skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That's what I was intentionally thinking.

But then I realized it might take only one index case to start another hell on earth like we see in the three current epidemic nations.

So then you e.g. wonder about indirect vectors. Suppose, for example, those guys who pressure washed Duncan's vomit etc. outside his apartment without using any PPE, even had their water bottles too close, were directed to do it quickly, before a few days of heat and UV almost certainly killed the Ebola in it. And then one takes a visit back home.

Or look at this 2nd nurse, who felt compelled to travel to Cleveland to continue organizing her wedding. Suppose that was south of the border instead (essentially no further by air, right?).

Concepts like requiring "a lot" are potentially lethal when the real metric is "it only takes one". Not that Mexico's medical system is non-existent or hopeless by any means, I'd assume it would take another goof for it to get into an area where containment was impractical to impossible.

My general point is that as long as we (the world at large, but the US has a special responsibility to our neighbors) allow unconstrained export of Ebola from its current epidemic nations, bad things are certain to happen. Look at the current Dallas nightmare. Surely, we hope, we'll do better next time. But other nations will also screw up their first cases, and plenty have less margin.

When stakes this high ... well, here's a quick list of the big 3rd World regions and populations, in billions:

Africa: 1.111
Latin America: 0.558
Southeast Asia: 0.618
South Asia: 1.591

Total for above: 3.378

PRC: 1.350

Just how comfortable are we with dicing with the lives of that many people?

While it's hardly inevitable, especially if we can soon develop a safe, easily manufactured and distributed vaccine, what are we going to say to our children if we let 1 billion or more people die because we're now too [fill in the blank] to implement old fashioned quarantines.
There are a lot of open questions with regards to intelligence manipulation, both scientific and ethical. We're like a child accessing the internet for the first time. We don't know what it is, how it works, and we've been told there are things we should never do.

Genetic engineering of humans is likely to be an extremely powerful tool, and we aren't going to understand it until we start playing around. We've already got some cognitive baselines for other species, perhaps we can start trying to manipulate their intelligence and see what happens.

And we can try to perform 'ethical eugenics' on ourselves. Imagine having 15 or 100 embryos, and picking your favorite. If you only intended on raising 1 child in the first place, I don't see how this is wrong. It's less grey than abortion. Having sets of 'chosen' babies will give us a ton of information about our genetics, even if we don't start manipulating their genes directly.

I'm within a decade of having children, and I really hope that I can 'optimize' at least one of the multiple children I intend to have. I feel like the potential scientific progress is worth the risk.
"For example, a medical student with no income and lots of student loans would look in the official statistics like she’s in a dire situation but may well have a very high income in the future."

Not that I really disagree with the point here, but I can't help but wonder whether or not the people in the categories he listed exist in large enough numbers to get out of the noise category. Heck, I would think there are about as many literal lottery winners as there are folks in this category.
Wow thanks! Is there a lot of overlap? Might it be worth reading the book as an introduction and then reading the journal articles?
After searching the news a bit, there appear to be four cases of Ebola in the US. Thomas Eric Duncan arrived from Liberia with Ebola, and before dying passed it to two nurses, Vinson and Pham, who are recovering. A third patient is a doctor who contracted it in Liberia and is also recovering [1,2,3]. So, one death and three recovering patients.

I'm unable to edit my previous comment.

[1]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/15/dallas-nurses-a...

]2]http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/dallas-nurse-ebola-tr...

[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433
This. Trends are far more important for diagnosis than individual results most of the time. Trends in body temperature, blood pressure, blood sugar, etc usually tell a better story than one outlying result.
Your example is overly optimistic - if it was consistent like that, you'd just adjust it at the factory or calibrate it later on, and you'd have a perfect instrument. In reality, the data is all over the place, with a large spread. You might still be able to get some kind of weak trend out of it, if you knew the tendencies of that particular equipment. I doubt you could even take long-term averages and rely on them.

Take for instance an elliptical machine I own (it's about 4-5x the price of the cheapest ones, so I guess we can call it "mid-range"). The heart-rate monitor on it is almost worse than useless. Sometimes it will report 200 BPM when I'm not holding the sensors. Sometimes it will under-report for long periods (e.g. reporting < 120 in the middle of a session, where I'm fairly confident my actual heart rate is around 150). I would not recommend relying on these things much.

That said, I think the general idea is not a bad one; we could definitely use more data to analyse. It's just that equipment that gets sold to the public is pretty erratic at the time of writing.
Not your average book review ("Piketty kindly spoke to me on a Skype call ...")

