skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is my quibble against WoW and the like. I had a lot of growth experiences in a much more brutal environment, a game called Tibia. I haven't heard any MMO as unforgiving, specially in it's early days. A single death costs you about 15% of your total play time (you lose items, experience, all there is to lose basically). Killing someone usually held a profit.

As a kid, it meant you would play hours and hours and get beaten repeatedly. You'd lose everything and then you'd have to find motivation to do better next time. You would find friends and nurture relationships because you needed and later because you found you really enjoyed them. Eventually, you would find you can kill for fun and profit, completely destroying weeks or months of a fellow player. It's a sort of Bottom-Up introduction on how civilizations form, because some time you realize the instabilities associated with violence (or, depending on your personality, just compassion from your repeated deaths). Protection networks formed -- killing someone might get you hunted. Guilds were the next step in this protection network, with huge political intricacies such as necessity of protecting some members which may or may not be in a morally justifiable position to maintain the position of power of the Guild.

I could go on. Some of the smartest people I know and many of my best friends played the game in their youth; I wouldn't say it made who they are, but if it didn't it surely provided an amazing opportunity to learn some thing you don't really do until a much later age, if ever.
Haven't you heard? At the moment a computer exists which can outperform a human mind at a certain task, that task can no longer be considered a criterion for intelligence. Multiplying large numbers doesn't require intelligence. Chess doesn't require intelligence. Facial recognition doesn't require intelligence. Proving mathematical theorems doesn't require intelligence.
I strongly recommend connecting profile pages to github and/or technical blogs.
You don't need me to agree but I do agree. Plane travel is immensely safer than car travel. The only reason plane crashes make the news more than car crashes is because of the rarity and the massive casualties (sometimes).
ONE OF THESE DAYS BY AARON B. SOUTHERN
I've given it three years of thought, particularly on the resume parser. It's not tone deaf either. Do we want to give everyone who has built something a pat on the back, or do we want to help them build something awesome?

Also, you complain about that my feedback is too hard to address, but then simple stuff like non-ugly buttons is unhelpful?

re: dogfooding - often folks will build something and then not holistically test it. You don't need a user study to try something from end to end and pretend to be a user. Just a helpful reminder to do the simple stuff to make something great.
There is a memory leak or some ridiculous sized photos on the site, it ate 1.5G of my system memory in 30s of use.
would be offset by bugs in the software or unanticipated situations

Indeed, it's always the "unanticipated situations" that cause problems both for humans and computers - and in the case of flying, I think it's better to have some level of automation to reduce human error, but there must always be a manual override. Completely replacing the pilot with innumerable lines of code executed by a computer would be even more dangerous as it's far more likely that a pilot can react intelligently to assess the situation and take manual control of the plane than someone be able to immediately find the bug and fix it, without introducing any new ones, then update the software "on-the-fly" (literally).

It's similar to the issues that abstractions cause in software: the more we rely on them to hide details, and the more complex the systems we build as a result, the harder it is to reason about the problems that arise due to something lower down in the stack. "Out of sight, out of mind."

Here is a related article about this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/automated-to-dea...
How about all three? Computer, with a pilot on board monitoring things, and a remote pilot for extreme emergencies.

Someone should be able to physically take some kind of control when the computer pilot breaks and the comm link to the remote pilot doesn't work.
"OkCupid for Jobs"
So, after countless hours of wasted time and continual rejection, I am finally granted an interview, and my interviewer turns out to be fatter than expected?
Or is that just what it's like in the Bay Area?
The Fortune 500 company that I work for has parallel tracks. I actually moved from the management track to the technical track, and was promoted in the process.

I was probably an OK manager, but didn't feel that I would move up any further without doing some things that I didn't want to do, such as relocate.

Our managers don't actually spend a lot of their time managing people. Rather, they work on administrative and information processing tasks, and step in as small project managers.
Great, thanks -- I'm looking forward to your release.
Yes, you're right. Relatively speaking, we have come quite far from 10 years ago. Using Google Now, searching for objects on Google+, doing facial recognition better than the average human, winning Jeopardy are all amazing achievements.

But as you have noted, we have been able to pin down some of the more methodical parts. I was mainly focusing on the fact that what the brain does is still amazing, and if we were to list all the different forms of intelligence it exhibits, we probably have a very long way to go. In no way is it simple and neither do we understand how it can do cognition, connect semantic concepts and reason about them so well as it does. Topics such as creativity, intuition, thinking, feeling that we witness human subjects exhibit are still fringe topics with much debate. So the original assertion that the brain is unnecessarily complex in its design and was simply a process of trial and error may be unfounded, until we can demonstrate better or even point to/simulate/emulate some mechanism that would give rise to a human's intelligence by hit and trial.
We should also remember that it was pilot error that doomed Air France flight 447. That being said, remotely piloting a plane doesn't give the feedback that sitting in the captain's seat does and although planes may not need pilots to take off and land in the near future, a pilot (or two) will still be on board if not to at least reassure the passengers but also in the case of uncertainties that software may not be able to account for.

