skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
People so often overlook the role that execution plays in trading. As time scales shrink the impact of execution increases, and indeed many HFT strategies are not profitable without top tier execution (both in terms of fee schedules and technology). This is also one of the places that most academics fail when analysing a trading strategy. They make typical "assume a frictionless surface" types of assumptions that break down in a real market.

To your point, high-frequency simulation is damn hard and it is highly likely that they failed here and have tainted their results with bad simulations. Most of these papers would be well served to avoid dollars and cents and simply analyse the statistical qualities of their signal to their target over time. That is the first step in this business, anyway. Simulations only happen once the signal has been through the wringer.
This is really awesome! I was working a gem similar to this while ago, but I didn't open source it, because I couldn't support it.

This is amazing, good job guys! Excited to try it out.
I question how talented the actual engineers are. I doubt there's some project manager insisting upon some particular implementation of a password hint function. More likely is that they're relying on some freshly minted CS grad with no experience who doesn't grok how hard crypto is.
I wonder why he decided to use pure oxygen?
Thinking TCP/IP = IP is also a bit of a faux pas. No fair changing the terms I used out from underneath me and then complaining.

Further... again, go check your contract for your home provider. I'm quite confident it doesn't promise to "serve IP packets", let alone making any promise whatsoever to serve them without modification. Don't lose sight of the context here... pedanting about what protocol is in use isn't going to change the fact that none of them are probably mentioned in your contract.
There is a fun chapter on this topic in Jordan Ellenberg's latest book "How not to be wrong".
It's called the "Baltimore stockbroker fraud".
Alan himself had distanced himself from Google's offer for support; because of marketing etc. I am sure he his happy to not get much media coverage.
Why is it so hard for Americans to learn what a SIM card is? "The SIM card is your phone number". My 85 year aunt knows what one is and how to swap it out. Why do they have to be preinstalled? So Apple can shave a mm off the thickness of the device?
Announcing the Enterprise Site Discovery Toolkit for Internet Explorer 11
Laser cutter for what material exactly? Anything beyond dark paper or cardboard is going to require a very powerful (And dangerous) laser system utilizing high precision optics and expensive active cooling subsystems - not to mention it should only be used in controlled laboratory conditions by experienced researchers. Of course, if you are in that category you wouldn't be asking here...

That being said, a Chinese company named Wicked Lasers has been manufacturing and selling highly portable and relatively powerful handheld lasers at very reasonable prices - a lightsaber-like design for a few hundred dollars. By even their most powerful 1.2W laser will barely burn through cardboard and has no real functional use beyond showing off to friends. It will however blind someone permanently up to 9 miles away and even flashing it in the sky will land you in federal prison pretty quickly. There's also a good chance it gets stopped by customs during shipment as lasers fall in a grey area from a legal perspective.

These aren't toys - then can very easily maim someone unintentionally from a huge distance, even if wearing proper eyewear. Light can be reflected off a raindrop and blind you faster than your eye can even blink, literally. I strongly advise doing some research and if still interested, pursue this hobby in an academic or lab setting, if at all.
Hello golang structural typing
I thought that yummyfajitas' point was that fundamental analysis doesn't work, like all public forms of stock market analysis. Financially illiterate people are even less likely to understand that, which means that making the "insights" accessible is actually worse for the user than having them not be accessible.
> I can say that if Zuckerberg didn't invent Facebook in ~ 2004, it would have been invented by now, by someone else because that was what people needed badly to stay connected.

What does "stay connected" mean? Is having a larger number of weak connections better than a smaller number of strong connections? Are online connections as meaningful and satisfying as offline connections?

I'm always somewhat skeptical about psychology studies for a number of reasons, but the studies that have been conducted on Facebook and online social networking are consistent enough to suggest that your argument warrants deeper analysis. Many of these studies, like this one[1], find that Facebook increases feelings of loneliness and unhappiness.

