skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree with this, but I will say that sometimes, you end up structuring a program differently due to the language. This happens a lot in Rust.

It's still easier when you've solved the problem previously, however.
Rolling shutters were also used by traditional cameras. This effect is really old school stuff. Rolling shutter providers better exposure than circular shutter. I remember that most of professional photographs taken in 80s also used rolling shutter.
Small note, technically Rust never did HM, and now we _certainly_ don't. It's still inference, just not that algorithm.
If you're really serious about your simulator, check out this RTLS sim from Orbiter (a really realistic shuttle simulator): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjk8P6ba7oQ

EDIT: Ignore the mission audio after the alarm goes off - it's taped from a live flight and doesn't match the gameplay.
So? Microsoft is a real company - but that doesn't mean it doesn't act like a patent troll too.

My point is that just because you're a university or a "real" company, doesn't mean you aren't going to use bogus patents to extort money from others.
> Did the writer just forget about the Challenger mission

Challenger didn't even remotely have the occasion to try RTLS.
http://doc.rust-lang.org/std/str/trait.Str.html ?
As a tangential feedback note Ryan, I found the photo of London confusing for an Australian financial service (unless I'm missing some information).
> There is a trade‐off here for them; as a general rule, such languages have immutable strings

This is a bit disingenuous. I understand what he's aiming at, and he also mentions StringBuilder later on, but saying that a GC necessatites immutable strings is simply not true.

As a counterexample: PHP has mutable strings and uses copy-on-write in situations where it "feels" that conflicts could occur. (Granted PHPs rules on how it handles its variables is a bit arbitrary and magical, and PHP didn't have a GC till version 5.3 .. but the argument still stands.)
Yes, it does, but that's a deliberate design decision, not a flaw. We decided enforcing this idiom was a good idea.
There are two categories of artifacts caused by rolling shutter: those from objects moving in the scene (such as the propeller in this example), and those that result from movement of the camera relative to the scene (especially pans, tilts, dolly movements, etc).

Those caused by camera movement (often resulting in an image that looks skewed) are somewhat easier to "fix" as you say with post processing since a correcting transformation can sometimes be applied to the entire image uniformly. Existing tools can do this with some success, but there are still some camera moves that prove to be more difficult (zooms, irregular movement, etc).

Artifacts caused by objects moving in the scene are often much more difficult to remove, at least when it comes to providing a generic solution, because "reconstruction" of the image requires fairly accurate information as to how those objects were moving. In the case of the rotating prop or wheel, it may be somewhat simple (the algorithm would still probably require user input of things like the center of rotation and speed), but in other cases, the motion may be quite complex (e.g., multiple wheels rotating in different directions/speeds, linear vs angular motion, etc). And that doesn't even account for the fact that in most cases, there will be occlusion in the source image from artifacts of the rolling shutter. That is, in the propeller example, you have patches of the background that are covered up in the source, but wouldn't be in a "fixed" image, so they need to be filled somehow.

What I'm saying is that sophisticated software may be able to do a lot in helping to correct for rolling shutter artifacts, but I don't think there will be an automatic, fix-all solution from post processing software any time soon.
I did the same, as many other did:

http://camillomiller.com/sc

That website was of some inspiration, great too see it's still online!
Yeah see this is just plain silly and emphatically does not show vanishing quoted volume when you hit an order. It shows prices being adjusted when things happen on other markets.

The test is can I put a single order in to hit a price being shown on one single market and consistently miss when nothing else is going on. Because that really is fraud. This just plain isn't. This is taking info from another market and updating your price as fast as possible so you don't get arb'd as a market maker.

Why is the test one single market? Because if you're transacting a very large, (ie market moving) qty for something on multiple markets you'd expect that information to move the other markets where that instrument is being quoted. So now it's just that market makers are set up to deal with info from the other markets really fast. Maybe their link from one exchange to the next is faster than your link to the second exchange. That's clearly what is happening here. This is incredibly competitive nature of quoting really, really tight. You can't do it otherwise, you have to be wider. This is also falls under the normal definitions of efficient market hypothesis.

Note these guys who are complaining still get better prices for their market moving qty than they would get in the absence of HFT. That is with no HFT they could successfully transact all their volume at a much worse quoted price on all those markets and their investors are worse off. Effectively the worst price they get as the market moves with their big trade as they execute at multiple prices would be the best price anyone would ever show in the absence of HFT.

But hey if you're sucking as a funds manager while charging a fee that is a wealth tax in excess of 1% per annum of total wealth you've got to blame something, right? Short sellers are a popular one too despite being the basically only counter-mechanism we have for bubble inflated asset prices. And if you're a broker, some nerds cut your lunch, make them stop with their superior skills, dammit.

