skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Monty actually mentions this in the footnotes of the article:

> The original version of this article stated that IR LEDs operate from 300-325THz (about 920-980nm), wavelengths that are invisible. Quite a few readers wrote to say that they could in fact just barely see the LEDs in some (or all) of their remotes. Several were kind enough to let me know which remotes these were, and I was able to test several on a spectrometer. Lo and behold, these remotes were using higher-frequency LEDs operating from 350-380THz (800-850nm), just overlapping the extreme edge of the visible range.
Ugh, pure functional programming language implementations don't generally actually copy everything. Because data structures are often immutable, pointers can be used rather than copying.

Just a minor nit.
Docker wants to be the leader in the market for containerized deployments, right? This is largely a competition for mind-share and users. How you act in a matters. Messaging matters. If Docker wants to be perceived as the leader in containers, then they should act like it.

PR isn't just standing in front of a microphone and saying what you're working on or how awesome you are. It's how you act in public, how you treat customers and competitors. You want to be authentic, but you don't have to share everything about how you feel to the public. Similarly, overly managed responses can be just as bad. There are good and bad ways to make an argument. Sometimes, it doesn't matter if you're right or not, if the way you make your argument turns people off, you are going to lose.

I think that the whole Docker/Rocket thing was vastly blown out of proportion, and wasn't the big deal that they made it out to be. Let's see who can make the best solution. But it is a mistake to think that this was a technical issue - it wasn't. The way that the situation was handled clouded what could have been a technical discussion of the merits or need for Rocket. At the same time, don't think that the best technical solution always wins.
They aren't actually sequencing the whole DNA, they are just searching it for SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms) that have previously been discovered in the human genome. For example if they know there is sequence such as AAAC[CG]CTTA in the genome ([CG] being either C or G) they will check which of AAACCCTTA and AAACGCTTA they can find.

So as much as i hate to give such a boring answer, this would probably just result in them not being able to use the sample.
Pitch VCs on Video: Elevator Pitch Competition
Edit: I forgot to mention I don't think the author does a good job of addressing how jitter can reduce the effective sample rate. This is a real issue, and why dsd was conceived of. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Stream_Digital

Regardless, for non pop music, a strong case can be made for 24 bits. The assumption that music doesn't need that kind of dynamic range is based entirely on a subset of music that happens to be what most people listen to: highly compressed popular (rock/hiphop/edm/etc) music.

The author falls for the "this makes sense in terms of physics and biology therefore must be true" way of thinking.
> One problem is, I don't know of a nice constant-time comparison algorithm for (say) 160-bit values. [...] I would appreciate any pointers to such a constant-time less-than algorithm.

The following should be constant-time relatively to the contents of its inputs:

// return -1 if x < y, else 0
static unsigned lt(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
return -((x - y) >> (sizeof(x)*8-1));
}

// return -1 if x != y, else 0
static unsigned ne(unsigned x, unsigned y) {
const unsigned d = (x - y) | (y - x);
return -(d >> (sizeof(d)*8-1));
}

// return 1 if x[0..n-1] is lexicographically less than y[0..n-1], else 0
int less_than(const unsigned char * x, const unsigned char * y, size_t n) {
unsigned flag = 0;
unsigned done = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
flag |= lt(x[i], y[i]) & ~done;
done = ne(x[i], y[i]);
}
return flag & 1;
}
> It's just determinism all the way down - the laws of neurology, which are built on the laws of biochemistry, which are built on the laws of atomic physics. At no level is there a place for a free will.

Why? Quantum mechanics has randomness all over the place - and we already know that human brains are chaotic in that small amounts of noise are amplified. It is not unreasonable to posit that QM noise effects us on the macroscopic scale.

Or, to put it another way, materialism does not imply determinism, unlike what you said.