I think you should consider that Facebook and services like it implicate a number of human emotions and desires, many of which are not always a positive influence's in one's life if indulged without limit. That doesn't mean that Facebook is without positive value, but I think its success is a lot more complicated than it "connects you with people that you don't see daily, lets you know about birthdays, events, comments and what not."

[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2419419/All-lonely-F...
A sharpe of 4 is ok. Most "HFT" type strategies have sharpes so high they don't talk about sharpe anymore as it is meaningless. It is simply a different type of trading. See Virtu's pnl distribution in their S1. As a point of reference, Blair Hull is on record saying they are interested in nothing below a sharpe of 10 (r-finance talk, should be googleable).
He says "Give me your money and I’d be happy to invest it for you." Alright, I'll do it... just tell me how.
Maybe he didn't intend for this event to lead to anything beneficial? It seems clear he's doing it out of passion (and science, maybe). He's not spending public funds and even rejected Google's support for this project. Just because he's a Google executive doesn't mean he is obligated to fund cancer research. And how do you know if he hasn't contributed to philanthropy?

You could ask the same question - "Why are you spending X dollars on Y instead of Z? What's the value in Y?" - to almost anybody.
Tech Haivl, Vietnam's 9Gag replica, shuttered for law violations
What's so hellish about the Lua codebase? I've found it extremely understandable and hackable. The parser is a recursive descent, syntax-directed translator to bytecode. Adding new operators amounts to adding extra token checks to the expression parsing section of the code and generating the appropriate bytecode. The VM itself is even simpler, and adding a new 'type' is just a matter of adding the extra case to the Value union, a new discriminator for the tag, and a handful of extra functions for dealing with it.

Sure it's a little complicated, but language implementation is a complicated topic. It's hard for me to imagine Lua's code being much simpler than it is.

Not sure what Lua's internals have to do with PHP, though.
Your point about his potential contributions to other good causes is well taken. Thank you for taking the time to compose your response.

I still think that taking death-defying risks is basically a sign of immaturity. It's a little disappointing to see it in a person who is supposed to be a leader in my field.

I look up to people who don't take extreme, unwarranted risks, whether for fun or "for science." All they have to do is have genuine skill and insight and take sensible risks for the greater good. In my opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to without people claiming that I'm detracting from the discussion, this kind of thing just promotes an unstable, manic culture in the tech world.
I was talking about normal-sized Bay Area tech workers who probably make $90K-$120K a year, not the 1% outliers. Saving $1000 a month is do-able here, but not exactly easy. I don't know anyone who even takes home $10K a month, let alone can save at that rate.
Charlie Munger Donates $65M for Theoretical Physics at UC Santa Barbara
Link to join Office Sway without an invite for a limited time
Wuala terminates free storage [pdf]
+1.

I hate this part about Mozilla and Apple. I dont have qualms about javascript. It has its good parts and as a full time javascript contractor I earn my living with javascript. But... I dont really want the next generation of developers to be stuck with whatever we have today. I am not in favor of "Here is what you get - do all your innovations inside this box" mentality. Yes, there is scope for improving javascript or ECMAscript but there are limits to this. As Peter Thiel says in his book - this is incremental-ism. This will never produce 0 to 1. In order to produce something like that people should be allowed to innovate - even if initially they have to do stuff like this AtScript or Dart or TypeScript! Criticizing those attempts as "breaking the existing tool-chain" is as foolish as criticizing a spaceship because it does not make use of roads.
Also works with Chrome:

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/jsonview/chklaanhf...
There's some heroism in daring to do something technically possible that hasn't been done before---the fact that he did it with world-class technical backing and engineering work doesn't diminish the fact that at the end of the day, he strapped into that suit and he rode it down.

Apollo 11's crew had all of NASA backing it; that doesn't make them less heroic.
I understand your concern, but I don't really think the problem is within Clojure people: When I started out explaining the structure to other people and that most operations have O(log n) runtime, people dismissed Clojure as being too slow for practical purposes. Part of this is because programmers, not Clojure devs in particular, connotate O(log n) with "much slower than O(1)". However, this data structure is incredibly much faster than the "O(log n)" people are generally used to.

