skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Shuttle was originally an Air Force partnership where NASA was supposed to also launch the USAF's payloads, including spy satellites and the like. The 20-ton payload created major compromises as far as reusability and then the USAF wasn't interested once the thing was built.
Does it have to be a majority for the H1B system to be considered 'broken'?
For me, it comes down to not buying materialism (the philosophy, not the tendency to want to buy stuff).

If we are nothing more than our bodies, then we can create a conscious machine simply by finding something that simulates neurons, connecting enough of them in the right configuration, and training the neuron collection properly. But I have a hard time believing that we are nothing more than our bodies.

Why? Well, for one thing, it becomes impossible to escape from some kind of determinism (possibly with some quantum noise at the lowest levels). In particular, in the materialist view, you cannot have any free will or any kind of ability to make a non-determined choice. 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.

And if that's gone, then everything we think of as making us human is also gone. Love? You can't love in the highest sense of the word, of choosing to do what's best for another, because you can't choose anything. And even if love just means sex, that's just a matter of deterministic neurological and biochemical responses to stimuli.

Morals? If humans have no ability to choose what they do, how can you say that any action is moral or immoral? You don't say that a rock behaved morally when it followed Newton's laws of motion.

Meaning? If all you are is a deterministic machine, what kind of meaning in life is possible?

So either I'm a machine produced at random by an unfeeling universe, which by a horrible turn of fate has aspirations of being more than a machine, but can never fulfill those aspirations... or the fact that I find that vision horrifying is in fact evidence that I'm more than that.

tl;dr: Materialism is the dominant epistemology of scientists, but it is not anything that science has proven or can prove. If it's wrong, then perhaps human consciousness/thought/mind cannot be reproduced by any algorithm or machine.
Since it's Linode, you can 1) spin a new server and hope for a different block, or 2) request a new IP. You don't own the IP block so unfortunately you cannot request removal [0], but Linode should be interested in doing this themselves. Have you opened a support ticket?

And yeah, to quote other commenters, stop sending your own transactional email.

[0] http://www.spamrats.com/removal.php
The increase in sample rate to 192kHz only allows frequencies above 22KHz to be represented (i.e. no effect whatsoever on the low frequencies that you mention). Pushing the bits to 24 only lowers the noise levels (which at 16 are already demonstrably imperceptible).

What you mention, though, points directly to what /will/ improve the quality of sound reproduction: speakers. It gets harder and harder to move that much air with precision as you get lower and lower in frequency. It's a definite technical limitation, but it's to do with very high-power amps and giant speakers, not the recording format.

We have (to the degree that humans can prove that they can perceive), perfect reproduction from digital recordings, perfect amplifiers for reasonable prices (at lower-than-concert-power-levels at least), but we haven't yet developed good enough speakers to cover the whole perceptible range of frequencies to anywhere near the same degree.

Audiophiles love to try and improve the whole chain, but really the only place it matters is at the very end.
Looking at your comment history, you certainly have an axe to grind for some reason. No idea why you think pasting this over and over on marginally related stories accomplishes anything.
This is why sending humans to Mars is stupid - at least in our current resource and energy constrained world. Humans requires suits, food, air, water, health support, housing, massive infrastructure to return back and so on. On the other hand, they don't contribute much more in terms of sensors or agility. I know most of you are now super uncomfortable reading this and you want to be poetic and tell me all about spirit of adventure and what not. But get this: We need to make best out of our resources and technologies. We can have self driving cars and robots working in warehouses and delivering pizza. Why do we really need humans on Mars? I'm all of sending humans to Mars once we have found almost unlimited resorvoir of enery and world GDP has increased to point where we don't know what to do with all the excess. But until then let's send 100s of robots to mars, let's survey as much land there as possible, may be establish robot colony there, send robots with more and better sensors. May be robots can even build there biosphere first over years to prepare arrivals of humans. That would be much better use of our limited resources.
Wow, shit
If that known-false hypothesis is supported by wealthy people,this can be very lucrative.
The thread at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210878 (assuming StavrosK was not lying like one of the comments suggested), shows an interesting discrepancy in the vision of different people.
For a brief, horrifying moment, I thought this was the name of a product.

What a time to be alive.
Have you considered that the repeat viewing value of the Higgs boson announcement diminishes rapidly?
When someone is paying you 10X to what you can possibly learn in India, you're willing to absorb shit. Yes in US terms it could be peanuts but in Indian terms its quite a bit. Work 2-3 years in US and save well, the guy could buy a nice house and India and live decently.

