skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Just an FYI because you seem wholly ignorant of what's actually gone on, but it was Apple and five of the Big Six (Hatchette included) who were sued by the DOJ in a civil antitrust case for ebook price fixing trying to push prices up by up to $5 to make ebooks more expensive than their hardback counterparts that, unlike the booming paperback sales, are falling of a cliff.

Basically Hatchette and co was trying to illegally force up the price of eBooks for a company responsible for over half of all their sales. There's a reason why Walmart and Costco can make or break companies, and there's a reason why every other publisher so far has come to amicable terms with Amazon when their renewals came up and that's because they'd already fucked with Amazon.

Hatchette is currently trying to use public pressure to extort Amazon into doing what Hatchette has already been sued for: price fixing.

Amazon is a retailer, and retailers have every right to discontinue carrying any product they want at any time for any reason as long as it doesn't void a contract... and hey look! Hatchettes contract ran out. Amazon is currently being graceful by continuing to sell any of Hatchettes product.

The notion that Amazon is the "bad guy" here is quite frankly idiotic. Hatchette tried to do something illegal to hurt consumers (you know the people who pay writers wages). Now again they're trying to negotiate elevated ebook prices and take away Amazons ability to discount books to hurt consumers (again, you know the people who pay writers wages through that 10-15% royalty). And now Hatchette is the one who's unable to agree to terms that the other publishers so far have managed to, and they've held in a deadlock for three months where their writers are seeing their incomes halved.

Hatchette is part of a massive publishing conglomerate trying to prop up corporate profits as Hardback sales evaporate. They're in this out of their own interest and have clearly showed they're willing to use their authors as weapons and have the audacity to try to make public outrage against Amazon for their own actions. It was Amazon who offered to help pay the authors for their lost wages during the dispute, which Hatchette has failed to accept (because it would require them matching Amazon's contribution) - but Penguin accepted during their unheard of contract dispute a few months prior to this.

So not only is Hatchette actively fucking their own authors with this contract dispute, they're not even TRYING to compensate them when "THE BAD GUY" is.
Nice intro but I disagree about the gotcha - you can tune persistency so that every operation is written to disk, it will just make Redis much slower. One of the unique things in Redis is that you can decide for yourself on the persistence vs performance tradeoff.
You really need to mention that you're a navy carrier pilot. In the world of pilots, navy carrier pilots are the heroes.

My hat's off to you, I have the qualifications but have always hesitated to apply to my nation's pilot programme. The sacrifices military personnel make are really extraordinary when viewed from a civilian point of view.

Much respect.
Again, my point is that it's the fault of the society for not providing a good transition path as opposed to the automation itself.
Such as using government force to maintain private property and to enforce contracts.
The court system isn't putting up with it? You must have a liberal definition of punishment, if you expect $300mm to change behavior. If you add a zero it may have an actual impact, but at $300mm it's possible the companies net saved money.

edit: for a (very rough) estimate of how much money google saved, remember that in late 10 they gave their entire staff a 10% raise, effective 1 Jan 11. So if you look at their 2011 10k [2], a very rough underestimate of their comp expenses -- looking at R&D alone -- is $5,162 (numbers in millions). So if 1.1x = 5162, then x = 4692 and that 10% raise cost google $470m. A fine less than the savings of one year of your illicit behavior -- and for just one company! -- discourages behavior exactly how?

[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870352360...

[2] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/0001193125120...
And how would you know? Virtually nobody has studied the effects of long term high level black tea dosing, at last in part because (I believe) society has an assumption that most people aren't that stupid. A cup or five a day is understood because people do it. Assuming a cup is ~8 fluid oz, he drank nearly 17/day.

ps -- since you didn't read the article, he wasn't fine drinking the black tea

Since this type of tea had given him occasional gastric
pain, he changed to Earl Grey (Twinings & Company,
London, UK), which he thought would be less harmful to
his stomach.
There's nothing wrong with "collusion." Collusion is nothing more than free association. Same with "poaching" for that matter. There's nothing wrong with two people agreeing to work for each other. People should be free to negotiate their own agreements.

The arguments for criminalizing such free association are based in sentiment not reason.
Okay, so I did a version of this in Java.

And a regular old int[] consumes a little over 12MB.

int [] a = new int[1000000];
for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++){a[i] = i;}

An Integer array of a million entries like this consumes a little over 42MB.

Integer [] a = new Integer[1000000];
for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++){a[i] = i;}

And an ArraList<Integer> consumes around 35MB (a bit surprising)

ArrayList<Integer> a = new ArrayList();
for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++){ a.add(i); }

A HashMap consumes about 77MB.

