skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I see that as opportunity. You could be the startup that moves roommate search/matching online in Turkey.

In Germany about 18 months ago two startups started heavily promoting in Facebook. Students are looking for apartments, there are (often open or easy to subscribe) Facebook groups for each city and university and the startups posted apartments there. "Look here somebody is looking for a roommate". I hated the ads but people remembered and use them now. It worked.
Even paper ads on blackboard at universities work. Calling people and offer to post their (paper) ad for free online works. Not scalable, but viral growth needs to start somewhere. With that in mind read http://paulgraham.com/ds.html again.

With classifieds the number of listings often wins. Craiglists looks bad, ebay was user interface disaster for the first couple of years. But everybody goes where the most listings are.

One monetization method is micro-payment. Users have to send a SMS with a code to see the renter's phone number or similar. Or buy tokens. Or listing creators can pay to get promoted (check out http://www.gumtree.com/, you can buy that your ads remains on top for a certain amount of time, I think http://slando.com/ does the same).
I have a pair of those omni-reflective gloves - they work really quite well for any kind of outdoor exercise in the winter (cycling, hiking, etc.). If you're body is sweaty and warm they warm up quick and stay fairly dry.
You may be able to heat way below regular room temperature though. I don't think it matters too much if an object has 60 or 70 degrees.
monopolies are 100% scary and even Libertarians should be against them

The libertarian position is that monopolies are an ill, and that it is government that creates them.
Apple products and innovations have led to over 1M U.S. jobs
If everyone plays perfectly, in the long run everyone will have the same amount of money that they started with. In most games there is a rake (fee) taken by the house, so the house would slowly take everyone's money.
Yes, I feel exactly the same. I ride the rollercoaster of depression and the impostor syndrome is definitely there. Most of what I do is mired in incidental complexities that have little to do with the task at hand. Programming in itself is simple because it's a closed system that you can learn and master. What makes it seem hard is having to manage the logistics of it with the crude tools we have (checking logs instead of having a nice graphical control panel for instance). I also feel like all the problems I have to solve are ultimately the same, even if in wildly different areas, because it's all about how do I put these function calls in the right order to get my result. I can never shake the feeling that there could be a generic-programming genetic algorithm that tries a bunch of permutations of function calls and the way the results are the arguments for the next calls, given a list of functions I know are necessary for the solution. I always feel like I am still having to do computer things in my head, while sitting in front of the computer.
I don't even think telecom is ambiguous or used loosely in this regard; comcast provides telephone service, and "telecom", short for "telecommunications", is defined as "communication over a distance by cable, telegraph, telephone, or broadcasting."

So in this, every single ISP is a telecom
I don't think that's correct in heads up. I think optimal play includes "bluffing" a fair portion of the time.
Back in the early 90's when I was in college and everyone had email accounts on shared unix servers that they'd log into, a sysadmin friend would oftentimes notice that the disk would be getting close to full. He'd start a process that would slowly fill up disk space, and wait as all the other logged in users would realize they could no longer save files - then they'd frantically start to delete files they no longer needed. After a while he'd cancel his process and the system would have a lot more space.
Not essentially true, the valuation would just be a lot lower if you sold it As-Is + some level of cross-over support/training (Consulting Dollars)

This assumes the purchaser isn't just shelving it and killing off a competitor.

It't not an awful idea, especially since you know your competitors in the space (who to target).
Processes should be differentiated by importance and resource consumption. For instance, PID 1 should be rendered as the Cyber Demon, since killing PID 1 would end your game. Any parent processes of the current process should be friendly, and processes consuming large resources should be special enemies like pinky.
What is the point of eating insects, though? Why not just eat lentils?
I just recently heard a story that went the other way.

An engineer of elevator systems would spend hours doing all his calculations by hand, vowing it was too complicated and important to trust to a computer. (Yeah.)

The programmers in the company assured him they could write a program to do the calculations for him, which they did. He never trusted the results though, insisting that the program was not producing correct results.

One of the programmers realised that he didn't trust it because the program spat out the results almost instantly. It was too fast, it had to be wrong.

So he stuck a twenty second sleep in before the output, told the engineer he found the problem and fixed it. The engineer now felt the results were correct.

(Aside: I don't think I would want to get in a lift designed by an engineer who intuits the correctness rather than verifying the math, but I thought it was an interesting little parable on user interface design.)
I am lazy and suck at scrolling smoothly, so I middle-click to get the scroll tool set-point, then move my pointer a little below the set-point to indicate that I wish to scroll down slowly. Works in FF and Chrome.

Isn't this how everyone scrolls slowly?
The Best API Documentation
“When people are being murdered for having an opinion the question of whether or not that opinion is in good taste or presented in a well-mannered way is... secondary.”

Of course that is secondary. That much is obvious. It is a pointless distraction to even argue about that and it’s very questionable to even put the murder and the content even into the same context. That just does not compute. Those are emphatically and obviously not two sides of some issue or some bullshit like that.

