skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The thing is though you can do this today without the VR glasses.

Yes, and I think live coding is pretty cool.

> but I don't see the revolution here yet.

Neither do I, but I don't think it needs to be. It certainly didn't seem to be sold as that. That was part of the reason for my post actually, that people are alternately seeing this as the next big thing or falling short of some incredible goal. It's neither, it's just cool.

> My problem is that it lacks imagination.

Well feel free to create something else incredible, and I'll be happy to find that awesome as well. This doesn't hold anyone back, it doesn't stop anything and it isn't being billed as TheNewWave(tm), it's just an interesting experiment combining a few different bits of tech together.

It's a drastic shame to see people poke holes in something just because it isn't world changing.
CQRS and event sourcing are separate concepts. I wouldn't introduce event sourcing into any product. It makes consistency very hard and expensive; more so than to ignore it and buy much larger machines. In fact, after watching people follow Udi Dahan down the ES hole a couple of times, scrap the architecture entirely and keep the CQRS bit it's a proper computer science ghetto I don't want to see again.

Packaging and micro-services have a lot more promise if you ask me, so I'm all for that. Unfortunately the complexity of some systems, particularly in the financial sector, tend to make micro-services impossible as the smallest possible abstraction is huge and everything is tangled like spaghetti.
Swift Course (Free for next 200 signups and expires Oct 31)
Having read many of Alan Watts' books, I will have to disagree with this recommendation - while 'The Book' is a short read, I don't think it's a good introduction to his work.

I suggest delving into Watts with his 'Out of your Mind' audiobooks recorded from his class lectures.
Mac OS X never really goes to sleep when plugged in
If you leave your power cord plugged in, your Mac never really goes to sleep, it keeps talking on the network to gmail, dropbox etc...

It looks asleep, the light behind the apple goes off, but if you check network traffic on your router you'll find that it keeps chatting to all its friends.

Same thing if it is completely asleep and you plug it in, traffic picks up immediately.
The premise of whatever it was that you were manually working out was that "all crypto based systems rely on hash collisions to protect voter privacy". Again, pray tell, how does Pret a Voter rely on hash collisions?
Maybe they should have kept some of those brands on, the consumer PC division as Compaq, the 'clever stuff' as DEC with printers and high end hardware in HP.
So if I try to apply the advice Sam Altman gave in his lectures, I'd suggest you to be careful in finding a cofounder. If you don't already know somebody, any choice is very likely to be a bad choice.

You probably already put a few thousands of dollars into the product. Any cofounder/partner would have to bring a substantial benefit to the table, probably unlike anything a first-time cofounder with little experience could give to you.

My advice would be to look to an active investor, a business angel maybe. Such a person would either have experience and contacts to develop the business side or the software/hardware side.

Having no cofounder isn't that big of a catastrophe, because it is unlikely you will quickly find someone who is highly qualified, willing to take the risk and is as passionate about the product as you (hopefully) are.
It'll take a lot of time and it'll probably show up in places where we didn't really expect it. I believe 10 years down the road BTC will be pretty big in Africa.
25 years ago, the same could be said of international phone calls.

The world is getting smaller and smaller, there will be a point in the future where getting goods/services from someone across the ocean is as common as sending an email.
I'd like for people to start thinking about security measures, including encryption, as a cost function rather than as a boolean condition (e.g. safe vs. unsafe; stop the NSA vs. not stop the NSA). I doubt there is anyone who can stop the NSA from executing a targeted attack that breaches that information.

My feeling is that good security measures increase the marginal cost per person surveilled. As the article points out, there are some kinds of communications that Apple is obliged to provide access to. Those are likely to carry low marginal costs per person surveilled, as law enforcement may have the legal means to directly and unilaterally access that information. Even if they don't, the capacity for Apple, telecoms, whoever, to operate in "God mode" with respect to some kinds of communications means that mechanism is a good target for agencies like the NSA to breach.