HashMap<Integer,Integer> a = new HashMap();
for(int i=0;i<1000000;i++){ a.put(i,i); }

A Java process on my machine, doing nothing at all except spinning a loop consumes about 8.5MB.

- Java ints are 32-bit or 4-bytes. Theoretically then, An array of a million ints is just 41,000,000 or 4,000,000 bytes or just under 4MB. As we can see in my test, 4MB + the size of the JVM running is just about 12MB, or pretty much what's expected.

- An array of a million Integers is actually an array of 64-bit pointers pointing to a 32-bit int, with some other overhead. I've read that an Integer object consumes about 16-bytes total. So a million of those is 15.6MB + 8.5MB = 24.1MB. The actual memory consumption is 42MB, so I'm off by about half, I'm not sure where exactly, but there's probably some kind of extra references to something I'm missing or some kind of JVM house cleaning I'm not thinking about.

- An ArrayList appears to be a nice abstraction on an Array (O(1) adds, get, etc.) It probably has some logic to do the Perl thing and just has some logic to build bigger arrays as more stuff is added. So there's probably some kind of internal penalty when they're exceeded.

But at any rate, I wouldn't expect the memory consumption to be all that different from an array of Integers. And the test shows it to actually be a little tiny bit less at 35MB.

- Now we come to a HashMap. A HashMap is basically a list of key->value pairs. This means that for an entry in the HashMap we need something like (I'm probably wrong in the specific details, but this is a useful thought experiment)

key (8-bytes for pointer to 16-byte Integer) + 8-byte pointer to the value = 32-bytes

value (8-byte pointer to a 16-byte Integer)

So a k->v pair is 56bytes.

1 million of those is about 55MB + 8.5MB = 63.5MB.

BUT, hashes don't consume space linearly as they grow. Many hash function will double the size of the hash once it passes some consumption metric, maybe 50%.

Thus we have potentially 1,000,000 completely empty HashMap entries. Which look like this.

empty key (8-byte pointer to NULL)

value (8-byte pointer to NULL)

or 16-bytes doing nothing in particular 1,000,000 empty entries (50% of the total hash size) ~ 16MB

for a total of 63.5MB + 16MB = 79.5MB. Our actual is 77MB so we're within spitting distance.

So if you consider that Perl's version of this test is 35MB for the Array version, which is on the order of what Java was providing we're pretty good. While the Perl Hash version took up 216MB vs. 77MB -- which is not too surprising as Perl's dynamic typing objects take up lots of memory under the hood.
> Why did they fail? What forced them to go back

Users, in both cases. (I've not been privy to the data in a long time and never for Opium, but I suspect the uninstallation surveys showed it quite clearly from what was said.) The original decision to drop it was based on telemetry showing the majority of users never touching bookmarks.

> What could have been done differently in the implementation to have resulted in a different outcome.

From what I saw, the public feedback was mostly pertaining to infrequently accessed sites — which is the one case where $YourFavouriteMagicAddressBar doesn't work well. One could certainly experiment with allowing users to in some way tag or add descriptive text to URLs which showed up in the magic-address-bar, but that may well just not work sufficiently.
I highly doubt it, but maybe you can contact the lawyers on the prosecution side and see what they suggest.
I actually attempted at taking a stab to this problem for Python's Pyramid framework when using Pyramid's traversal algorithm for routes.

It's not cleaned up yet, but here is the link: https://github.com/mahmoudimus/pyramid_maze
>>Even with the help of modern medicine, pregnancy still kills about 800 women every day worldwide

Um..I am not sure about modern medicine part. Most of these women must be in developing countries where you hardly get "modern medicine" on a regular basis.
> Technology enables consolidation.

I don't think that's quite right. Technology enables scale. That doesn't inherently mean consolidation.

For example, you can imagine Uber as a decentralized or federated P2P free software app. It's essentially a market for rides. There is no inherent reason it has to work like Facebook rather than TCP/IP or DNS. Someone like FSF or Mozilla could build the technology and then the the only people making money would be all the small timers offering rides and getting good deals on rides.

The obvious question is why that hasn't happened. And it's because there are other forces pushing consolidation. Markets don't inherently need middlemen but you end up with them when some serious problem(s) exist which require a consolidated entity to solve them. Somebody has to fight the taxi commissions. Somebody has to process the payments.

It's the same reason Paypal exists. The technology for processing payments is hardly rocket science. Paypal shouldn't be a company, it should be a standard protocol supported by all financial institutions. You authenticate to your bank or credit provider, you provide an amount and a routing number and that much money is transferred from your account to the target account.

A protocol something like that must already exist as it must be what Paypal uses to communicate with the banks. The problem is it isn't directly available to the actual account holders. So I can't write a free app or library that will allow you to connect directly to your bank and request bank transfers regardless of which bank you use.

