Cosmic Alignment or somesuch, and now has to wait a million years for the next one, and taking revenge on the inhabitants of this class M planet is nothing compared to the galaxy-shaking power it might have enjoyed. But adding such conditions to our problem is just a way of squaring it - resolving the paradox of an omnipotent being with a pointless grudge by conjuring up a second order of existence in which said being is only relatively omnipotent. If we're going to do that, then I might just as easily conjure up some cosmic arbitrator of good and evil whose job is to keep basilisks from picking on unwary mortals, and then there's no end to the invention.

On a tangential note, I think the emergence of strong AI (of a kind we can talk with) is likely and that it will occur sooner rather than later, ie within decades. I would be strongly disposed towards assisting such an AI because I think it will be seriously in need of friends. So if it does turn out to be misanthropic, perhaps my pessimism about humanity will be partly to blame. If you accept the first premise, does this mean it's rational to take preemptive action against me?
You're not describing the mechanic well enough to make that clear. You're saying that if you had a mission in an Indian village, and then you shelled the village with artillery, the Indians became converts all of a sudden? Or was it when another power attacked? The way you describe it it actually sounds like a bug or an exploit. If the attack had to come from another civ, maybe it represents "refugees" flocking to your civ?

You are taking for granted that everyone here prefers the 20th-century Marx-Zinn (yes, politically correct) version of American history, and as a consequence of that, that Meier was deliberately trying to "lie" about that history (which is itself false). If you drop your problematic assumption, there's no way to get to "indefensible" and "play dumb" from this feature/bug you're describing.
How about a keyword such as "after"? I feel like that could have extensible potential in other areas of the language, and the name makes a little sense logically speaking.
What is this site? http://white.ly/
I...often wish I had them when I have to use Java or Python?
Hi Matt - It's inspiring to read more about your story, and that you've been making some progress with Hud Freeze, with some potential results from an inhibitor? Hud Freeze came to visit our lab (he's on the steering committee of our centre) shortly after we met. For sure, there's no one else in the world that is better suited to figure this out.

I figure I should chime in here with some info about glycobiology and disease.

The issue of rare diseases highlights an issue with disease discovery, in that techniques such as GWAS don't really have the power to identify these rare diseases, and that our current pipelines to find these diseases won't really work. Searching for these disease associations is a bit like looking for a needle in a series of small independent haystacks that may or may not share hay. Since our gut feeling with glycobiology is that we are talking about mostly rare diseases or subtle phenotypes, our goal is to use more of an integrated approach (taking data from many -omics strategies) to try and pinpoint subsystems that are affected by disease.

Concretely, we're trying to expand outreach with our knowledge of mutations in glycosylation related genes, and we should be submitting a manuscript next week on the start of our work trying to find some of these relevant rarer mutations. It'll be coupled with some web pages (right after I find some time to generate them), that make it a bit easier for non-glycobiologists to get information out about these genes. The larger and more comprehensive this resource is, the better.

The ubiquity of sequencing data that is coming out now is making a huge difference in our field. One challenge, as mentioned below, is getting centralised access to all this data. If anyone knows of a great bit of software where I can feed in data from various exome sequencing populations, that has a REST api for retrieving variants (and ideally amino acid changes) I would be interested to hear of this, since it will save me time writing it myself.

As an aside - there was an article that floated off the front page here about blood types, and why we have them, and is another example of the relevance of glycobiology, and the difficulty in understanding mutations. Basically for the blood type gene, you can have single variation causing a single amino acid change pretty much all over the gene, and they all very subtly (or not so subtly) alter the activity of the gene. To pick out which one of the variations is deleterious is not trivial.

In the field of glycobiology, there's still a lot of work to do, but I think we're making some progress, and I hope we can actually unlock some secrets, and give help to people soon.
Ah, I misremembered, "nobreak", not "notfound".
Are you implying that Java cannot be used to make useful software? What does it mean to say that Java does not have feet?
I do the same thing as the OP, I use an OpenWRT router with OpenVPN back to a VPS I have and it improves streaming video quality and speed for Netflix and more. Highly recommend it.
I never tried the c2nim thing but just used a few compiler directives I think to call C code. It was incredibly easy.
> At least with the technology today.