By contrast, even flawed technologies like iMessage (centralized key management) raise the per-person marginal cost by forcing attacks to be reasonably targeted. While the NSA could probably figure out how to attack Apple's key management infrastructure to set themselves up with a virtual iMessage device for an individual, doing so for all the people would, in principle, be fairly noticeable to Apple.

The more we can instrument technologies that force attacks from "bulk mode" to "targeted," the better chance we have at actually curbing surveillance. Of course, this still leaves the panopticon problem--if we accept that targeted attacks will always be possible, and that any of us could be watched at roughly any time, the psychological chilling effects of surveillance remain.
My working hypothesis is that this is the market impact of the liquidation of Hal Finney's bitcoin estate. If true, due to the thinness of the market and the large size of Hal's holdings, the price has a long way to go.

(Full disclosure: this is pure rumor mongering.)
I think the author does this, not for his validation, but to cement the connections in the mind of the Western readers who are raised with a strong basis in science and logic.
Haha, great find :-)

They're all very good stories! Keep them coming, iowai.
Rising the cost hurts the population much more in the long run - we, the people, we pay the surveillance for us. No one else.

We must fight hard that we don't need to pay that tax any more - money which flows in large sums directly to the military/industrial complex.
This isn't new. It's simply Power Nap [1]. You can turn it off in System Preferences -> Energy Saver.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht5394
Eric Schmidt and Jonathan Rosenberg: What We Can Learn from Google
How is Apple's claim misleading? The cryptography is sound, and that is the only thing Apple is "claiming". In this article, titled somewhat sensationally to clickbait, points out valid claims, but they have little to do with Apple's cryptographic solution.
Amen! Thank you for the powerful comment, humanizing and empathizing with these people who are in a tough place (and still collectively making poor long-term decisions but without any easy solution anyway).
what is this exactly?Is it made up repeating some characters?
I think you misunderstood the term "cost" as used here.
So to even buy bitcoin you have to do with money what you would do on any site to buy anything else. Why would you ever turn your money into bitcoins to do that? It's easy to say now, "oh bitcoin will never work" because it's tanking, but can anyone explain any practical use whatsoever for this monopoly money? Do people really expect companies to start paying people in marbles and tops cards or is this as straightforward as it seems?
If anyone played Myst, you may be tickled to realize that this is in fact what Myst was about.

The hand-wavy "this might look like a book with a video in it and some neat drawings, but it actually contains a magical language that describes the world you're in" ...

... you're looking at a book written in a magical language that describes the world it's in.
Which Flavor of Tokenization Is Used by Apple Pay
Not sure, no. Why?
Escrowed transactions are far easier cheaper than in USD.
Are you saying that you, just by the virtue of being a voter in your constituency, can go to the local election office, and demand that you yourself count all the ballots?

Anyway mutual distrust is what the proposed e-voting systems rely on. You need to trust k out of n (where k can be tuned between 1 and n) parties involved that your vote privacy won't be compromised. Maybe you're not prepared to trust any single one of them and that's a valid objection.

On the other hand, you do get more verifiability with e-voting - anyone who is able to comprehend how the system works can verify that the votes have been tallied correctly.
Research costs money. You need machines, a place to work, employees need to eat and pay the rent (even if you're the only employee.) Cost of database is just another cost of research. Most scientific fields have significantly higher costs than computer science. Just be glad you're not in high energy physics...
Yeah, because unlike taxis and hotels, loans aren't heavily regulated for good reasons.

When did disruptive innovation devolve into reviving old shady businesses?
What Startups Need to Do to Attract Advertising Pounds, Dollars and Euros
That's not true at all. The need to convert to dollars is present only most assets are denominated in dollars, taxes are paid in dollars, and our basic needs are paid for in dollars. What happens when vendor adoption expands to the point where you can buy enough from vendors - food, clothing, housing - with BitCoin that it is no longer absolutely necessary to convert to dollars, because you can subsist entirely on BitCoin?
Personal Finance Wisdom
MitM with a 0-day payload? Acid etching and SEM? You would have to be an extremely high-value target to legitimately worry about this stuff.