And this is the problem. As you yourself say, most programmers usually associate/assume "Big-O notation is intended to describe how the time required for an operation grows as the number of items being handled gets large".

But formally, this is not the case at all. O(g(x)) tells you the that the worst case input to the algorithm will require less operations (usually operations, sometimes memory or other things) than the function g multiplied by some positive constant. g is usually determined by the size of the input. (This definition is also simplified somewhat, but it illustrates the problem)

We can say that ArrayLists.add have O(n) runtime and that quicksort have O(n²) runtime, but they both also have O(n³) and O(n!) runtime.

In addition, Big-O does not describe how the algorithm runs in the average case, or how frequent the worst case is. In and of itself, the Big-O notation tells us almost nothing about an algorithm – you barely conclude anything from it. I guess that is part of why it has become this very simplified term with a very wibbly-wobbly definition from time to time.

So when you're saying that calling it "practically O(1)" is lying, I agree if this was in an academic context. But for the average programmer (regardless of language!), O(g(x)) is usually thought of as the "worst case runtime for an algorithm". Since the actual runtime is – well – effectively constant, I considered it okay.

---

That being said, I have formally explained the persistent vector if you're interested in the academic version. The background chapter in http://hypirion.com/thesis.pdf should cover it.
800M Twitpic photos to vanish from the web Saturday
It was USB stream.

The problem isn't knowing the driver itself can cause a bricked chip and therefore bricked device.

The problem is Joe-Average isn't going to be able to prove it was this driver and not just a defective device/chip for another reason. Even with a free "testing" tool someone can make to check for the flipped PID bit, Joe-Average has no clue this is even going on, and is likely to just throw away his bricked device.
"Nobody with a brain thinks that Facebook strategizes every morning about how to collect the most data for intelligence agencies."

I disagree, and I don't think I've forgotten my brain somewhere. Why I disagree? Because facebook, for all intents and purposes, is an intelligence agency. Doesn't mean that they welcome other agencies having a look at their data, but it certainly is more than a side effect.
...at the age of 57.
Shakeup at NSA After BuzzFeed News Reports on Potential Conflict of Interest
Ha, yeah--we were making medical dictation software. Our software was definitely part of keeping iPhone and iPod Touch devices in doctors' hands.
Yet another example of why "smart" phones aren't.
In my best Emily Litella voice: "Oh, that's different. Never mind!"
Its never too late. Start now.
"A person [...] who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities."

Of the three criterion listed, I'd say he met each of them.
Yet another example of "Why Smart Phones Aren't". Google it.
Are you underpaid as a developer?
Well, this basically eliminates me wanting to use IE at work anymore. I am really not expecting a total level of privacy anyway, but come on, this is just a level of control that makes me want to take a shower and wash that IE smell off.
It is totally sweet, but as an irrelevant aside, I think you have been hanging around some very slow bicyclists. Unless you're talking about biking straight up.
Oculus + Unity Free part of new 0.4.3
doesn't predicting the price change the price? Just like how knowing the future changes the future.
Agreed. When FB Messenger asks for my location, or my contact list, I just click "don't ask again" and "deny". And I get to ignore all the furor over the new Messenger permissions my friends are freaking out about.
So you recommend going with just one firm? We've heard that asking two to co-lead might be advantageous.
How can the stock market be zero sum. What about dividends?
As of now he does.
Its not actually, if you define the work done in a specific way.
Not to the ardent capitalist.
I don't agree that sensational risk-taking is good for science.
Cool game. Please add an option to turn off the buzzing when your phone is on vibrate (should be default really).
Sidecar Commute Beta
The Holocaust just got more shocking
> Without getting boringly into the intricacies of Android's underbelly, even without the "internet" permission (which is now standard with higher API levels anyway), you can connect to the internet through other APIs and inform a server that you exist.