No one apart from the US has figured out how to build billion dollar companies like popcorn.
The thing about Tesauro's backgammon work that excited the community is that the system trained by playing itself (http://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~sutton/book/ebook/node108.htm... -- "To apply the learning rule we need a source of backgammon games. Tesauro obtained an unending sequence of games by playing his learning backgammon player against itself.").

Also, it didn't use an elaborate set of features and heuristics adapted for backgammon, just a simple representation of the state of the board (a list of 0/1 variables encoding how many pieces of each color are on each position).

This is pretty close to "from scratch", and I think the article would have done well to point out what is actually new here.
It's two different markets - professional services firms have far greater negotiating power and sales forces than individuals.
>God forbid you ever consider buying a Bose or Beats product.

This has little to do with the article. If you've got 100 bucks to spend on a pair of headphones, it's only fair to point out that with certain products you're not getting the best sound out of your money.
Java doesn't have unsigned integer types. Google is mostly a Java shop.
Ask HN: What are the hottest tech startups in Asia?
On the other side of their spectrum, I went "near" an audiophile shop test booth and I was sucked by clarity and density of the sound in the air (this was a drum solo track). Some audiophileness is good.

I'll head back to my 40$ crappy mp3 player now.
Meeting the needs of humanity might be considered a point for science, differen than "exploration". It seems that the debate is whether we meet the needs of humans right now suffering on this planet, or if we meet the needs of the long-term species under the premise, the assumption that we are simultaneously unwilling or unable to solve the problems here on Earth that we ourselves have caused.
Your point is valid, but my understanding is this: if FTL in any form is possible, then the universe is VERY weird-- it would allow "closed time-like curves" and causality paradoxes and all kinds of other wackadoodle.
Not sure about that... when 100mbps hubs started rolling out, there were 10mbps ones that actually ran better... same goes for the 100/1gbit change. Eventually the higher capacity cheap versions got good/better enough. But just because the sample rates are higher, doesn't mean the parts/materials are better.
How to Train Your Voice to Be More Charismatic
More specifically, timing to film frames, since 48kHz gives you 2000 samples per film frame (at the standard 24fps film speed).
Yea according to a reddit post from a Googler this was more of a staged easter egg then a real bug. Google coding styles actually prohibit the use of unsigned integers in C++ code.
>It is the MOST trivial thing to measure performance in a Go game.

Actually in terms of very old games Go is one of the harder ones to measure performance of during the game. In terms of measuring performance in any 1v1 game however it is easy.

Small difference.
This is a minor problem. In the 1980s, the number of tradable things with ticker symbols in US markets passed 32767, and some new issues had to be delayed until it was fixed.
Playing devils advocate here:

> And don't be afraid to hire people in their 40s

Experienced, and expensive. Usually have families to support, and a greater desire for work/life balance. This does not mean they're less productive (per capita) but it doesn't fit the image of "start-up culture." Work long hours for peanuts, do what you boss says.

> And don't be afraid to hire remotely.

This takes damn good management/culture to work well. Someone who has faith in their employees. Someone that's not looking to blame everyone around them for failings. Someone who can see past the cognitive bias of the person down the hall, etc...

There are lots of managers and lots of cultures. Not a lot of good managers in good cultures.

EDIT: I do agree with you - just pointing out what I hear on repeat about the subject.
Those are low-budget audiophile products, ie they are still marketed mainly to boost the ego of purchasers.

There are three brands of headphones that pros use: Beyerdynamic (typically DT-100 or DT-770), Sennheiser (typically HD-5/650) and Sony (typically MDR-7506/9). Beyerdynamics have somewhat better isolation so they're more popular in music studios, Sonys are more comfortable when you have to wear them all day so they're more popular on film sets; I favor the 7506 and am on my 4th or 5th pair. Some people love Sennheisers but I personally don't care for the ergonomics.

They're not beautiful, lightweight, or fashionable, but they're a lot nicer to listen to - which is why one or other of them was almost certainly used at the recording stage. If it was good enough for the people who made the recording, it's good enough for you. Also, you'll save money compared to the 'quality' consumer brands.
Codecademy, Fulltime, NYC, YC-funded.

Codecademy is building a free interactive way to learn programming. Looking for content writers, engineers to help us create the best experience to go from zero to a job.
For job description see: http://www.codecademy.com/about/jobs

Or email me at kelvin@codecademy.com. Be glad to talk to you about it or grab coffee in nyc.
That Foster Wallace essay is great: when he was good, he was really very good, and that's one of his better pieces.