Edit: Can anyone tell me about gyroscopes in the plane and why there weren't any or did they cease function? Would they have helped if they somehow gave indications that the plane was in fact not stalling? From what the data showed, the air speed sensors (pitot tubes) clogged with ice and triggered a stall alarm so the pilot reacted by pulling up but since the plane was actually level but the alarm reported a stall due to lack of airspeed reardings from the sensors it made the situation worse [1].

[1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/...
Umm, hardcore Diablo 1, 2 & 3 (3 before the expansion protected paragon experience). You die, you lose everything. The good old days of farming in D2 at 98+ only to have a PK enter the game and declare hostile... that's something like real fear.
No one said that it wasn't safe. However, why wouldn't we'd still try to improve on good? One commercial crash in one lifetime should be a lot.
Can it be used with tor to sign .onion hidden sites?
Nah, fuck you, pay me.
Everyone seems to believe that Musk invented all of Tesla singlehandedly, so presumably he will be credited with building a time machine as well.
Uhh Fly-by-wire has nothing to do with autopilot. Fly-by-wire is just that the controls are dealt with in software rather than physical connections to the controls.
The failure of Silicon Valley's say-anything immigration push
People hand the company money when sales do their job. No one hands the company money because you wrote an extra 1,000 lines of code this week down in your cube on B2. Just like the janitor who doesn't get paid 10x as much if he spends some extra time scrubbing the bathrooms.
If money is a means to an end, why not just find an employer who provides and supports that kind of work directly?
Are you related to Uber in any fashion?

Because honestly, that's some bullshit that you just wrote write there. Nobody said it like they were at a strategy meeting. It was reported as it was: evidence that Emil is a shitbag who threatens reporters, and works at a company where that sort of thing is considered a fine course of action.
I think the most important thing is to have a conversation with your employees - ask them what do they want to do, and how do they want their career to evolve. Constantly keep in sync with your employees' desires, and you should be fine.
Maybe prior wealth is a factor. As a collectible cards game, MtG taken seriously is a significant money sink. I don't know anything about the pro scene, but I assume it's composed almost exclusively of people who spent several thousands in that one game, e.g. they either already have another profession going on or are wealthy enough to have the deck stacked in their favor (sorry, couldn't resist). Was that a wrong assumption?

By contrast, WoW requires ample access to a computer and the internet, which may not be yours or not primarily bought for the game, plus subscription fees. Not for the poor, but does not scale with dedication to the game.
This comment sounds a lot like the writing at http://www.askthepilot.com/questionanswers/automation-myths/.
Settlement in Apple Case Over E-Books Is Approved
My problem with the article is, it never explains the difference between "processing" information and "having" information. And I think that the entire argument hangs on this distinction. The author essentially claims, that a amoeba has some essence of live which a computer can not posess, but fails to show that the distinction is important beyond semantics. ( To clarify, I think that this is an entirely defendable position, it is just one of the questions where details of definitions really matter.)
Want to get rid of ads? Pay Google a fee.
I think this is a good solution, except that experienced pilots will eventually become quite rare after computers take over the job.
My observation is that the MBA degree is primarily valued by other MBA's.
Almost any process that measures human output will be gamed (optimizing for measured output rather than overall success). It's basically impossible to game sales without resorting to outright fraud, whereas there are all kinds of ways to game individual engineering output measurements, in ways that do not align with the business objective.
Yes. It's not hard to catch onto the fact that you're an intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt asshole who tries to "win" conversations rather than engage in honest discourse.

I'm surprised that you finally admitted what a completely worthless and purposefully valueless asshole you are.
Having just become a co-manager for ~50 engineers, this is really interesting and timely advice. I don't pretend to have all the answers about how to reward great engineers, so hearing more people speak about this is really useful to me.

My initial reaction is "reward them with more things they can say no to" but that ends up being project management-y if not outright manager-y. I'm very curious to hear more specific examples where this isn't the case.

If anyone in NYC and is in a similar situation to me, I'd love to meet up for coffee to share notes. Or in SF, for that matter (I'm here about once a month). Email in my profile.
Thats actually an impressive efficiency as the maximum theoretical efficiency of this "carnot engine" is 85% at these temperatures.
I have had strong opinions about the same, which have fluctuated drastically over time and now settled on less stronger opinion.

