skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I ask for the doctor's official opinion/prediction about the probabilities for my own surgery. This must be the doctor's opinion because every person and every surgery is different. A doctor's job is to analyze each person's situation, and then use their experience, knowledge, and professional judgement to give the patient the doctor's best estimate of the benefits and risks of a given procedure. This is not "adding sh*t to their plate", this is formalizing a core job function of every doctor.

The patient would get the doctor's prediction track record directly from the hospital or a third party monitoring agency. That way the patient knows if the doctor is generally accurate in their predictions, or if they are consistently overconfident in their own abilities.

If a doctor was wrong once, they are wrong. If they are consistently wrong, then that shows up in their stats. Patients will no longer trust their predictions, and will seek other doctors. The doctor will have to really improve their prediction ability (a good thing) or else go out of business for lack of patients.
Always wanted to know this one: http://www.madehow.com/knowledge/Seat_belt.html

Sadly, it's hard to grasp the mechanisms without pictures...
Good points, but I think I still disagree with the power of citations. Just because a peer-reviewed article exists doesn't mean its true. Appeal to authority is, and always will be, a logical fallacy.

But my beef with asking for citations as a counter-argument is that it is shifting the burden of proof. If someone makes a statement that you are questioning, you may ask for clarification, but the ball is in your court to find evidence for disproof. The existence or non-existence of a published supporting article is neither proof nor disproof.
Interesting. I'm working on an "Expfile" project right now, which is tangentially related to this area of exploration. The idea is that published experiments should be reproducible, and therefore can be described in a declarative format. I'm calling Expfile the "Procfile for experiments" -- it's a file you upload in the top level of your research's code repository, describing in declarative terms which variables to measure, how to measure them, and how to get results. If anyone wants to talk to me about this I'm doing a lot of work on it this week.
Animated radial/circular menu
BPG Is an Image Format That Replace the JPEG with Equal Quality at Half the Size
Clean Share Buttons snippet
Mozilla currently has no search product. However, they do have a browser. Google also has a browser. Destroying Google search would destroy Google revenue, which would degrade browser quality. Long term, Mozilla should be interested in destroying Google search.
Humans evolving to escape from bacterial iron piracy
This came up recently on a Python project at work. I think the approach in the article is nice but most Python libraries seem to make use of exceptions for these kinds of scenarios. Working against that trend in Python doesn't seem worth it.

In other languages I would probably prefer to follow the approach in the article.
"Moreover, many of these studies have been carried out by economists expecting to confirm a theoretical argument that privatisation is intrinsically more efficient, which makes the results more striking. The evidence contradicts the assumptions." (p. 6)
>>if a failure is expected behavior, then you shouldn't be using exceptions

How would this pattern translate to Python, where exceptions are the norm and expected behavior?
Ontario's provincial Auditor General just produced a report on our increasing use of PPPs in areas like services and infrastructure. It's available here:

http://www.auditor.on.ca/en/reports_2014_en.htm

One conclusion is that residents of Ontario have spent up to $8 billion extra for the privilege of having private industry handle projects that could have been managed and financed publicly.

One wonders the extent to which this private industry has infiltrated government to work on the inside for its own benefit.

A Story on the auditor's report:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/12/10/ontarios_mispl...
Most of the artists would probably not be on SoundClod unfortunately, I'm not sure it would be a feature worth implementing
How to find a good roommate:Rules of Engagement
Kick-starting a front-end project
You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets.

>>> Brown was not armed in any way

I think it's time to lay that "not armed in any way" to rest. Most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown's physical build - are "armed" to cause serious physical harm, up to lethal, to many other people. People regularly harm and murder other people with their bare hands (or feet, etc.) - over 800 cases happen even year[1], btw about the same as rifles and shotguns taken together. Does it mean police is justified to shoot any male? Of course not, since means to do something not equals to doing something. But it does not mean that if somebody is not wielding a shotgun, he is automatically harmless. There are a lot of ways to cause harm to people, and some of them require nothing more but the will to do it and a bit of strength.

[1] http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.x...

Edit: I used the word "complexion" instead of "physical appearance" meaning: "General character, aspect, or appearance:" but it looks like people took it to mean "skin color". Of course I did not mean to refer to color of his skin, it's completely irrelevant, but rather to his physical build - i.e. height, weight and fitness. Looking at the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complexion) my meaning appears to be old one, and now it is used as "skin color". It didn't help that in my native tongue the same word also means "physical appearance". I certainly did not mean it that way, so sorry for misleading.
If I faced such a codebase (and I have just recently) then I'm interested in (a) installation instructions, pre-requisites, possibly data dumps (b) notes what a version 2 would look like, basically a brain-dump what you think could be improved or shortcomings. Honesty (engineer to engineer) works best. I never had to check the git history for debugging so a snapshot (or depth=1 export) would have been enough.