And oddly chimes very well with my own views on Piketty. (Yeah, me and billg, great minds you know:-)

The Tl;dr is perhaps rd >g is a better formula where d is rate of decay of wealth. And "yes we need a wealth tax, can we make policy to differentiate between good wealth (used for socially beneficial purposes) and bad wealth (yachts, coke and hookers)

I agree but that is a solution to late - "if we have robber barons we should encourage them to be philanthropists" is missing opportunities to use regulation and competition and externality pricing to flatten the profits accruing to monopoly holders and so reduce the amount of wealth horsing in the first place.

That said nice piece, and billg still gets my vote for top ten nicest billionaire.
You can work on stuff that don't require any graphical interface, just a REPL, so you could limit the use of your battery:

- project Euler

- 4clojure

- maths and stats stuff

- artificial intelligence

- chat bot

If you have an existing project, maybe you can find a part of it where you can work in complete isolation.
12 things I hate about Hadoop
I must say Bill Gates, in his post Microsoft avatar, continues to surprise me constantly. This is a refreshingly candid and sanguine review of Piketty's book from someone who was a ruthless capitalist not so long ago.

Gates rightly (and self-servingly) also points out that Piketty does not consider philanthropy as a means to correct some of capitalism's imbalances. Here's a few of Gates' conclusions:

> Piketty is right that there are forces that can lead to snowballing wealth (including the fact that the children of wealthy people often get access to networks that can help them land internships, jobs, etc.). However, there are also forces that contribute to the decay of wealth, and Capital doesn’t give enough weight to them.

> I am also disappointed that Piketty focused heavily on data on wealth and income while neglecting consumption altogether. Consumption data represent the goods and services that people buy—including food, clothing, housing, education, and health—and can add a lot of depth to our understanding of how people actually live. Particularly in rich societies, the income lens really doesn’t give you the sense of what needs to be fixed.

> Piketty’s favorite solution is a progressive annual tax on capital, rather than income. He argues that this kind of tax “will make it possible to avoid an endless inegalitarian spiral while preserving competition and incentives for new instances of primitive accumulation.”

> I agree that taxation should shift away from taxing labor. It doesn’t make any sense that labor in the United States is taxed so heavily relative to capital. It will make even less sense in the coming years, as robots and other forms of automation come to perform more and more of the skills that human laborers do today.

But rather than move to a progressive tax on capital, as Piketty would like, I think we’d be best off with a progressive tax on consumption. Think about the three wealthy people I described earlier: One investing in companies, one in philanthropy, and one in a lavish lifestyle. There’s nothing wrong with the last guy, but I think he should pay more taxes than the others. As Piketty pointed out when we spoke, it's hard to measure consumption (for example, should political donations count?). But then, almost every tax system—including a wealth tax—has similar challenges.

Like Piketty, I’m also a big believer in the estate tax. Letting inheritors consume or allocate capital disproportionately simply based on the lottery of birth is not a smart or fair way to allocate resources. As Warren Buffett likes to say, that’s like “choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics.” I believe we should maintain the estate tax and invest the proceeds in education and research—the best way to strengthen our country for the future.
That doesn't sound good to me. I've never used cases for my devices, dropped them all, only ever had one death - the nexus 7 on first drop. My opinion of them since is that they're cheap tat. That was no laboratory study, but I've avoided the nexus range since. And yes, some people will say I should use cases.
The nice thing about EditorConfig is that it fixes some problems before they occur instead of requiring you to manually fix things after running a linter (e.g. spaces vs tabs)
Sorry for not responding sooner, I'm actually at my employer's user conference, so I was lured away by the prospect of food and booze.

a) No! Though this is actually a conversation I've had here with a couple of customers - people want a good service modeling and visualization option. I'm thinking about how that might work.

b) So, I think this is a space where the commercial tools (my employer makes a really good one, control-M) do better than OSS, I think because the nuance of job management and scheduling is so boring and detail-oriented. For OSS, Rundeck wants to do this work.

c) Nagios, Monit, Zenoss - all can do what you want, depending on the nuances of the use cases.

Hope this is helpful, thanks for the questions.
Reading the comments, this is the official announcement of the bifurcation of the docker ecosystem. This completely shatters docker's original promise of a universal application container. Now we will have standard gauge cars that won't run in the South. Maersk containers that can't be shipped on MSC.

Congratulations to MS though, I think this is a good initiative. Not sure why you even need a partnership with docker TBH as they didn't create the underlying OS technologies that make containerization possible on Linux.. But, with the acquisition of Mojang it is apparent MS is placing a lot of emphasis on acquiring mind share.
Disruptive Analysis has now published the WebRTC Industry Status & Forecasts Report, 2014 Edition. It is the most detailed study on WebRTC, based on primary research and detailed quantitative market modelling. It extends the analysis the original report issued in February 2013 and several interim updates.