So when Joe Blow wants to pay for a ride or some knickknack on eBay, he can't just tell his bank to send the money, he first has to sign up for Uber or PayPal and tell them to tell the bank. Solely because they've filled out all the appropriate forms with the Department of Redundancy Department in order to gain access to your money that you don't have yourself. That's where the consolidation comes from.
Complex memory corruption techniques – heap metadata and AddressSanitizer bypass
I'm a physics PhD student, working on experimental quantum computing. My day-to-day work varies a huge amount, but can generally consist of cleanroom nanofabricaton, circuit design, data processing, machining, and experimental design.

I consider consumer technology one of my hobbies, and hackernews lets me keep up with the latest trends in software engineering. I've always been particularly fascinated with technological forces that can have big impacts on the world at large, and new uses/trends in software have played a huge role in that. I like to think that hackernews keeps me grounded to what's the latest and greatest in the world where the "big things" can impact people on a much shorter timescale than the work I currently do. I plan to go into the tech industry when I graduate, and I'm highly considering an internship next summer.
Doing Data Science with coLaboratory
If you have a platform like James you should absolutely self-publish IMO. If you are an unknown trying to break into it, I think you should go with a publisher if you can get one to take you. It very much depends on where you are. Publishers have value, it just depends on where you are in your writing career as to how much value.

And if you are going to go the self-publish route, you really need to have someone help you with the roles a publisher traditionally fills, such as editing. I say this as someone who has self-published a book. I didn't even consider traditional publishing, but I did use a professional editor.
Monkey photo copyright in question as Wikipedia denies takedown request
This only works in the utopian world where customers never have a need to issue a chargeback. It's not like chargebacks are some inevitable consequence of the credit card system; they're a feature that the credit card system offers as last resort for payers who cannot resolve their issue with the merchant any other way.
Let's say all he does is leverage your offer to get a raise at his current job. That raise comes out of investor dividends.
Sorry, we meant for the text beneath the counter and the tweet feed to give details on the event. You'll be able to control where our camera points during the flight.
This article is needlessly sensational and has waaaaay too many misleading "chicken and egg" statements. The evolution of the uterus came prior to the evolution of the human embryo, so to say that the uterus "needs" to protect the body against the embryo is untrue; in reality, it was the embryo that needed to adapt itself to its environment.

It's these kind of articles that cause misunderstandings about how evolution actually works. If we, the HN community, are interested in furthering our knowledge bases, we need to stop falling for these pseudo-intelligent reskinned BuzzFeed articles.
I know this is illegal but I wonder whether any, most, or even all of the plaintiffs will be blackballed from most large companies in the future? Yes it's wrong, but in practice it's both easy to do and get away with it.
Your definition of a "free labor market" is a contradiction in terms. A free labor market is one where people are free to exchange their labor (collusion), not one where a third party decides who gets to exchange what labor and for how much.

Laws against hiring and pricing agreements are interventions in the market. Laws against hiring agreements are not consistent with a free market.

There's nothing wrong with people (employers) making agreements with other people (employers) regarding the things they own (their money).
If you know the structure of your data (or lack thereof) a priori, of course you can select an algorithm that outperforms one that is strong in a more general sense. An insertion sort is O(N) for nearly sorted data (hence why it's used as a part of many hybrid sorts) and, on data that's already sorted, will outperform ANY sort you throw at it. However, you would never use it on data that you know is reversed.

In other words, calling a merge sort a "faster sort" is a complete misnomer. Saying it's faster for a certain sequence of data is far more accurate (and also a bit of a "no shit" statement since one could construct a multitude of sequences where the opposite is also true).
'To match the earlier settlement, the latest deal "would need to total at least $380 million," Koh wrote.'
Considering it is not a criminal offense and instead a civil one, the only option for the courts is to fine them.

But I actually agree with you, as an alternative to unions the reaction I'd like to see is strengthening the courts ability to punish malicious acts by corporations and have more individual responsibility. As we've seen where banks destroy thousands of peoples lives by purposely gambling their savings away. Or pharma companies mislabeling products every year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Largest_Pharmaceutical...

While these cases are much worse than conspiracy to not hire people, I agree settlements aren't always the best solution because it seems to keep happening. There needs to be stricter and real punishment for businesses. One reason is we need to stop protecting those executives directly involved with the conspiracy from being shielded by corporate legal entities, who can easily pay out the fines.