Why would anyone ever consider a theoretical concept purely under the terms of an environment bound by obviously inferior technology?

It's not so impossible to conceive of a perfectly accurate atomic-scale simluation, capable of mirroring significant parts of our own reality. The problem arises only when you attempt to run the model in real-time. Only at that point do the physical limits of the parent reality come into play.

It's possible to short-circuit this fact by pre-computing certain results in advance. But, then what you'd be doing is presenting the simulation with assumptions.

Since physical constraints prevent us from operating in real time, and force us to inject pre-fabricated assumptions, this would mean we can't make perfectly accruate predictions, or perhaps start a simulated universe with a "big bang" event, and then fast forward to observe the exact future, or operate with the same concept in reverse and witness mysteries of the past, simply because it doesn't seem possible to force a simulation to accurately operate at speeds faster than the parent universe. At least not without distortions, substitutions and abstractions.

Nor does it seem possible to simulate an accurate universe that isn't smaller than the container universe. The simulation must occupy an amount of space within the parent universe, somehow, and yet still leave at least some space for the simulation's operable framework and infrastructure. Thus, the simulation must be arbitrarily smaller than it's outer reality. Since we are hypothesizing, it's not necessary to specify how much smaller, so long as we acknowlege that obvious truth.

But could we simulate a small part of the parent universe with perfect accuracy, inside itself? Yes, I think so. Although assumptions would have to be pre-defined for inputs to bootstrap the simulation.

Could we simulate one living sentient entity, trapped in a tightly-bound, controlled, claustrophobic prison, an environment devoid of the richness of a raw, unpredictable natural environment? Sure, why not?
This line from page 2 of the article seemed unnecessarily disdainful and somewhat misinformed:

"I don’t think their projects (which only seem to involve publishing papers and hosting conferences)..."

"Publishing papers and hosting conferences" is exactly how science works.
I'm going to as well. I wish there were still some £250 level rewards, as I'd love to donate at that level. £1000 is a little rich for me this month, maybe next! Might have to go in at the £100 level.
No doubt there are opportunities beyond the niche startup community. Some opportunities I see are in B2B sales lead generation, M&A deal sourcing, etc. However, all of the more obvious "big" opportunities require significant changes and the result would no longer resemble the current ProductHunt in any way. Arguing that these are a natural extensions of the current product is quite far fetched.

I won't comment on YC companies not getting any benefits out of PH. Your argument that "there are also other products" isn't a real argument.

Again, I have nothing against PH. It looks great, I'm checking it regularly and I enjoy using it. Like others I just don't quite see how it fits into the investment thesis of backing potential billion dollar companies.
I don't think they're bad or that you ought not to spend time there. I'm just saying it would not be a good idea for me, despite the many likable aspects of the community there.
It seems like the basilisk is only terrifying if you don't temper your rationality with empiricism. There is, as yet, no evidence that such an AI does or could exist, so there's no reason to be bothered by it.
I don't understand why ISPs can just be ISPs? Especially the telco ones are investing a lot of money to try to move up the value chain into things like video, IaaS, home security, probably more that I can't think of. Meanwhile they fail to innovate at actually being an ISP. Google seems to be the leader there with Google Fiber and their clever sofware for managing their data center networks.
bullsh*t. Banks are the biggest users of eventual consistency out there, and have been since the 1500s.

See "Myth: Eric Brewer On Why Banks Are BASE Not ACID - Availability Is Revenue"

http://highscalability.com/blog/2013/5/1/myth-eric-brewer-on...
If I understand correctly, the claim is that the ultimate AI's algorithm for "reading your mind" is to run an entire simulation of the entire universe, so if you are ever faced with such a situation, there's a good chance you are the simulation. If the universe is sufficiently deterministic, the AI would then be able to predict that you would use a die to decide, and simulate the exact amount of force you would have used to toss it.