The report contains the most detailed & comprehensive forecasts on WebRTC adoption available from any analyst firm:

* WebRTC-capable device numbers, by PC/phone/tablet/M2M & geographic region
* Consumer WebRTC users for standalone & embedded voice/video
* Business WebRTC users for contact centres, UC and app-embedded communications
* Telco WebRTC users for VoIP/VoLTE extension, Telco-OTT services & cable/IPTV
* M2M/IoT estimates for WebRTC integration

The research has presented a range of new findings:

By 2019, there will be more than 6bn WebRTC-supporting devices & 2bn+ individual users (around 60% of the total Internet population). Some will be regular users, for example where it is embedded into a primary communication app or service, while others will just use it occasionally – perhaps in a B2C customer service & support context.
http://webrtcstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WebRTCstat...

Enterprise use of WebRTC is the most widely-commercialised today. But there is more action in new cloud-based offers for collaboration and conferencing, rather than upgrades of the existing installed base of UC/PBX “seats”. There are also new platforms emerging to integrate voice/video into apps and workflows. This means that WebRTC will “dis-unify” aspects of business communications, even while it helps other moves towards UC continue.
http://webrtcstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WebRTCstat...

By the end of 2015, there will be more mobile devices supporting WebRTC than PCs. This is part-driven by Chrome and Android Webview, but also WebRTC integration into apps using 3rd party frameworks or SDKs.

More than 10 telecom operators have commercial offers involving WebRTC in some way, with many more in development or nearing launch. Although IMS-integration of WebRTC gets most airtime, the majority of deployments are standalone Internet/app/OTT-style or even integrated with TV/cable platforms. Overall, telcos could have up to 500M WebRTC users by end-2019
http://webrtcstats.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WebRTCstat...
This is where it gets complicated for me. Gates value judges the rich person spending money on a yacht and plane. Planes and yachts are pretty complicated gadgets that employ a lot of engineers and others. The plane makers technology might even contribute to some other kind of businesses similar to the space program in the sixties and seventies. Where as tech companies sitting on piles of cash because they don't know how to spend it seems like a bad use of capital to me.
You are using the same mistake as most people when they associate the word eugenics with mass forced extermination of certain traits. Because of fear and certain individuals in the past.

The word can be used in a modern context, where eugenics is performed voluntarily, on a very small population, and under scientific supervision for causes that benefit the entire humanity. The rest can live and love whoever they want.

Genetic manipulation functionally falls in the same category, but it is better accepted because it doesn't have the negative history attached to it.
Then this would mean that you would have to compile this for every editor anyone editing the code base chose to use. It also means someone editing the code would have to manually copy the config file into the correct location. This kills the fact that EditorConfig plugins can automatically change settings per project, which is where a lot of the usefulness comes from IMO.
Getting started with and understanding the power of Vim
List of Mobile App Conferences Worth Seeing in 2015
I considered the Nokia 630, but only having 3G is a deal breaker for me.

I just got the Sony Z3 compact, which is smaller than the 630, has LTE, and a bunch of other advantages (better specs all round, front-facing camera, etc.).
> In the former case, parents choosing between 10 or so zygotes could improve the IQ of their child by 15 or more IQ points.

Well, yes—if you kill the bottom 90-93% of people ranked by intelligence, then the remainder are going to be quite smart.

Of course, that doesn't account for the possibility that there might be other good things about the children the parents never see.

And in fact, if it's true that there's a strong correlation between high intelligence and problems, then such an approach might lead to more problems than it solves.
Thanks for the question. As noted [here](https://www.railstutorial.org/#print-edition), the print edition will be published by Addison-Wesley and is due out in Spring 2015. If you don't want to wait for that, I recommend the PDF on iPad, which is my preferred format for reading the book (even over print).
For two displays of different size with equal brightness showing the same image, the larger one will consume more power (at the very least (100% efficiency), the display will consume the amount of energy contained in the photons that are radiated out from each pixel).

But a larger screen won't necessarily require much more computation. Imagine showing photos, for example. The increased size of the memory copy (from disk to RAM to GPU), won't consume much more power, I would think.

And if it does, it will only be when loading the image to show it on the screen. After this is over, it will sit idle until loading the next image (consuming no additional power from use of CPU/GPU/storage).

For games, though, you're right. A higher resolution display will make a larger difference in CPU/GPU/storage power use, especially if the CPU is used, since the GPU is probably designed for a higher resolution display.
Quantopian Plans a Quant Hedge Fund
So does MySQL, actually. They are just allegedly slow (though I've never benchmarked and I wouldn't be surprised if that's no longer the case).
>High levels of inequality are a problem—messing up economic incentives, tilting democracies in favor of powerful interests, and undercutting the ideal that all people are created equal.

I agree with generally all of Gates' thoughts here, but there are two actors to consider when discussing how to address problems associated with inequality - the government, and those who own capital. There is an implicit assumption by both Gates and Piketty that a government is always powerful enough to control what portion of wealth flows to capital owners, and what portion flows to labor.