The width of the spread you actually get is the only thing that matters, but there is a mountain of BS fearmongering to divert your attention. That's where this convo started.

I think we've all fully expressed ourselves now. All the best.
How to Use Virtual Desktops in Windows XP and Up
That's reassuring. I look at some of the code examples and all the $vars and it looks very obscure. I guess the forthcoming 2.0 version is supposed to simplify things a lot and make it play nicely with web components though so maybe it's worth getting on board now.
No, it was when people in cities lived in terrible conditions and had nothing even approaching the basic aspects of modern medical care.
> as a weekly assignment or final project, for each student to choose a Wiki page and actively edit it

http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikiped...

and

http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/follow-up-to-...
It also protects function pointers, and the full "CPI" model protects pointers to data that contains function pointers.
Still not as crazy as the planned Lunar Escape Systems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems

"There was no mass or power available in the LESS for an Inertial Measurement Unit to measure acceleration and tell the astronauts where they were, where they were going or how fast they would be getting there, or even for a radar altimeter to show altitude above the lunar surface."
Creepy visitor tracking using Linkedin
Alarmists are using a lot qualified language, and remember, every statement with a qualifier like "might" or "could" is exactly as true as its opposite.

So when someone says, "Ebola might mutate to become a flesh-eating flying monkey" (which is true, by the way, given enough time) they may as well be saying, "Ebola might not mutate..." Both statements are equally true, but they have chosen to say only one.

Why? What actionable information is contained in that choice? I can't see any. Nor (one hopes) does it express their desired outcome.

Statements like "Ebola could mutate..." appear to me to be some kind of verbal reassurance behaviour. From this I infer that they are motivated primarily by fear, and one of the things fear does in social primates is--rather like a virus--spread itself. About which I will now proceed to speculate in an unfortunately data-free way.

People are hierarchical animals, and when we're afraid we feel better if we're not as afraid as everyone else, so we tend to do and say things that will raise alarm in others. Being afraid lowers one's status in the group (and lower status often leads to more fear). There are two ways of dealing with this: reducing one's own fear, or increasing fear in others. Again, this is purely speculative: I've searched around a bit but can't find any research that bears directly on this question. It would be interesting to see it investigated, and relatively straightforward to do.

So "Keep Calm and Carry On" is a good motto to have. It helps us focus on maintaining our place in the monkey hierarchy by controlling our own fear, rather inducing fear in others. And given how frequently fear runs out of control and leads to uncivil behaviour, this seems like a desirable result.
Best JQuery Parallax Scrolling Tutorials – Code Geekz
Currently there is a script that will auto merge all PRs every minute.

I wonder if it's a good idea, though. It kills the relation between The Project and the contributors :)
The more likely scenario is that an extremely contagious and deadly virus would wipe out enough people to start to destabilize our society, then we would wipe out more of ourselves.
AFAIK there is no explicit law requiring every company that sells cryptography (in the general case, i.e. not as a service provider) to provide key escrow.

However, this is not to discount law in praxis, how CALEA is interpreted and enforced, the history of key escrow, current technology considerations, known and suspected escrow mechanisms, and pressures exerted by federal law enforcement (e.g. the removal of effective crypto from Skype when it captured its market), and how all of this hangs together.

My (reasonably, educated and technically informed :p) suspicion is that companies at a certain size, federal agents will come to your company and make demands for data, which you must comply with and slowly as you are compelled by law to give keys and data on a regular basis it becomes the best thing for your business to install automatic escrow mechanisms.

It is my assertion that law enforcement interprets laws that read as "...unless the encryption was provided by the carrier and the carrier possesses the information necessary to decrypt the communication" as enough to force companies to create escrow mechanisms.

I would argue some of this story played out very publicly with Google. Another great example here would be the NSL of Lavabit - how they asked for far more than was legally obligated and the forcefulness and non-public nature of the demands made it impossible to put forward a reasonable defense.

To summarize it is apparent to me that the difference in our perspectives is whether a specific law (another being proposed again now, as you point out) is required in the current climate of practice of law, along with the leverage and the compliance requirements that exist inside it, for key escrow to be 'required of companies'.

I come down on the side of 'no'. I believe they have what they need now to get escrow.

Maybe this Apple and Google thing will clarify it. But somehow I doubt it. Prediction: no explicit law on key escrow will be passed (it would be entirely too harmful for US exports) but it will continue to be practiced.
I think it's like any sport. Take NFL for example. Outside of the US most people look at it as long slow and boring. I love it - because I find it's similar to F1. Strategy is important. It's not necessarily about who is fastest but who is smartest. Who can outwit the other person/team. Tyre wear is part of that. Yesterday we had a race with pretty much no tyre wear - it was one of the most boring in a long time. Most other races this year have been exciting despite the fact they have been dominated by one team. If you're not interested in monitoring tenths of a second, thinking about fuel levels, tyre compounds and strategy it's probably not for you. If you just want to watch a bunch of people drive as fast as they can and see who comes first maybe look into the lower formulas (GP2 for example).
> there's an unprofessional amount of grammatical and typographical errors in your copy

You mean "an unprofessional number of grammatical and typographical errors"
Really it is awesome and very quick.. I love to work
YII is awesome and speedy framework to build. I love to work. I yet to start 2.0.0
I wish COWL went as far as this proposal for domain sandboxing:

http://mortoray.com/2014/09/30/a-secure-and-private-browser-...