I was from an EE background and didn't have an algorithms course in our curricula (did my bachelors in India, so you don't usually have a lot of options of taking the courses you like). So I hated CLRS and like Skiena (though couldn't appreciate it well enough). Later on, went to grad school and had a amazing teacher and I was hung over theoretical text books (CLRS etc) and swore by them. Now I was teaching algorithms to couple of colleagues (again from non-CS) background, and initially tripped by suggesting CLRS. They are way more happier with Skiena. I guess, for some people applications inspire the theory and then theory take over. For others, they fall in love with theory naturally (or with good teachers). So my current take is, you probably want to go thru both the books if you want to code/think in algorithmic way. The order is going to depend on the person.
There's a widely-accepted standard for judging intelligence called the Turing Test. Computers are still a long way from passing that test.
I believe this is the most advanced artificial lifeform that is intended to be a full simulation of the real thing :

http://www.openworm.org/

( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2OBznK6HkI )

Yes, it evolves. Well, in theory : running time is nowhere near what would be necessary at the moment.

Note that non-evolving versions would be extremely valuable as well. Evolution happens, but individuals don't. So if you want, say, medical advances, evolution is probably one of the first things you'd throw out.

But if you are generally looking for artificial intelligence that evolves, there's tons and tons of examples. The problem here is that people aren't usually all that comfortable with real running evolution during "production".

People want standard, reliable solutions that perform every time. The way this is done is to "freeze" the algorithm's evolution before actually using it (or even, as Geoffrey Hinton pointed out, first train an algorithm on the actual problem, then train a second algorithm to simply exactly imitate the first's behavior, which has much better results. Or even train a second one using a non-evolving algorithm like decision trees, which I'm told is often done in finance).
I understand your point, and do think is valid to some extent, but keep in mind hundreds of AI experts and thousands of cores for half a century still fall several orders of magnitude short of an entire universe running natural selection for 14 billion years. it could really be simple, given an absurd amount of resources... our replication process is actually much harder because we're trying to do it in a fraction of the time and "cost".
Ask HN: Where are all the Rails jobs?
Hi Hacker News,

Rails programmer here -- I've been working with Rails since 2008 and I've been doing remote jobs for a living since then.

Lately I can't find any work at all with Rails, what's going on? What happened? Where did all the Rails jobs went?

I remember during 2008 doing multiples jobs at the same time, I used to get lots of offers, lots of interviews and gigs, etc, things have been really nice. Nowdays I barely get any interviews, and if I'm lucky to talk to someone, they ask for Node.js/Ember experience as well, etc.

Did all the jobs went to Node.js and other languages? Or I'm just doing something wrong?

It's really depressing accumulating all the knowledge and skills I got since then and not being able to use it or find more work. Even more depressing that I can't find work and my income depends on this.

Any suggestions or recommendations welcome. I'm only looking for remote work.

Sigh, please help. :-(
In the Air France 447 case, the pilot error came after the automation failed due to unreliable / wrong airspeed indication. This is exactly the scenario why we need a human in the control loop: to handle unexpected and unpredictable failures. Unfortunately the pilots of Air France 447 had not been able to handle the situation either.
HIPAA's not a great example for you to use, since it does in fact limit access to protected information by employees (under a 'minimum necessary' standard) [0]. You can even serve time in federal prison for a violation without disclosing anything [1].

>People who want to control all their data are hoping for a fantasy world where observations and inferences by third parties are magically made impossible.

I think you are setting up a straw man here. What I suspect the average user expects is for their sensitive personal data to be dealt with in a professional and respectful way, with protections against abuse by rogue employees. There are plenty of companies who deal with private data and understand this well. Potatolicious had a comment on another Uber thread detailing the hoops an Amazon employee has to go through to get access private customer data [2].

Scrubbing these posts suggests that Uber realizes that they have a real problem, at least at the PR level. I wouldn't be surprised if they are also getting more serious about controls on internal access to ride data.

[0] http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/covereden...

[1]
http://dailybruin.com/2010/05/05/former-ucla-medical-center-...

[2]
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8624945
I don't think the author has enough knowledge about what is actually going on in the field of AI to provide reasonable arguments, all she/he spoke about was Watson and Clocks, i think she/he must understand there is more to AI than what comes on the news.
Tutorial: Connect Your Swift Application to Parse.com
I started playing EverQuest (EQ) in about December of 1999. At the time I was completely mesmerised by the experience, it was immersive, it almost felt real. And it sated by desire to live in a fantasy world.