If you own all rights to the code base I think you can ask for attribution, e.g. "if you use this in a public facing projects you need to attribute <company name, url> on your about-us page." Kind of a one-sentence licence. Some people will ignore it. I would add a "version 1 written by <company> name" as a comment to the beginning of every file just to show where the code originated.
Interesting. So how did they help the shuttle?
> Firstly I'm not happy with using exceptions for something like this. Exceptions signal something outside the expected bounds of behavior of the code in question.

I've been hearing this line since the '90s. I've never heard a justification for it, or a rigorous explanation of what "expected" means.

Exceptions are a language construct, like variables, classes, and for loops. As with those other constructs, use them when it results in a program which makes sense. But that's a judgment you can only make on the program, not on the construct.
Yes, that all rings true to me, particularly the fallacy fallacy part of it.

What the bad actors will do is just make noise with the dodges like they do everything else, "that's a dodge!" style, regardless of merit.

They don't care about merit, only volume and domination of the discussion.

And they don't care, because for them it's about affirmation, my club is the right club because I'm in it kind of thing. And if you aren't in my club, fuck you.

The place where I've been learning for years now has almost no moderation. Early on, I established some bonds and with some other group members, set some norms:

1. Support what you say

2. Words carry the weight you give them.

A "fuck you" often is returned with, "hugs and kisses, and how can I help you get it all out so you feel better?" kinds of responses. Those drive dominators, who don't have any material support for their advocacy, seriously nuts, while garnering popular support for the person returning fire in that fashion, BTW. Beautiful.

On the other hand, "I am disappointed in you" from a valued and respected contributor packs a big punch!

3. Offensive words are as offensive as you think they are.

This means profanity, etc... are OK.

Always being civil works in interesting ways. One way is that clearly bent positions, like say bigotry, are elevated to "just another valid opinion" and that will resonate to "everybody has a right to their opinion" kinds of things.

The truth is, we do have that right, but we don't have the right to be respected for those opinions.

So the other norm ended up being:

4. Act the ass, get called an ass. Don't like it? Don't be an ass.

Quite effective at marginalizing trolls, given the group really does understand the other norms.

Moderation is something I struggle with frankly. It is nearly always gamed or abused. Take an always be nice rule. That means being nice to the racist too. Really? Maybe being a racist should cost a person some, and they might potentially reconsider racism.

On the other hand, moderating criminal posts is necessary.

Your additions are good ones!

I have not encountered "backwards", lol! Not sure what I would have done with that one. Yes, "secret" is all about #5. Rapid deadline is another good one.

That list was an abbreviated one. Most popular kind of thing.

I feel the same way about votes as I do moderation. Those are nearly always gamed.

Both moderation and votes work well when politics and religion are not part of the discussion. Here at HN, I do see the equivalent in some economic discussions, where there is basically some religion in play, but it's minor by comparison to many other places.

What I prefer is some strong voices able to take it better than people give it, who can set norms and manage things toward some productive end.

Problem with that is bias. There is always bias. It takes considerable numbers of us working over a sustained amount of time to be mostly free of bias.

Rather than attempt to claim no bias, I believe it's better to just embrace it, and then attempt to find common ground without actually having to say people are wrong or bad.
"Still, most people really don't know how most internet goods get to them. The e-commerce specialist didn't even know, and she was in charge of choosing the 3PL for her midsize online-retail company. "These decisions are made at a business level and are based on cost," she says. "I never, ever thought about what they're like and how they treat people. Fulfillment centers want to keep clients blissfully ignorant of their conditions." If you called major clothing retailers, she ventured, and asked them "what it was like at the warehouse that ships their sweaters, no one at company headquarters would have any fucking clue.""
3Lateral: Gallery
Really, this is advocacy. Abandon debate rules and norms and you are left with the art of persuasion, which is what advocacy is.

What most people don't seem to grok is advocacy tends to be the dominant norm, not debate.

Given that is true, emotional arguments, character arguments are valid right along with rational, fact based, data driven arguments.

An effective advocate will win most rooms, even against better armed rational debate types.