At the risk of boring someone else, any more info on this? Is this true for the later versions of Android? (4.2+)

I found something similar to what you describe but for 2.x (and then, a very visible "exploit" - i.e. opening the web browser)
Sorry, very badly phrased by me. I'm trying to say 'zero sum - so what?' and 'not zero sum - so what?' I regret writing the second part, I was trying to say (badly) that any simple model of a market could be zero sum. You can add in more things to the model (commission, whatever) and say now it's not zero sum. And you can add in opportunity costs and claim it's zero sum again. But who cares? It means nothing.

Now I've unintentionally started an argument about what is / is not zero sum and what bits of a market you take your definitions from. That was the exact opposite of what I was trying to say. If it is zero-sum, why does that even change anything or make the trading (from the original paper) worthwhile or not? I'm trying to say that 'zero sum' or not, it changes nothing and gives no additional insight.
Show HN: Real-time property search for groups
Introduction to contemporary set theory in 100 pages (Paul R. Halmos) [pdf]
Quandl[1] is one such resource of free stock data.

[1] Quandl.com
The falling part is easy. The not dying part is harder. The creating a suit to fall in is tricky too.

And as for falling being easy: when's the last time you jumped off a high dive board? Try it sometime.
Because Alan didn't break the world record. According to article, he used drogue-chute, which is basically a small parachute, and it's WAY safer to jump with drogue.
Baumgartner, however, didn't use no drogue-chute, and has really broken the world record.
Funny that during Baumgartner's jump they kept telling that previous record was held by Joseph Kittinger, while it did not: FAI doesn't recognize it, because with drogue chute it's way easier and safer.
I agree that GP is dangerously wrong about noncommercial use in general, but doesn't the research exemption[1] muddy the waters a little?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption
Dwolla Using Slate for an Evolved API Documentation Experience
The discovery of Homo floresiensis: Tales of the hobbit
That's such a good idea that he did it 9 months ago: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4879.
The best part about this: iPad boxes never said which carrier it was locked to. You had to look it up via serial number. Non-Apple sales people didn't seem to understand this and happily sold me an AT&T iPad when I asked for a Verizon iPad.
They aren't living there.
Americans are not against this. The phone companies who hold oligopolies are against this.
Article title is false: he has not broken the Baumgartner's record. According to article, he used drogue-chute, which is basically a small parachute, and it's WAY safer to jump with drogue. Baumgartner, however, didn't use a drogue-chute, and has really broken the world record, registered by FAI.

Funny that during Baumgartner's jump they kept telling that previous record was held by Joseph Kittinger, that was false: Kittinger also used drogue-chute, like Alan. So FAI had not recognized Kittinger's jump, because with drogue chute it's not a free-fall. It's flying under canopy.

I mean, Baumgartner is still the world-record holder.
Ask HN: Application Design does CSR viewing of sensitive info get logged
I was just on a call with my bank diagnosing an issue using Firefox to login.

As part of the process it seemed apparent that the tech person (not a typical CSR but a tech who works specifically in support in that area) had the questions I choose and was able to view all my answers such as "Mother's Maiden Name" [1] etc.

I'm curious if in system design it's considered essential and a best practice to log anytime a CSR, or any company personnel, views that type of sensitive information. And is not doing so considered insecure and a bad practice.

[1] I don't use that for obvious reasons.
Consumer Barometer: a tool to help understand how people use the Internet
>a consideration for impact of household count

yep. I'm already paying a tax for having a dog (and some municipalities are now taxing cats too), so i definitely wouldn't mind if others had to pay for their family members too as, obviously, a child is a bigger drain of public resources than a dog or a cat.
Didn't he blow a charge to disconnect? Way easier to press a button than to jump out of a doorway
The real question I have is: Do ads served based on a person's history generate more clicks/sales than ads based on the relevance to associated content, or even randomly selected? My subjective experience with targeted ads is poor - they seems to be ads for stuff I already bought and therefore, don't need anymore.
I used adbrite for a while on some sites that I felt might get me in trouble with the Adsense people. It looks like they are called SiteScout now.

http://www.sitescout.com/adbrite/
A truth, a dare, and a deed in your inbox each week
> There's a lot more of the politics we could get into — like how crazy it is that China would attack its ally, North Korea, or that India somehow sits idly by while the bombs are falling. Also crazy: India and Pakistan put the past aside and become allies! But let's move on.