Milan Kundera's Testaments Betrayed is pretty excellent as well; the last chapter (and title) cover Brod not burning Kafka's papers, and then manufacturing tortured genius Kafka instead of sticking with the fairly ridiculous reality (the one that actually matches how his characters behave, as this posted essay describes)
Why not just use some sort of unlimited BigNum implementation? Yeah, for small numbers it's still ~2x the size of just storing an int, depending on implementation (or it can be: "int unless MAX_VALUE, in which case bignum is stored somewhere else") and it might be slower to operate on... but, on the other hand, you are already storing and processing a full video for every such counter!

Edit: Now I realize that would mean Google couldn't have made this joke. But I am still not sure this was foreseen by Youtube devs from day one.
And you need some warm clothing!
The interesting meta-point though is that an audience of 20 million viewers is a big hit [1] so a billion views is 20M people watching it 50 times or, 200M people watching it 5 times. And 2 billion views is double that.

Put in perspective that is probably in excess the number of times the most favored "I Love Lucy" show has been seen. Or put another way, you've got a music video with the same eyeball impact as the highest rated television show ever.

That says to me that either advertising on Youtube is a bargain or advertising on TV is way over priced :-)

[1] http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/02/10/the-walking-dead...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Lucy
I don't know if lot of people realize this but you don't "leave" Earth just in low orbit or even significantly higher up. In fact the actual gravitational force at the level of ISS is almost same as on surface. The reason you "feel" zero gravity is not because you are so far from Earth but because you have acquired so much velocity that you fall with same acceleration as other falling objects. This is equivalence principal that creates feeling of weightlessness. But objects at that height otherwise feel pretty much same pull of gravity as us on surface.
Well argued. I would just add...

1 SpaceX's ambitions may be broader than NASA's but their individual engineering targets are not.

2 Private space companies wouldn't exist without the public space programs, not just from a technological standpoint but public contracts have been the largest and most dependable source of revenue for private space companies.

3 Though private companies suffer from the same bureaucratic problems as governments they are more flexible because internal fights can always be resolved one way or another by engaged and decisive management (should you find yourself lucky enough to have such management.) Hierarchies in public entities are not always allowed to settle conflicts between subordinates.
First, I sympathize with your reaction against building in functionality that is not required. This typically causes a lot of problems. However, for a library, that is less of an issue because you aren't maintaining it. It sounds to me like the guy used what was essentially a library he had previously developed to do this and that's a step towards having the flexibility in the right place.

> Why would your way have been different? If you are using the database to store logic in, it's still logic and still needs the same level of testing as it does in code. And you don't get existing tools like VCS, release systems, staging environments to help you with that.

My largest open source project does a lot with database stored procedures. We use all the tools you mention above, and we have written some of our own tooling to make that easier. So I don't think there is any reason why those tools don't work. So you have to spend a little time on tooling? That gets paid off many times over.

> I know we're just comparing anecdotes, but everywhere I've worked the business effectiveness has been directly proportional to the extent to which they actually followed the agile principles.

There are many things that agile gets right. As a reaction against the waterfall engineering model, the emphasis on integrating design into coding is a welcome advancement. There are many other things as well.

But agile development, because of short release cycles, tends to de-emphasize design and code contracts because it comes from the assumption of changing requirements, and here it gets a lot of things wrong. You can't do agile development if you don't have a stable platform to develop on because otherwise the ground is always being pulled out from under your feet. That platform needs to be well designed, and I am not sure you can do that iteratively without a fair bit of up-front thought. This doesn't mean a waterfall (except in the area of UX). Rather it means getting the right amount of design done at each level and having the right person do it.
> Presented with an individual, it actually doesn't matter whether the problem was nature or nurture. What matters is what you can do about it now.

But that's the problem. Doing something with the late 30s unskilled laborer with no job is something we might be able to just break even on, or at least not lose too much in retraining for humanitarian reasons, and doing that is arguably better than abandoning those people to a life of crime and prison. But importing a significant number of new people who are already in that situation is not an economically positive proposition.
Sure, but consider the case of B2B enterprise sales in some sectors: you might not be able to finish building a product until you've hired a few engineers.

Those engineers? They're more vital to your company than your precious idea, because without them you have nothing.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all to give them some real skin in the game.
I've written a free/libre open source java client for the 23andMe API here

https://github.com/heuermh/personal-genome-client

Let me know if you would like any help with the analysis.
That's circular reasoning - surely the definition of a better DAC is one that makes a difference?

Anyway, the author also makes this point in the video referenced by other commenters. The computer hardware he demonstrates with is mid-range at best and yet the DAC and ADC are far more than adequate.
I really like what GitBook is doing. We had to pretty much set up our own similar system for Discover Meteor, and it was clear a better way was needed.
Look at the delta-v required to reach various asteroids. The near-Earth ones are lower than most.