The risk with a powerful government that can do this is it can be bought. A perfect example of this is Gates own story with The Common Core. From everything I've read, his own foundation basically bankrolled the lobbying, acceptance, and implementation of this program, much to the dismay of many educators I know. As long as a democracy bequeaths power to its government, there will be moneyed interests lining up to tilt that power in their favor.

The other option is to limit the power the government has to control the flow of wealth. No one wants to buy a democracy that doesn't have any power to protect their interests. What ends up happening is wealthy actors have to figure out other ways to maintain their wealth - consumption in things like yachts and fancy cars goes down and investment goes up. As investment goes up, g goes up because that investment is creating more jobs and more competition for employees, and r goes down because the capital markets become flooded.
Some US presidents have been really intelligent. It is easy to knock them, but recent presidents Bush Sr., Clinton and Obama are all extremely bright. Romney also is really smart given his work in the financial industry. Bush Jr., who wasn't that bright, is more of an exception than the rule I think for US presidents.
I would be more than happy to raise a child that was not genetically related to me if it's genes were "better".
GitHub OAuth results in: {"type":"Error","msg":"Hostname/IP doesn't match certificate's altnames"}
Agreed, his definition of rentier income was very narrow. I would certainly consider the "Windows tax" where most consumers have no option but to pay for a Windows license when buying a computer as rentier income. Not surprising that Bill Gates has a bit of a blind-spot here.
Yeah, Safari is good at it. I seem to remember that Apple has had battery-consumption measurement instrumentation that they only made available to outside developers recently.

We have an ongoing project to make Firefox very good, too, but as all big projects, this might take time.
what's your definition of shitty? Useful software used by millions of people who are glad to pay to remove this pain from their lives?
I normally balance on the relatively skeptical side on most things. But topics like this make me giddy.

No doubt consequences and roadblocks will abound. But if superhuman intelligence is coming in some form (and I think it is), I'm excited. Embarrassingly so.

The 'what will happen?' story is hard to pin down. What are the emotional impacts of owning a 100X better than Einstein brain? What are the social impacts? Does collaboration work better? Human intelligence enabled a step change in mammalian collaboration during the paleolithic revolution.

Genetic engineering is not the only potential path either. Technological access to information extends the human cognitive potential. The interface between mind and machine may reach revolutionary points. Our minds have different learning capabilities at 20 days, 20 months or 20 years old. Can that be hacked? Can we have all these capabilities at once, for extended periods?

Like I said, giddy.
Interesting. Perhaps this is why I Apple appears to be focusing even more than previously on being a high-end consumer product company more than relying on its vertical integration and solid hardware.

There might not be room for an SGI in a world of rapidly improving, cheap, low-end technology, but there might always remain a place for a 'BMW/Porsche' company.
It's also pretty silly to expect the makeup of the top .00001 percent to be representative of the top .1 percent. Of course the extreme top would contain a lot of people who are extremely active (and doing riskier things.) That's like characterizing a climate based on its hottest day. Just because Chicago's hottest day was hotter than Tempe's hottest day in a particular year (or every year) doesn't mean that Chicago is hotter than Tempe.
He really needs to lay off the illegal drugs and the constant TV, concentrate on his real life, and get a nice quite place of his own. As someone who hears voices occasionally (not that odd considering studies show auditory hallucinations can come from caffeine and lack of sleep), just a TV going somewhere in the house three rooms away can make it a lot worse. I can't even image what it is like for someone "with plenty of hash", diagnosed schizophrenic, and who mentions so many TV shows constantly being watched in the article and even by his parents. Marijuana and constant TV might be fine for some people, but if you are hearing imaginary voices, maybe you should lay off. The situations in TV and particularly the shows he mentions, like Breaking Bad, are really not the sort of things you want a paranoid schizophrenic mind to seize upon. You may wake up thinking the cops are after you just like your favorite TV show.
I wonder why these instruments are so hard to get right. I'll be interested to see how well the sensors on the Apple Watch work considering it's essentially the official companion to the Health app. I'd assume that monitoring heart rate form the wrist should be quite accurate but it probably depends on how tight someone has the watch on and the exact position it is on their arm.
Looks good. I'd add search functionality.
Can LinkedIn University Ranking be game changer?
Have you filed a bug on the topic? I'm sure the devtools team would be interested.
Thank you. I use SO a fair bit, so maybe that's why I didn't realize the other SE sites are more permissive.
Clever ideas in Copenhagen to improve city cycling
Yes to One Thing, No to Ten
Practice, practice, practice will work 99% of the time. But it's worth refining your approach to problem solving for when a question is thrown at you and no answer immediately comes to mind. I can ping you some pointers - drop me an email at: sian.roberson@oxfordknight.co.uk

Good luck with your test!
Stunning complete remission rates for Novartis CAR therapy