The post is attacking a straw man. Apple's iPhone security is meant to address criminals, mass surveillance, and overzealous law enforcement. They're not claiming a single phone will withstand the entire resources of the NSA devoted to breaking it.
One issue with using a tool like this to browse a project which was not already folded: you waste a lot of time just adding folds (akin to "properly" indenting someone else's code). On the other hand, that might not be a bad exercise as you try to comprehend a new project.
I'm not an expert on it by any means, but from what I understand just the technology behind the blockchain (essentially how the entire network works) is what is really valuable with Bitcoin. Bitcoin does have some practical uses - I've heard of people transferring money between countries/across the world with little to no fees as an example. It's basically a way to get around banks being difficult/charging ridiculous amounts of money for transfers. The point is not to store all your cash in the form of bitcoin, but rather transfer it to bitcoin when you need to buy something. There's some people who put their savings into bitcoin which is really dumb.
The price can't be irrelevant, miners are going to change their activity based on it.

It also doesn't make so much sense that companies helping people complete transactions in situations where traditional methods are expensive/slow/regulated will successfully continue to avoid regulation or bother to give miners a share.
Was posted at the time but didn't get much attention: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7732667.
There was a time when HP believed it was a big supertanker, impossible to steer.

So they split up. Agilent was born.

Shortly after that a new CEO believed, HP needed to be bigger. So they bought Compaq.

Now they are too big again.

"All of this has happened before. And all of it will happen again."
Are there serious startups in London solving challenging technical problems? I live in London [0] and the companies that I've seen at meetups and tech events are either startups with non-technical founders pursuing weak ideas, or financial consultants. The tech scene in London seems to be centred around self-promotion.

Look at, e.g. the Barclays accelerator. [1] The program seems designed to accept & promote marginal startups, and takes a large amount of equity in doing so (I think it's somewhere around 8% for £10k, which is far less than, say, YC). I'm working on a side project that I hope to turn into a startup in the FinTech space, and I'm not even remotely considering aplying for the program, because I'm not wiing to give that much equity away for so little investment.

I hope I'm just a cynic. I also hope that HackCampus does something cool with the internships. It would be nice to have a thriving, technical tech scene.

[0] Grad student in econometrics, interested in machine learning. If anyone's interested in grabbing coffee, please shoot me an email.

[1] http://www.barclaysaccelerator.com/
Although I agree with the premise -- a sufficiently dedicated attacker can defeat many mechanisms you can come up with to protect your data -- many of the points that the author makes seem to be based on either incorrect or implausible assumptions.

For instance, the claim that modern cell protocols can be "silently" MITMed is not really true; the current known attack to spoof a GSM tower, I believe, is limited to using some vulnerabilities in older GSM protocols, and may not work against modern 3G or LTE. And, indeed, the paper cited on a cryptosystem in GSM 3G being weak enough to pull data off the air does not say that at all: it simply weakens the cipher, but the conclusion of that paper itself says that the attack may not be viable for current networks.

The author's view of how the UID works in the Secure Enclave is weak at best, as well. The article that the author cites the possibility of the "Secure Enclave code being able to read the UID key"; as comex mentioned yesterday [1], this isn't true. (I know also that other SoCs work the same way that comex mentions; this is a common pattern.) The author then goes on to discuss what could be done even if the key bits were extracted from fuses (an attack that I agree is possible); he claims a cycle time of 800 per iteration if executed on a CPU, but in reality, the encryption is done on a dedicated AES engine; I believe a cycle time closer to 4 per iteration is more likely, giving timescale estimates over 2 orders of magnitude worse than the author suspects.

It's not all bad, though. The author makes at least one very good point: 0day on the device, while it is powered on, could be enough to simply run the entire device through the onboard crypto. The exploit doesn't need to be complicated enough to modify the system software permanently -- as long as it can be used once, that's good enough.