Which is why I agree with the judge the current settlement is insufficient. Unfortunately a greater fine is the courts only option, that is the real problem IMO.
Simple use-case: you want to maintain a counter. In Cassandra even if you tune the consistency levels (set R+W>N), there's no way to correctly implement a conditional update. To elaborate further, you could successfully increment the counter in some nodes but fail on others and don't reach quorum (partial write). The next time you do read-repair, it's going to do LWW and propagate that update everywhere else. Meanwhile you think it has failed, and reissue the increment once again and so you've incremented twice. Alternatively you could have 2 competing increments racing each other and one of them wins and the other loses due to LWW (and you've missed 1 count). This is trivial to implement correctly in HBase since it offers strong consistency.

In practice, Cassandra gets around this issue by implementing a custom CRDT for counters. But CRDTs don't exist for everything and in general it's not trivial to get things right. I'm not arguing Cassandra is bad, but it's a misconception that you can tune the consistency levels and somehow get Cassandra to behave like a strongly consistent store.
The biggest different is that (to some extent) this vulnerability requires no user intervention (at least not in an active capacity), whereas the app permissions issue is one where the user has actively chosen to accept something.
Doesn't appear to work on ipad.
I really don't see your point. I have a small amount of whole milk in my black tea, mainly to aid in the cooling of it. In 4 litres, I'd probably be getting close to a cup of milk. So I would drink approximately 150 calories extra in a day, 13g of which would be carbohydrates consumed in a near balance with fats and proteins and due to the vast dilution would produce the minimalist of insulin responses.

So I really don't get your point. By drinking 4L of tea in a day, I would be consuming less than half the sugar of a can of soda.

Also Tea is hardly a mild stimulant, it contains more caffeine per unit than soda does. Yet people easily drink a few cups of coffee a day, which can easily have three-fold more caffeine than tea (five cups in a day would be close to 4L of tea) and have no ill effects from the caffeine unless they're caffeine sensitive and those people respond to decaf drinks with a tenth the caffeine in them.
What is Docker and why it's cool
I'm not sure of the "swipe" idea translates well to professional networking.

"Swipe" seems more suited to making visceral fast (~1 second) decisions based on gut instinct, whereas networking requires >20 seconds when face-to-face and longer in a lower bandwidth environment such as an app.

Additionally when using the app it felt like I was "discarding" someone as I swiped them, which is not the right feeling.

The bigger problem with networking, I find, is breaking the ice. I'd pay good money to be able to intro myself to someone without resorting to a "networking hack".
I agree with your point about anthropomorphizing. When you draw stark boundaries between mother and fetus at a biological level the fetus could be termed as adversarial but from holistic point of view the fetus becomes man or a woman and carries human race forward (in time) and also becomes part of immediate family where they create wonderful memories with their parents.
Tablesaw – A Flexible Tool for Responsive Tables
Near the bottom: s/stationary/stationery
Also you can still compare neurons to see if any of them are very similar. Another thing that might work would be to prune away many of the connections. Set all of the connections that are very small to zero, or encourage it to set weights to zero with something like weight decay. As a bonus this might even improve generalization.
What's the most interesting thing you've learned? (Looked up your papers, thanks for publishing!)
Very nice. It took me a while to realize that array literals aren't supported, but once I did that I was able to write concatMap and watch it being evaluated.

A couple of points:

- If there is a syntax error, the box just turns red. It would be nice to see what the issue is.

- You could probably make it clearer that it's possible to execute arbitrary expressions, by editing the map term, for example.
Disputed Monkey Pics Do Not Belong in the Public Domain
Yes there's a risk, but it's a relatively small one. There's a chargeback arbitration process, so the guy can't "just issue a chargeback" and be done with it. Also, credit cards are tied to identity, and anyone that issues fraudulent chargebacks may lose their credit card or have other penalties applied. Heck, if it's for a large enough value, maybe they'll get arrested for fraud!

Regarding bitcoin double-spending, FWIW, a few years ago when MyBitcoin.com shut down, they claimed it was due to a series of double-spend attacks that were successful because they were only using 1 confirmation: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=34770.0. More recently, GHash.IO successfully executed double-spend attacks against BetCoin Dice, although it looks like they may have been using 0 confirmations?
Yes it is a great picture, but it would not be not worth anything (I mean economically, not artistically) if it was not taken by the monkey.
Just and Nothing are different types even if the Haskell nomenclature doesn't call them so. The word "type" in Haskell means something different than it does in other languages. Haskell uses type to mean the mathematical notion of a set, while in CS, type usually refers to data memory layout. When comparing Haskell to other languages, we can't confuse terminology. In OO terms, for example, Just and Nothing are subtypes of Maybe, so the tag differentiating the two is exactly the same as that used to verify downcasts from the supertype Maybe to its subtypes, in, say, C++ or Java. Haskell implements the very same mechanism (call it reflection or RTTI).
Can confirm. My new daughter tried to kill her mother by preeclampsia.