Personally, my pet theory is that human brains are quantum noise feedback loops. Or to put it another way, the bit that makes us sentient is quantum noise, and our brains are "just" IO / amplifiers / etc.
Though vid2 was specifically made to address misunderstandings from this article.
> some people buy mats to put onto your CDs before putting the CD in a player

An 80-minute, 700 MB CD-R fits 80 * 60 * 44100 * 2 * 2 / 2^20 ~= 807 MB of audio.

Why is that?

The 100MB difference is not just due to the audio TOC being of smaller size than the ISO9660 or UDF file system metadata. It's also because of differences in error correction. I don't have the spec on hand but I recall from when I was investigating this that CD-ROMs use more bits for error correction than audio CDs. That's why you can fit more audio data than "filesystem data" on a CD-R. Reading (ripping, digitally) an audio CD will likely result in different digital audio files every time, since the error correction is not that good, but good enough, for audio.

I read into this when I was wondering why my CD-DA extracted .wavs came out with a different checksum every time. Vibration is one of the factors that would make the same audio CD, read with the same CD player, produce different digital signals some of the time or even every time.

CD-ROMs however, which store digital data, need better correction - you definately don't want a bitflip in your .exe, while a minor amplitude diff — an uncorrected bitflip in the upper bits of a 16-bit PCM signal — is no biggie.

So… I'm not saying that the people using CD mats are informed (or have tested whether the mat makes a difference, or would even know how to go on about testing this, scientifically), but there's more to it than what I originally thought — which was "it's digital so it's never degraded". I wouldn't have known without checking the md5sum of my .wav, though.
You can't simultaneously say that you're dithering to represent low amplitudes while also saying you're keeping enough samples to capture all audible frequencies. Dithering doesn't create resolution out of nowhere, it sacrifices temporal resolution for amplitude resolution. It's also bad for compression (hence why modern video encodes are done at 10-bit even for output to 8-bit devices), and worse if you want to use a source as the basis for further work (i.e. a remix). If you want to store your signal in a simple, convenient way, and not have to carefully tweak the levels for each individual recording, 16 bits isn't quite enough. And as the article admits, extra resolution certainly can't hurt; worst case is the extra bits are thrown away.

Also 44.1KHz is a pain to do in realtime (there's not enough headroom to really filter out the higher frequencies without damaging the 20KHz response), meaning you need a separate mastering step which is inconvenient and frankly unnecessary. 48KHz is a much more sensible standard to work with.

192KHz may be dumb, but 48KHz/24-bit is perfectly sensible. It gives you fewer ways to make mistakes than CD-quality (44.1KHz/16-bit), and at some point the extra space is worth that, particularly since it may well compress better than a dithered 16-bit signal.
That is mostly false.
I can't tell if the price is per delivery or per year, I assume per delivery based on the quantity.
I agree that you have to draw the line somewhere, but I believe the is-a/has-a dichotomy more accurately separates the different modes of thinking. To me the structure of a Go program is completely indistinguishable from one in C++ (precisely because of the lack of inheritance). When I look at the design of a C++ program (or say Obj-C), its all about class hierarchies. The docs are all about the class diagrams, step 1 of most those programs is usually "subclass ___". It immediately drops you into that view of the world, and I believe that with that view comes the guiding hand of your program's design.

Compare that to Go, which focuses on the traits of objects instead of their incidental ancestry. In go you'd define a function or method applying to an abstract interface that has certain properties. For example, I would say "give me an object that has a show method", not "give me something inheriting from Printable". This is completely analogous to the very abstract typeclass-style programming you do in Haskell ("give me something that derives Show"). Haskell object architecture is all about defining an abstract typeclass and reasoning about what you can do given these existing methods. You then supply an implementation that fits the type class definition, exactly the same abstract analysis of fundamental properties divorced from their specific owners as inheritance-less interface/protocol programming in a language like Go.

Again, there is quite literally no difference in "binding" a function to an object through the dot syntax vs through type. If in haskell you say the meow function applies to the Cat data type its not any different than having a meow() method on a Cat in C++, neither can call that on anything else, its quite bound.
>I feel like the significance of humans going to Mars is largely attributed to movies and pop culture.
It's the Paris Hilton of the astronomical world.