I think the crux of the matter is that this crypto scheme is not designed to stop the NSA, anyway: it's designed to stop comex and to stop the local police. If you need an NSA-proof device, you need a much much smaller attack surface to begin with.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8410819
And I can already pay for this with my credit card today.
That's remarkably similar to saying: 'If you have a sense for what makes a trade deficit occur and think that one will, it isn't a big leap to look at the value that can be transferred through international trade and say 'in the scenarios where I am right, it will have to grow many times larger''.

The analysis above is completely correct... and also available to precisely everyone, and is how the price is set globally. You aren't buying at a nerds-only price. So what you are really saying is that you are a more accurate speculator on currencies than people who do it for a living and have large trading and research apparatuses at their disposal. Could be true, but if you haven't attempted to speculate on currency before, there's no way for you to know that (and the prior probability is low).
Comcast Merger Review Put on Hold by FCC
Sigh ... If only Mark Hurd remained at the company.
These should really be 320x200 pixels in size, but I shall let it slide due to the exceptional quality of the nostalgia this stirs in me.
You're still paid in dollars.
You are not refuting the GP, you are just redefining bullshit.

Yes, the wave/particle duality is a nice abstraction we can apply to QM so that we can extract some results from it intuitively (or with just a few calculations). Besides, it's a concept with deep historical significance. Even if it wasn't a good abstraction, it would still be important.

But the duality is also something you can wave in front of people that didn't study QM to make sure they don't question your arguments. Doing that will make the arguments harder for them to understand, but sound like an explanation (that means, something that makes it easier to understand).

"Bullshit" is a common name for that second kind of usage.
This is related to the observation that, in the purely real realm, if you take some positive real number, and repeatedly take its roots (e.g just keep hitting the square root button on your calculator), you will reach a fixed point of 1.0. Gee, why is the n-th root of any positive real number, even a large one, so close to 1.0?

It's because you can reconstruct that large number by taking a sufficiently large power of that 1.0 + [small delta].

(Same thing with a small one: start with some .000000000000xxx and take roots: it blows up quickly toward 1.0).

It's the same with the polynomial. The n roots are just numbers that let us write the polynomial as:

P(z) = (z - r0)(z - r1)...(z - rn-1)

Their modulus |ri| doesn't have to be far from 1 for them be able to reproduce P(z), even if if some of the coefficients are decepively large when it's written as the power series.

If one of the ri's is far out somewhere, then the (z - ri) term will contribute a wild factor. Several of these will just blow the thing way out.
The price difference between BTCAUD and BTCUSD is very close to the cost of transferring money from an Australian bank to a US bank.
I've never been on a team larger than 12 people, and they still needed someone solely doing managerial work. I think it's easy to say "my team doesn't need a full time manager". Though the problems I've seen arise as a result of lacking management are slow and quiet. Grouchiness slowly creeps its way in until a group of good (usually the best) people quit with little warning. I can't emphasize enough how much I think a good full time manager is vital to a team's performance and endurance.

The role that's being described above is one I would consider a "lead engineer", not a manager. The healthiest role division I've seen so far is when a team has a full time manager, and also a lead engineer or two who are ultimately responsible for making sure the needs of the business are being fulfilled by the engineering team.
I regularly send money to Indonesia, and found that Ria is simpler and less expensive than BTC. End to end (including the margin on the USD/IDR conversion) the transaction costs for RIA around 2%. BTC for this transaction works out to around 3.5%, and it's harder to use to boot.

BTC isn't useless, but your post is typical of BTC proponents. It sounds plausible, but it's actually bullshit.
I was referring to "and a one time pad of all 'M'".
December - Just a small market correction after bubble, soon we go up uP UP!

February - Price dropped because Mark Karpeles is a incompetent thief, now that Goxy is closed we go up uP UP!