Look at the cost of delta-v per kg of material.

If your target were Mars, and Mars were paved with gold, then gold at $1,800/troyoz is only worth $57,870/kg, meaning that if Mars were paved with gold, it would cost you $942,128 per kg after selling the gold to bring it to Earth.

Then factor everything else into your equations. You'll need drilling and prospecting equipment, you'll have exploratory trips, if you plan on sending up humans you'll need life-support systems and their added mass.

Quite simply, there's nothing material in space that's going to be less-expensively procured for Earth on Earth.

Communications, surveillance, exploration, and research would be the exceptions.
And proponents of both justify them as ways of making capital available to worth while endeavors. In my mind that rings true for one slightly more than the other.
I rather use VisualVM, Eclipse MAT, dotTrace... offer, not that .ps generated file from Go runtime.

I rather use RAD tooling for GUI design, not spending hours doing design by code.

I also prefer to have visual representation of DB schemas and generate code from it.

I could go on with lots of other examples, Go tooling will get there some day when the language gets enterprise adoption.
Just in Time for the Holidays Gift Idea Website
I am building a web app right now and am looking forward to when I can start using Stripe to capture payments. Stripe's design (in terms of both usability and visual appeal) is excellent for a tech company. The API documentation is amazingly easy to read and understand. Also, I love your blog.

Best of luck to Stripe!
I was with you until the Earth is flat comment - most everyone knew the Earth was round - the thought was that you could get to the Far East by going West.
I see. My employer has abandoned C++ world in 2005, so I only get to play with C++ on hobby projects.
24 bit resolution is important for capture, because it leaves headroom for mistakes. 16 bits is enough for mastering.
YouTube is slightly under 10 years old. It's interesting how we're willing to project it forward into the far future. Not that i think that's wrong or anything - it's just that it's gone from nothing to essential in a fraction of a human lifetime.

"We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." - Bill Gates
IMHO there is something rigid in Go,like C rigid.Sure,there is no manual memory management.But a modern language shouldnt need explicit pointers.
In both examples for this point, the answer to the "What if" is "you create an object that modes the data set, rather than the individual data points". This is not only consistent with OOP, its fairly routine.

And how are you going to implement those “data set” objects, if the only tool you have in your armoury is more objects? Where are you going to put code that works with the underlying data and is useful regardless of the specific structure that data happens to be kept in at the time?
Apple decides Notification Center buttons are now off limits
Also, I agree with you about the point of C being used in an OO fashion. I think this goes to show that a language doesn't need to specifically support objects/methods to wield in an OO-manner, it is just more inconvenient.

Haskell lacks basic OO features but that in itself is a feature. Methods are often procedural in nature. They're also not generalized since they are a concrete implementation for a specific type. Both of these are completely contrary to Haskell style.
Given formal semantics of your programming language and some time, I think you can use Agda to prove interesting properties about correct programs you write in that language. Semantics, the behaviour of objects such as sockets, can be encoded in types the theorem prover can understand. It can look like this for a basic imperative language: https://github.com/Twey/imp-agda/blob/master/IMP/Semantics/O.... You can then define the property you are interested in and get your proof by combining these types together.

This is often tedious but can be automated to some extent and has already led to significant achievements. See http://sel4.systems, a proven kernel, done with Isabelle, a tool similar to Agda.

Maybe you are looking for a language with a type system that will force you to write your program in a safe way regarding sockets and the like. This can also be achieved with static analysis, another way of automatically proving properties about programs. I do not know of any for distributed programs but it is probably possible. I would say this is still a research topic as such programs are still so hard to get right.
This goes back to people hiring for Tool Knowledge. Think of all the requirements you see on job postings.

Must have X years of [insert hyper-specific tool]...

Most hiring managers are looking to find someone they won't get in trouble for hiring if they end up sucking. This leads them to look for people who have used the same tools, not people who are intelligent problem solvers that can learn anything given a bit of runway.
I keep FLAC copies just so that I have lossless versions that I can convert into the lossy format du jour, but for actually listening, I mass-convert to lossy. I've listened to FLAC and properly encoded MP3 files (@192 and 160) on $50,000 audio equipment, and I can't tell the difference.
> - Development no longer relies on developers' internal mental models of the code. Developers now code against a model which is incarnate in the test suite -- itself a deliverable, documentable artifact.

And yet I have run into too many people who valued using the test suites for documentation.

IMO test suites should test that the software implements the documentation. Nothing more and nothing less.
Ah i see, i didn't expect Google to back up an easter egg with an associated G+ post