I think that may be conflating cause and effect. I'd argue a manned trip to Mars is a focus of pop culture because it resonates strongly with so many. The drive to explore has always been etched into a portion of humanity. For many(myself included) Mars stands as the currently realistic pinnacle of exploration for humanity. Along with accessibility of understanding the accomplishment you end up with our current Martian fascination.

>I don't want to be labeled a cynic, but do the benefits of sending humans to Mars outweigh the costs?

With anything as expensive and complex as a manned mission to mars, we honestly can never know until we try. It's impossible to predict what fruits, if any, it would bear for humanity. That's the nature of exploration and discovery. For all we know there's some infeasible to overcome barrier that makes the task of manned travel to Mars impossible.

Due to the intractable nature of quantifying the value of manned Mars missions I think the reasoning for doing so falls to a far more base human condition than a positive cost benefit analysis. On a personal level the desire for continued human exploration is hard to explain to those who don't possess it. There's an intensely disquieting internal sensation that comes with feeling stagnation at the bounds of human capability. It's not dissimilar to the urge for preservation of the Earth for future generations, or to rid the world of undue suffering. These drives, like exploration, aren't built on entirely pragmatic foundations. They can and do often fail to justify themselves on purely practical terms.

Just for clarity, my response isn't made with the purpose of persuasion. It's to help convey my entirely subjective view of things and perhaps illuminate the thinking behind some proponents for space exploration.
Ah! Thanks very much! Sounds a little more hopeful on the B2B front then.
Lots of languages don't bother with a separate unsigned type. Maybe the backend is written in Java.
Not sure why the pessimistic poster is being downvoted. Factoring for repeat viewers, it is sad how little society values scientific achievements. That said, I was up in the wee hours of the morning watching the LHSC start up and probably put more than 20 views on that song. Have ye hope :D
Hm, 2 points and no comments?
People who think that 64-bit servers are immune are part of the problem. Even if you've got a 64-bit server, you've still got file formats with 32 bit timestamps embedded. For that reason, time_t remains a 32 bit integer, which means that functions like UNIX_TIME on MySQL will stop working. And then there is the mess of embedded software that most decidedly is NOT 64-bit and will be in machines that are still in operation.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_2038_problem for a basic overview. None of this stuff is unfixable. But it is a real problem, and tracking it down will be hard.
I would be interested in finding out whether there's a cryptography engineer anywhere out there who would say "Telegram is more secure than WhatsApp+Textsecure is today".
They've done those landings (as tests) on land with the Grasshopper as well. The videos are super cool.

NASA has propulsively landed many things (on other planets!). The fundamentals have been around for a while.

What I'm trying to get at is that SpaceX is currently not the go to place for rocket science. I do think they are making mark in rocket building science which is exactly what we pay them to do.
More rarely, there's also tetrachromacy, which is thought to improve colour differentiation within the visible spectrum, and aphakia, which causes an increased sensitivity to the near ultraviolet.
"a company can only survive for so long without positive returns and that limits their risk tolerance tremendously"

Don't you think Amazon's stock price says differently?

To me, a private Mars colony sounds a lot like an Amazon. An endeavor with a very big mission and a very long execution time.
> I'd probably make the bet that there exist certain 24-bit sound files that certain listeners can discern from the same sound file that has been downsampled to 16-bit.

I would take you up on that bet. This has been tried before, and no difference was found, even when dithering wasn't used! The noise floor on 16 bit audio is around -96dB. There are very few HiFi systems that can manage that. Even in the highly unlikely event that there are listeners that can distinguish it, it's likely any difference will end up eliminated by noise in the analog components.
I don't believe the term "deep learning" is restricted to RBMs only – at least that's not the way I've seen the term used in literature (e.g. Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, various deep Autoencoders, etc.).
> is, by definition, more efficient

This is not a reasonable position, nor is it consistent with the rest of your comment.
I love that they added an easter egg to the actual video. If you hover over the counter, it briefly shows you the negative overflow value.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0

EDIT: I just realized that YouTube also posted a comment to that effect just below the video. :P
Understanding Polymer Physics with Pasta
And that is not how digital sampling works - you don't allocate bits to different frequencies.
As I said "your conclusion is correct".