May - China dropped the price, now all Chinese is priced in, we go up uP UP!

August - Wall Street dropping the price because they want to enter cheap. HODL and we go up uP UP!

October - THE B3ARWHAL3 DROPPED THE PRICE, CHEAP COINS!!1 up uP UP!

http://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/2idb3s/looks_reall...
Ripple/Stellar is even more of a patchwork than Bitcoin. At least Bitcoin was created by a cohort of folks well-versed in the computer science of consensus and has some rigor behind it, Ripple is just a hacked up scheme with a (flawed) "whitepaper" as marketing. Same with Stealar unless David Mazieres makes some significant changes to it.
Sounds good. Then Agilent can change its name to HP and all will be right with the universe :)
Some people already aren't paid in fiat. I'm not one of those people - because I realize BitCoin still has a ways to go before I start to put more than the money I can afford to lose into it.
"the only money I have, or anyone else will accept broadly enough to keep me able to exchange in the market, is bitcoin"

Virtually nobody really "takes" bitcoin, it just seems like they do because they are using a 3rd party service which abstracts those transactions into USD for them. How long this sort of acceptance would last if the USD tanked is left as an exercise for the reader.

As goofy as I think it is that people speculate in gold as a good "collapse" currency, at least if a US Dollar destroying event takes place gold will still be shiny, whereas good luck trading bitcoin when the power and wired networking infrastructure is no more.
I don't know, I think I used about 40 languages. The beauty is that zip-compression captures rich statistical properties of the languages, so representation-wise it should come a long way. But counting compressed output length discretises the lang-lang distance. For shorter text this might be troubling, since this could easily result in ties. So, maybe. Perhaps I should try :).
In retrospect, it seems that 2008 was the same order of magnitude as 1929. Sure, the safety net was there to prevent bread lines, but the economic damage was pretty close. Europe's lack of recovery is especially alarming.

Which only reinforces your point, we've gone through one of the worst recession/depressions of all time, and USD survived. I really can't imagine what would change it other than insanely reckless monetary & fiscal policy - which is absolutely not happening right now.
It's at the bottom of the article we were discussing...

http://stanfordlawyer.law.stanford.edu/2014/10/ebola-the-tol...
Insofar as analyst hours, kwh, computing hardware, etc. can all be converted to dollars, spacefight and I are talking about comparable units.

And the idea of reducing the cost for intelligence agencies to surveil us to save money is an interesting one. While I agree that paying more taxes for a dubiously useful "service" is bad, I disagree that the right response is to reduce that marginal cost--i.e. be more transparent in the face of government surveillance. Under a regime of high marginal costs, I'd like to believe that the NSA would simply be more selective in its targets, rather than be successful in securing additional funding.
I think it'll be popular in the same way that myspace will be a popular social network, and that webcrawler will be a game-changing search engine.

Some of the best ideas will be adopted by something much, much better.
The idea is that rather than hold your wealth in Bitcoin, you would continue to hold it in your local fiat, and only use Bitcoin for the payment protocol.

Imagine if Paypal operated in "PPBUX" instead of local currency. Because of the large volume and high speed of transactions, PPBUX <-> USD would not be a very important number. You would only hold PPBUX for the few minutes required to make the transaction, during which it's pretty unlikely to move against you.
"""But when you code you are heavily centered on a single window and the rest doesn't really matter."""

For times like this you might want a completely black/white background, a forest clearing with very gentle soundscape or a quietly psychedelic lightshow/music all centered around your code window.

Some people's VR world will be serene and spare and some people's will be chaotic and full of the energy of a city street. It will be up to the user.

Some people will use the fact that everyone's brain benefits from both of those extremes at different times and use that to improve their cognition.
I think cost can be looked at in terms of money, time, risk, effort, or any number of other things and this is what is being referred to above. That point is probably moot though, as all will translate to additional financial costs as you mention.
Firechat and nearby communication
But that regulation would have to happen globally then no?