I know Google would never agree to do something like that - unless Mozilla, Apple (the new "privacy" company) and Microsoft (another one pretending to defend user privacy) would put pressure on Google by adopting such a system, together.
Yes, that's because they withdrew from BART in the 60s and decided to rejoin them back in the late 1990s. If they didn't reject BART back at its inception, things would be a lot different.
Well that was an unexpected end to a virtual tussle.
Startup Digest event submissions use similar method: no account, every login is an email sent to you. The problem I have is that I do use a password manager and like that much a lot more than switching back and forth of email and the site. If I go to your site, I don't want to go to my email...

It really feels like they want to solve my password storage problem for me, in a very opinionated manner without any alternative for me, and while it might be a good solution, it does not feel like one (for me).
Urban density back then was nothing comparable to what we have today. But still, the major issue is that feeding all those people heavily depends on long supply chains and energy infrastructure. In the US, only 2% of people are directly employed in agriculture, and that agriculture is working on "petroleum in, food out" basis.

The virus doesn't have to kill half of the population to cripple the west. It only has to disturb food production and energy infrastructure enough for modern civilization to collapse under its own weight.
Putting aside agriculture's direct and indirect economic contributions to California (you completely ignore the latter), California produces half of the nation's fruits, nuts and vegetables, and more than 20% of the nation's milk. If you're worried about the "adverse pressure on water and the environment," you should consider the adverse pressure that killing off ag production in California would put on the United States food supply. For many of our agricultural outputs, there is no other state or region capable of picking up the slack.

As a side note, I doubt you're aware of the fact that Kern County alone is responsible for 10% of U.S. oil production and around three-quarters of California's oil production. Do you know how much water is used in oil production? Are you going to "buy out" California's oil producers too?

The water problem in California is a lot more complicated and nuanced than you seem to believe.
Samsung makes Wi-Fi technology speed breakthrough
It's enough for a virus to seriously disturb energy infrastructure. The cities will depopulate themselves. Civilization will fall as famine sweeps the nations.
I really like the idea and implementation.
Just because something's growth rate does reach the flu's growth rate doesn't mean that it's not contagious. The flu just happens to be extremely contagious. Ebola is still growing at an exponential rate, the rate just so happens to not be as steep as the flu's.

Even the CDC has predicted 1.4M people infected with Ebola in West Africa alone, at its current rate of increase. Who knows what the infection rate will be outside of West Africa. That doesn't sounds like something that is 'not very contagious'.
PEP476: Enabling certificate validation by default
> This is still nothing more than a password

No, it's an OTP. And that's so much more than a password...
It can be that _ for any is less expected than a star or a dot would be. We're used to the star in shells and the dot in regexps for decades already.

(0, *) seems more obvious in that example than (0, _) but at least we are used to ____ in the forms printed on paper too.
Wow, I've never heard of that before; you're right, it's COMPLETELY insane. That being said, the LRF version of that would have been amazingly cool.
PayPal Corporation Said to Be Implicated in Withheld NSA Documents
If something absolutely necessitates using C++, why not use C++? (I'm genuinely asking.)
Ruby only needs symbols because it made the questionable choice of using mutable strings with by-object semantics. PHP does not have this problem. It will automatically intern literal strings, thus giving you the performance and memory usage benefits of symbols, but without the crutch of requiring a special syntax for them.
A Time for Urgency / Zero VC Funding for Clean Tech
Very interesting idea. Where do the authToken and authType come from though? Isn't it sufficient to have the classic LinkedIn profile URI [/profile/view?id=98261032]?
Then you are biased towards papers which don't offer a clear choice. Sorry, couldn't resist ;)
And racket, just for kicks

#lang racket

(define (fizz-buzz n)
(match (list (modulo n 3) (modulo n 5))
[(list 0 0) "FizzBuzz"]
[(list 0 _) "Fizz"]
[(list _ 0) "Buzz"]
[_ n]))

(for [(i (range 100))]
(displayln (fizz-buzz i)))
Also note that Ebola has 65-90% fatality rate (depending on type), while the flu usually has < 0.1%. As long as Ebola maintains exponential growth, it is much, much more serious than flu.
Ebola has an incubation period of about three weeks before symptoms start to show. Asymptomatic people are not contagious. Ergo, for any Ebola patient admitted to hospital with symptoms there is a three-week window to identify anyone they might have exchanged bodily fluids with. Doing this is not that difficult in the typical case, although obviously anyone with an active imagination can come up with atypical cases, but there is a technical term for people who base their reasoning on imaginary atypical cases.