That is why trolling works.
I'm wondering, what perspective does philosophy add to game theory? All of the philosophical musings at the beginning of the article seem to describe what "moral" beings should do. This seems unrelated to what "rational" agents must do, which is one of the simpler questions of game theory. Do philosophical arguments guide, for example, how one might design utility functions? I have studied enough game theory and attended enough conferences and his hasn't showed up except to argue that a definition is perhaps reasonable (and then we wait for the elegant algorithm/analysis punchline anyway).
I upvoted to cancel out the downvote someone gave you.
Operating at a loss (profitability) is a different concept from efficiency. Efficiency is how much you get for every dollar spent, regardless of whether it comes from "profits" or subsidies.
Wow, no more work will be getting done here today. Thanks, looks like a great collection of collections of information.
> You would have thought they would have learned something from the last couple of failed invasions

There are multiple entities involved in the war campaign. Our country's military establishment, our country's military contractors, our citizens, our civilian government. The other country's civilians, military and goverments, Warisitan warlords.

Even on the same "side", a win for one entity doesn't necessarily mean a win for the others. The parties that are immediately controlling the war campaign win by prolonging the war. Imagine the billions spent on drone warfare, on training pilots, software, components, whole careers civilian and military and whole divisions of large corportations devoted to supplying and maintaining the "War on $X" (here $X is "Terror" but replace with "Drugs", "Communism" whatever).

Remember Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner from his visit to USS Abraham Lincoln during Iraq War is often criticized as the dumbest thing, since for the civilians and those not involved in the war directly it obviously wasn't accomplished. But it was accomplished for those involved in the war because it would ensure increased spending, activity, involvement and churn for years to come.

Going back to the story -- "if only we can get enough of these bastards, we’ll win the war". There is probably not a concerted rational effort to target civilians with the purpose of ensuring a steady future stream of extremism. But I think due to payoffs and contraints existent across the system, that is effectively what is happening. Everyone in the chain has no incentive to stop. They do what they do, everyone is "doing their job". People on the ground get bombed. Children see fathers, sisters, mothers, grandmothers blown to pieces, by drones. They vow to avenge their blood. Drone operators get reports of extremist activities, the do their job. Drones get old, wear out, those that make those, get orders for more drones. Etc.

Imagine a fantastic scenario. You are a CIA drone operator. You've been "flying" and blasting away goat herders for 10 years. That is all you know. You are good at it. That is your life. All of the sudden, all terorists are finished. They just pack up and go home. No more extremism. What does that mean for you? What's next? Go study Hungarian to hopefully get post as "a cultural attache" at the embassy there. Start cutting grass around Langley's HQ?
I did not think about comparisons ... that is right.

The other examples are also valid, but rather special to RISC architectures ... but of course it does the trick.
I think this would lose some practicality when put into practice. Clumsy, awkward code may still offer great business value/ Brilliant, precise code, when misapplied to its purpose, can still fail. Of course, everyone wants good code... but I do not think the direct correlation of quality to outcomes from surgery would exist in the coding world.
That seems a bit idealistic. Is the War on Drugs serving the interest of the entire country? How about the War on Terror? Of course not.

Nothing democratic is ever serving "the interest of the entire country", if such a thing even exists. If it was, then why would such a thing ever need to be voted upon?

That the government operates in the interest of citizens is only what we say the government ought to do, which is not actually what it does. On the contrary, there are greater incentives for the government to operate primarily in its own interest, to increase the scope and magnitude of its power, which as can be easily observed, is what it has been doing.
Memory usage gets really high when loading up a really long stream or profile with lots of tracks. I never liked the scroll to load more method but it seems to be the popular format.
And? I don’t really see the connection. CEOs are public faces of their companies. As such, all their publicly expressed opinions are quite relevant, especially if they are threatening to their employees. End of story, really.
Oh, I agree, I'm just not sure why you felt it was necessary to point it out when the article had already done just that. I don't really see what your comment ads. Were you worried that people had only read the first sentence in the middle of the article and stopped there, not reading the next sentence?

In the other case - our previous discussion, I explained how I though you had misapplied the lump of labor fallacy. You claimed that notion that H1B workers could displace local workers commits the lump of labor fallacy.

I made an argument that very specific, targeted immigration programs designed to increase workforce in a narrow sector of the economy can in fact cause market distortions that lead to displacement and deterrence. This is a pretty common objection to these sorts of visas. Many people who support free markets and free immigration see a real problem when the government starts creating programs where a worker is allowed to come to the US only under certain employment conditions (in this case, related to working as an employee to a high tech company).