The story line in the game starts in 2064, so 50 years from now. In 1940 France and Germany were bitter enemies, by 1990, they were best buds. Not that crazy after all, especially when crises change the world order.

The article also goes into discussing the necessity of a world hegemon to keep trade open. I wonder if this is less necessary in an age where global economies are much more connected and so many more countries are liberal democracies.
Actually, Apportable's Foundation is now built on Apple's open sourced CFLite. It is available at https://github.com/apportable/Foundation. And it is used for a lot of real apps including those at http://www.apportable.com/customers
Agreed. Honestly, I'm really disappointed in the backlash that skeptical commenters are seeing on this article.
How We Use Docker to Run and Deploy Devo.ps
I assume it's to avoid the weight of all the other gases, but it's a great question that I'd love to see an answer for.
No, my argument is that your argument is bad.
Apple has a long roadmap to turn the carriers into dumb pipes. The original iPad deal was the first step. This is the second. Just because ATT locks the sim today doesn't mean Apple hasn't negotiated an end date to that. Just because Verizon has their own SKU today doesn't mean Apple won't slowly put the screws to them to bring them on board a universal model.
At what point does the boundary between a high-altitude skydiving suit and re-entry spacecraft become blurred? With the right definitions someone could say that Yuri Gagarin has this record beat.
The technical challenges are as follows:

1. Making the ascent.

2. Surviving the environmental conditions of the ascent.

3. Converting the ascent to a fall.

4. Surviving the environmental conditions of the fall.

5. Surviving subsequent contact with the ground.

6. Getting home from wherever you landed.

7. (optional) Taking good pictures and video.

Three of those seven elements are always potentially lethal, and three more could be, if not planned correctly. It's not quite the same league as jumping off a roof into a swimming pool.
it would have been better if they set up an wallet and put bitcoin in it and demonstrated the trades that were automatically executed by this wallet. Since bitcoin is a ledger history, we could be 100% certain that SOME algorithm 'did the right thing', although we couldn't be certain that they spun up more than one algorithm and then just showed us the best one.
Particle physics in general and CERN in particular is a pretty extreme case, most physics is still done in much smaller teams - although I suppose practically never by lone individuals.
>The thing gets worryingly hot

Do you have an i5 or an i7? Did you buy it at the retail store or with someone else?
"Patents do not prevent "making". They prevent making for another's use. One can
make and use anything (well, anything legal, I'm not talking about
devices which are themselves illegal)." - Mike McCarty

Patents are for commercial use. This is just publishing the details of construction - anybody can make and use such a device for their personal use, despite any patents that exist.
That's a lot to read, so I'll take my time, but I'm always suspicious of arguments that can't be presented succinctly, for I have my own biases.

Would you care to at least elucidate on what you mean by "Morals are subjective" so I know if I even disagree with you?

I don't believe morals come from somewhere or that they can be made universally acceptable. I just think that between two humans, if one does something to the other, then the other will think they're justified in doing that same thing to the one. And when that happens, a third person watching the incident will adapt their behavior (or stay the same) according to the outcome of the interaction. Based on that, and using reason, we can find some core behavioral preferences that we can call morals, that passes the tests of doing and being done to, and of watching others do and reacting by changing one's behavior.

I'm not asking you to summarize the discussion, just give me the meat of the main point in one sentence, if you will. There are no morals because...? Or there can be no morals because...? Or people will never agree because...?