I don't know about you, but I personally am not in the habit of exchanging bodily fluids with random strangers in crowded places, and I have been on buses where people have thrown up--amongst other things--and never once worried that I was getting splashed by anything untoward. Based on that experience I judge the odds of random-stranger transmission to be low. Not zero, but low enough to not be a significant factor in the spread of the disease.

With regard to your "simple game theory", you are assuming that people in charge of quarantine and triage are idiots. They are not. They have thought this through. In quarantine patients will be sufficiently isolated from each other to prevent transmission. This is just basic, dumb-as-rocks first order protocol, which you didn't even bother to look up before posting: http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/hcp/infection-prevention-and-co...

Read the very first item in the table: "single patient room".
DDOS future blackmailers are happy: a new leverage for amplification :)

I want that so bad. Coding is hard, DDoSing is so easy.

Thank you architects for making black hats life so easy.
HTTPS by default? YEESS even more leverage.

I love progress.

Next great idea: implementing ICMP, UDP, routing on top of an OSI layer 7 protocol, because everybody knows religion forbid to open firewall for protocols that do the jobs, or we could even create new protocols that are not HTTP. But HTTP for sure is the only true protocol since devs don't know how to make 3 lines of code for networking and sysadmins don't know how to do their jobs.

And HTTP is still stateless \o/ wonderful, we still have this wonderful hack living, cookies, oauth and all these shitty stuff. Central certificate are now totally discredited, but let's advocate broken stuff even more.

Why not implement a database agnostic layer on top?

When are we gonna stop this cowardly headless rush of stacking poor solutions and begin solving the root problems?

We are stacking the old problems of GUI (asynch+maintainability+costs) with the new problem of doing it all other HTTP.

I have a good solution that now seems viable: let's all code in vanilla Tk/Tcl: it has GUI, it can do HTTP and all, and it works on all environment, and it is easy to deploy.

Seriously, Tk/Tcl now seems sexy.
You are also sharing hardware in AWS and there hardware issues have less frecuence and much less impact, is a problem in Linode, not in VPS technology, imho.
If you don't have a linkedin account I highly recommend the experience of setting one up. It is horrible. You are upsold at every step of the process. Reminded at every step that you should import your contacts and just forced to use horrible defaults every step of the way. After you have an account you'd think the sane defaults would be to not spam you with every little thing that happens on the site. Nope, you manually have to turn all the spam off in at least 5 different places. Once you're done with the spam you now also have to disable all the nonsense default sharing settings in another 5 different places. The whole thing is just a usability nightmare and an example of what dark patterns look like in practice.

I don't know about you but if there was some other network for professionals to showcase profiles I would jump on that immediately. Linkedin is so horrible that if you make something and market it as 'Not Linkedin' you'll have the first few years of growth handed to you for free.
Once a Symbol of Power, Farming Now an Economic Drag in China
Overcoming Paralysis with Laser Stimulated Muscles
Lead might just have been the first corporate PRS bullshit show, before even tobacco. And just like tobacco (and AGW these days) they were very successful in suppressing or casting aspersions of evidence.
They don't need to puke. Sweat transmits Ebola. Someone suffering from Ebola just needs to collapse in the middle of the subway, and people will help the person up, possibly infecting themselves by being coughed on in close quarters, or puked on inadvertently. At this point, once we get uncontrolled Ebola infections in people not remotely associated with West Africa, this is going to be a big problem because we will need to quarantine everyone that has Ebola-like symptoms, which will cause panic and become a huge burden on our medical system.

And that's stupid to say I'm not qualified to have an opinion. I don't need to be a doctor to be allowed to have an opinion. I look at what the so-called experts claim, and understand that what I'm seeing in reality doesn't match what they say. And in fact, my opinion matches what other "experts" are questioning, a la LA Times article[1]. So, yes, I am qualified enough to have an opinion just by using simple common sense. You can feel free to be a good sheep and listen to what you're told, but I prefer to think for myself.

And to be clear, I'm not worried I'm going to get Ebola. I just don't like it when I keep reading in the news that Ebola is extremely hard to catch, when it's obvious that it's not based on the evidence of who and how people are contracting it.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ebola-questions-20141007...
I think there's a couple of distinctions to be made between trolls and more legitimate IP owners:

- trolls usually aren't the original IP creator,

- trolls' patents often cover trivial material, or ideas which are included in prior art.

I'm gessing that ARM patents are not trivial.