Even Milton Friedman chimed in:

"There is no doubt," he says, "that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy."

I assure you that Milton Friedman was aware of the lump of labor fallacy. It's a bit more complicated than just citing a fallacy.
A citation to what? When few are allowed to publish, and what is submitted to be published is heavily filtered, and the final articles are being paywalls, how can a plea for citations be a legitimate request?

If you are claiming you have a unicorn in your garage, I don't want citations - I want EVIDENCE. A picture would be a fine place to start. I can't imagine any citation being of value either pro or con. In a discussion I want to read evidence or reason - everything else is filler.
My wife is a highly specialized surgeon, she does one operation, and she does it around 600 times a year (Parathyroidectomy). An average endocrine surgeon might do 20 of these a year. She went through training as an endocrine surgeon and she tells me that the difference between the operation that they do at her center and what an average endocrine surgeon will do is like night and day. It is just not possible for surgeons with normal volumes to be able to achieve that level of skill. What helped them recently was the release of the medicare volume data [1]. This data is probably right now the only way to get an idea of how many operations of a particular type your surgeon does (not for all operations unfortunately, not unless you know a lot about billing codes and practices!).

[1] http://blog.parathyroid.com/parathyroid-surgery-medicare/
Simply search for artists you like and follow them. You can follow artists that follow them or artists that they follow to get more. I'm pretty picky with following artists (I make sure I love mostly everything on their profile) but it doesn't take many to have a very lengthy stream to listen to.
uh... "most physically fit males - especially ones of Brown complexion - are armed to cause serious physical harm"

It's a good idea to rephrase that.

edit - yes, a lot of black athletes have lower body fat than whites, hispanics, and asians. No, they're not "especially" armed to cause serious physical harm.
I've always assumed that the privatisation game is so easily corrupted and rigged towards milking the taxpayers with one-sided deals, that the losses offset any potential efficiency gains. So many anecdotal stories that I've lost count. Seems I may have been right scientifically, rather than just bitter (for once).
Sure, but if you're going to work the kind of job that has a regular cycle of performance reviews and raises, you're going to be wasting a few percent of your working year dealing with the bureaucracy involved in the review process. You're probably also going to be biasing the choices you make about your everyday work toward whatever it is the review process measures, instead of just doing whatever needs to be done to build & ship your product.

I'd rather accept inflation as a fact of life and waste no time thinking about performance reviews. Whatever trivial regular raises I might get through such a process will be inconsequential compared to whatever I can expect by finding a new job on a bigger project somewhere else.
Yes, in debate that is true.

In advocacy it is NOT TRUE. Let that sink in for a while... :)

Most of the time we are doing advocacy. Let that sink in too.

Now, let's discuss what that really means:

It means people who want their way more than they want to be right or just or true, etc... can and will dominate a discussion with effective advocacy techniques whether or not they have rational merit.

Secondly, emotional arguments are only partially rational, yet they carry very significant weight. Being logically right, yet having that result feel bad, or cruel, or unjust is a very significant part of policy discussions.

For an example, this is why libertarians often do not gain traction in many policy discussions. (no slight on liberitarians, just an example) They are typically, and often brutally rational, dismissing emotional and character arguments entirely.

Somebody who can read a room, employ effective advocacy, and who can provide emotional, character and a fair degree of rational support will win the day almost every time.
That quote was correctly attributed to Einstein (although it's unclear whether we used those exact words) http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/04/29/common-sense/
The shuttle used them as early-flight boosters. Same trick used by Ariane V, Titan III / IV, Delta II / III / IV, endless other big vehicles... They are much cheaper to develop per thrust than liquids (They are expensive per size, but scale up to higher thrusts well), and you often want most of your thrust early on rather than later. Solid boosters you ditch after 30s or a minute raise your T/W ratio so you don't loose as much fuel to gravity losses, and get your more efficient but less powerful liquids into the upper atmosphere. Both Ariane V and Shuttle typify this, with almost all liftoff thrust from the solids, and a small, expensive hydrogen-burning engine continuing to most of orbital velocity. For the shuttle, this was aimed at reusablility, they could do most of their work on expensive engines, and not need to pay that cost every flight. Ariane did it so it could make near-orbit with only engines it lit on the pad, for reliability sake. (Planned for the Hercules spaceplane, which wouldn't have used the upper stages that satellites would eventually use.)