I think you need fewer than 17 bits: 1 for "who is to move", 4 for castling, 6.6 for the 50 moves (100 ply) rule would leave less than 6 for en passant. There potentially are 7 possible en passant moves (white pawns at a5, c5, e5, g5 and black ones at b5, d5, f5, and h5 or vice versa), but all you need to store is "the n-th pawn just moved" with n in 0..8. That is just over 3 bits.

There is a way more significant flaw in your logic, though: the "three times the same board position with the same player to move is a draw" rule. That explodes your estimate, as there could be (if we do not call in additional chess rules) up to 10^71 positions hat have been visited earlier.

With that in mind, I am not sure your limit is correct. There are at most 96 pawn moves in a game (16 pawns walk in 6 moves to the other side of the board) and 30 captures (7 pieces each plus 8 promoted pawns each). With the 50-move rule, that gives at most 126 x 50 = 6300 moves in a game. Each move can be encoded in 12 bits (starting and ending square for white's and black's move), so we need 75600 bits. Taking 2^10 = 1000, that gives me 10^22680 possible games as an upper limit.

That is different from what http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-open-file---is-chess-i... or http://members.iinet.net.au/~ray/Chessgames.htm (several estimates) claim, but (if we assume that zero is a misprint) close to Hardy's upper limit, so at least I am in good company.
Weaknesses in random number generation are arguably easier to spot in instrumented binaries and dynamic analysis than they are with static analysis. Auditing an RNG from source involves enough mental modeling to trace random numbers and track the state of whatever generator provided them.
The Future of Money and Technology Summit 2014 Videos
Everything was "psuedoscientific [sic!] crazy talk" before it was widely recognized in the science world.
Ok, you seem knowledgeable in this. Can you name the departments and where you are?
In C/C++, unsigned ints can result in a few very subtle bugs--more details here:

http://stackoverflow.com/a/1555186/67591

TL;DR: Google's C++ coding standard says: "Document that a variable is non-negative using assertions. Don't use an unsigned type."

As someone who has written a lot of C++ code to interact with hardware: I view an unsigned as a bucket of bits, and a signed as a number.
To me, it sounds like you're saying "Don't be upset at your husband for beating you, you're lucky he's letting you live at all!" After all, ownership of wives by husbands predates feminism by more than a few millennia...

Private property is an enlightened concept based on the fact that a person's own labor is his and not the property of the state/tribe to appropriate at will.
Is anyone else proud of the fact that when they hear the name of a famous author/artist/historical figure their first response is to think instead of a buzzwordy tech project?
" the only non-field class of examples of UFDs having every nonzero element as a power of a fixed nonzero nonunit element is a (rank 1) discrete valuation ring."

Ok, but the UFD criterion is redundant here because there are no non-fields for which every nonzero element is a power of a fixed nonzero nonunit element. So that doesn't make UFDs any more relevant than any other extra criterion you could add.
Humble Pen- a pen that gives back
Inspired by entrepreneurship so I went on to build a small project called Humble Pen- handcrafted pens, packaged with artist inspired stationery in a beautiful packaging. For every Humble Pen purchased, we provide education for children around the world. A perfect Christmas present for pioneers, engineers, designers & entrepreneurs. www.humblepen.com
The Fine Line Between Scope Creep and Proactivity in Software Development
Is that a bad thing? It's a thought experiment.
I'm hoping to start a discussion on this topic from the questions I've posed in my post. As a young developer, professional development is something I take seriously and I believe these sorts of philosophies can have a huge impact in work culture which is why I am hoping to hear points from different perspectives on the matter.
> Languages that use types for elaborate proofs always seem to me like they only prove the most uninteresting properties of programs, namely the parts that deal with data transformations.