I did the EQ thing until the betas of World of Warcraft (WoW) arrived. I had enjoyed my time in EQ, but it was getting tedious to do anything, especially leveling. I was in a good guild (Dragon Army of Tribunal /represent!), but you pretty much had to devote 100% of your time to advance, especially in a raiding guild.

Along came WoW. It was a perfect out for me. I no longer wanted to commit myself to serious raiding and rely on a guild to simply level. I wanted an experience that was fun (i.e. non-tedious) that I could advance in (i.e. Quests were much more structured and fun) and I didn't have to rely on a group to advance. Life was good.

Until raiding began at the highest levels. Raiding was fun, but in some ways was worse than EQ. You had to have the perfect raid compensation (mostly to accommodate weaker players, but sometimes not) to finish a raid. So guild recruitment became hard core, if you didn't represent a class of need for the current expansion, it could be hard to participate. Luckily, starting over and leveling up wasn't so hard, so if a guild's live was for you, you could change your class pretty easily (compared to EQ).

And WoW raiding became the game. You had to level to the max (as fast as you could usually) so you could get into the good raiding guilds, bypassing all the good story line that was there for you. It became the same competition that EQ had become. And it was not fun.

I was lucky, my last forays in WoW were with a group of people mostly made up of competent friends from EQ and their friends. We were able to start fresh, ramp up and take on Karazhan in the Burning Crusade while BC was the current expansion. Yes, we weren't the top guild, but raiding Karazhan with a good group of friends was probably my best experience in an MMORPG.

That said, though, once my daughter was born, I was done with MMORPGs. They were fun, but too time consuming for the dedicated parent. I have since played here and there on Skyrum, but my duties as a parent take precedence.

That all said, though, Raph has a screenshot of Minecraft as the ultimate sandbox. My kids (now 6 and 3) love interacting together through Minecraft. Even the soundtrack is a staple of our lives.

I don't know what I intended with this post, but MMORPGs have been a good experience for me and I'm carrying that on, I hope, via Minecraft and a more sandboxed experience. WoW and EQ were fun, but as I've grown and have had kids, something like Minecraft makes much more sense to me.
They aren't that far from passing it actually.

One kinda sorta passed it earlier this year, by pretending to be a 13 yo boy. It was at the annual Turing Test event though[1].

Even if we ignore that, given the recent interest in using RNNs to generate natural language I'd say we are 18 months from being able to pass it reliably.

[1]http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR583836.a...
I think "ask" here is the wrong word, and you know it.
This person is just wrong. It's not because the tools weren't there or the commenter was unaware of how they work, that Go is bad at refactoring. It's very easy to write correct, type safe refactoring tools on Go code.
4 Minimalist Resume Templates
Even if computers never save the passengers in these emergencies, as long as they do save them from more pilot error emergencies then it's worth it. Sure the Hudson river passengers may have died, but at the same time the 9/11, Air France, Malaysia Airlines, etc ones may have lived. Hell, you could even have no improvement in safety anywhere and it might still be a good idea. Flying is already so safe that there's no harm in doubling the fatality rate. New technology doesn't always have to improve everything to be worthwhile.

This is more a political problem - customer fears, unions, regulations, etc.
I've only done programming and research for my career and shudder when I look at my boss's job. Heck, I get stressed just being assigned an intern. People management isn't for everyone.
It's late so I'm going to screw this up but there are coders and there are leaders. The leaders think about other people and how to make those other people be successful. The coders are more about themselves. Which is fine, I'd just look for people who are trying to make other people be awesome.
Ask HN: Does the Privacy Envelope app suck?
Looking for constructive and critical feedback on an existing app (OS X for now). Concerned about any uncovered ability to reverse eng the binary output. Full demo here: www.privacyenvelope.com

If this is a poor forum for this type of question, please advise. TIA - T & G
I assure you void is a great aternative to Arch. I was with arch until systemd, and it feels like home, only smaller, with Arch.
Those jobs are hard to find. If you have one, hold on to it.
How is it flawed?
Oh come on the pilots did not realize they were stalling. Thats how incompetent they were.
Programmers go elsewhere to if not compensated appropriately, eventually. It just takes them a bit longer than sales guys.
Very nice. I might replace my own personal framework with this - it's certainly cleaner.

A suggestion I'd make. Rather than simply taking a price series (which seems to be based on daily data), it might be useful to build based on the open/close/high/low series. Then allow the trades to happen at a random price between high/low rather than simply the close.

I find this more reflective of the uncertainty in trading since there is no reliable way to actually trade at the close price.