You can proof almost anything in agda. Even the most complicated mathematical theorems.

>What I'm most interested in is proofs that, say, in a concurrent environment, a function that closes a socket will never be called as long as there are pending tasks to write to the socket. Or, because I write concurrent data structures, I'm interested to prove that a certain function will eventually release all locks it acquires. Are there any such languages?

You can do this in agda, however, you need to specify semantics of the language you use.
Or advertising on TV seriously under-represents the total number of impressions over time through alternate consumption streams. Right now, supposedly "unpopular" shows are cancelled, and then immediately get a successful Kickstarter from what turns out to be millions of fans who happened to be watching only through Netflix, or iTunes, or DVD box sets.

(Of course, none of these streams show the same ads the original broadcast does—but if you're a clever ad agency, you're already doing product-placement instead of interstitials most of the time anyway.)
Oh, nice! Indeed I'm not sure that's what I want, but this seems like the first statically-typed FP language I like. I especially like how you can program the type level with constructs similar to the program level.
Like the post says, this seems to be similar to Google's Chubby system, and ZooKeeper for locks/leases. Are there modifications to this process for those systems to help with safety, or do they also have the same problem?
Anti-MBA Book Club: Read a book a month, learn from experts on book's topic
Why We Needn’t Fear the Machines
If by pseudo-scientific you mean difficult/impossible to falsify then I'd agree with you. If you mean gobbledy gook then I would disagree.

There are some number of theorists that are working with multiple universe theories defined by 'choices' in the quantum world. Its hard to prove that such things exist (or don't exist) but one notion has that detangling a photon from its entangled counterpart has you "actualizing" in one of two possible universes. The GP thread posits macroscopic effects of that, which is both impossible to prove and an interesting conjecture.
Lets say your html file points to two javascript files, app.js and lib.js. You make some changes to both files, and deploy.

With browser and CDN caching, users could get the old app.js with the new lib.js, or vice versa, until the caches have expired. In other words, there's no guarantee that both caches will expire at the same time. This can easily cause mysterious and transitory issues which disappear before you can debug them, but reoccur after future deploys.

This fixes that by ensuring that your html files explicitly point to a consistent set of css and js files.
Did you read the article?

"The ultrasonics are a liability during playback.... Neither audio transducers nor power amplifiers are free of distortion, and distortion tends to increase rapidly at the lowest and highest frequencies. ...any nonlinearity will shift some of the ultrasonic content down into the audible range as an uncontrolled spray of intermodulation distortion products covering the entire audible spectrum. Nonlinearity in a power amplifier will produce the same effect."

I would not expect a willingness to exploit consumers' magical thinking to be a good signal for quality engineering.
There's also headroom for the signal processing in the equipment. Equalization or volume control done poorly can lower your dynamic range, for example when turning the volume down on windows then turning it up on an external amp.
On a decent drive, cdparanoia should successfully rip with no errors on a clean disc. I have done the md5sum test before.
What are you talking about? I got all of mine as soon as I signed up?
Even something as mundane as Data.Bool is beautiful, defining False in terms of bottom.

I love to look at unicode, but is it a pain to type it in practice, even given emacs?
its worth noting that they didn't send me an email with them all. I had to re-navigate to github's page to get the codes and then sign up on the other companie's pages.
What's different between the $80 7506 and $200 7509?
After TextSecure, I'd consider the OTR applications.
I'm actually about to integrate some aspects of behavioral programming in a concurrency library I'm maintaining. I also vaguely recall taking a class with Prof. Harel many years ago...
Show HN: My Attempt to Recreate Angular / React in 50 Lines of JS
Not sure why, but the tone of this post seems very antagonistic-- as I'm not involved in either community, I'm not sure why but it seems a bit off-putting to an outsider.

Is there some open source community beef I missed? Is forking/developing your own container product that evil? I somehow missed where Rocket equates directly to war on docker instead of pushing containers further into the mainstream by adding some differentiation to the space.