However, I personally would make the editorial decision to not republish the cartoons because I find them to be in bad taste and quite racist and that’s that (that’s my quick and dirty assessment of them – I do not have to make those editorial decisions so I didn’t research this issue exhaustively and I could very well be wrong; please take this as my provisional opinion and just run with the hypothetical here). That would be the reason for me personally to decide that way, definitely not the murder.

How is free speech defended by me publishing something I do not like? That’s just a very confusing stance on this.
The headline should be "These scientists apparently do not live in a house with toilet seats"
Try to beat this computer at poker. You'll lose. Seriously
That would be a dangerous precedent but would eventually be struck down by the Supreme Court. There is absolutely no chance for the types of speech restrictions common in Europe to be passed in the US. Nazi literature and offensive speech are bad but freedom of speech is mostly needed for speech you do not like.
>That suggests it's not really able to adapt to individual play, which is essential to being at profitable at all but the lowest levels of poker.

There are two main categories of poker strategy: exploitive and balanced (also known as game theory optimal or GTO). With an exploitive strategy, your goal is to find the mistakes your opponents make (eg their tells) and figure out how to profit from them. With a balanced strategy, your goal is to 'balance' the choices you make (eg don't have any tells) so that it's impossible to your opponent to gain any information about your hand.

A perfectly balanced strategy will never lose money over a sufficient sample size, but it also limits the amount of money you can win. Exploitive strategies will maximize the amount you can win at the risk of being exploited by other players. From my understanding, your best bet against the weakest players is to play a purely exploitive strategy, and against good human players, you'll want to blend exploitive and balanced strategies.

My understanding of poker bots (the Alberta group from the article and PokerSnowie are the best-known) is that their goal is to develop a true balanced strategy. This may not be the way to maximize profits, but as long as humans aren't capable of playing perfectly balanced, the bots will slowly win in the long run, even against top pros.
When designing performance-sensitive software, database engines in my case, it is not uncommon to "bank" optimizations and resources for future code emergencies.

From a customer's perspective, you are always allowed to make the software faster with a future patch but never slower. The issue is that sometimes you find bugs (or add/complete features) where the correct implementation is somewhat slower than what you already shipped or planned for. In these cases, you end up creating two patches: one to address the customer issue and one to add an optimization to return the overall system performance to its prior level.

I've shipped complex v1.0 software where low-hanging optimizations would probably have made the system 2-5x faster (though still perceived as being extremely fast). Over time, it allowed us to add in expensive features and bug fixes without perceptible reductions in performance by harvesting the optimizations we'd banked in the first version.
"making a bot that can beat a full limit table is exponentially harder "

Hard but not impossible. As long as 5-6 years ago there was a number of bots[1] beating mid stake (15/30 & 30/60) 6 max limit holdem on Ultimate Bet (before it imploded). The games were fairly soft but pretty aggressive and those bots were taking a lot of money out of the game. They were also very frustrating to play against.

[1] They all had incredibly similar playing styles so were likely operated by a single person/group.
Awesome. I'll follow up with you over email to chat about Think200 and how we can make it thrive.
Wow, irony at its best! Down voted once again because I hurt the feelings of a white, 20-something, liberal.
Reminds me of the movie Snowpiercer, where there is a scene with an industrial size device that creates protein bars from insects.
Drawing app that lets you control colors via MIDI-Controller
If learning lisp is important "not because you'll use it but because it will forever change you" (to paraphrase) then learning Smalltalk is important in the same way.

Learning Common Lisp is like learning Smalltalk in another way, Common Lisp shares some of Smalltalk's features.

For instance, if I messed up something in my code and had an error, the debugger pops up. In this debugger I can not only browse the stack trace and manipulate those objects, I can actually fix what is broken and resume execution of the program from that point.

This is also true for Common Lisp. When I hit a bug, I can edit the broken code, reload it, and resume execution from where the program stopped. I can load edited code and freeze the program to inspect objects at any time. It's enjoyable to edit some opengl code and see changes in real time.

I used to use Light Table with Clojure and Javascript to kind of recreate the effect, but what the author writes is true: abandoning your familiar textual tools lets you do some really awesome things. It completely changes your development and debugging workflow.

If anyone was wondering why some people don't like Clojure being described as a modern Lisp or the future of Lisp, this is one reason.
Strawman: by not buying doodads from you, I'm not getting the value provided by the doodads either. That is not the case with digital goods.

Say you created those doodads using your time, efforts and resources. Your doodads provide people some value. People usually buy doodads as recompense for that value. But if someone "pirates" your doodads, it means they acquired the value without fairly compensating you.

So you: invested time, effort and resources to provide value to others. The pirates: benefited from that value and gave nothing back. Is that not unfair?

What if those pirates further shared your doodads with their friends (or, you know, random people on the Internet) further depriving you of people who should be paying you for the value your doodads provided. Now can you not claim that the pirates are hurting you?

You may focus on the zero marginal cost of copying digital music and movies and video games. However, observe that the value is not in the bits you copy but the experiences they provide to your mind. If they are truly worth zero to you, I don't see why you should be wasting your time experiencing them in the first place.

If I were to guess, you have not "cultivated that idea" because you've never created something that people found useful, something which you'd think you deserved compensation for, but which was taken without giving anything in return.
A new Facebook group for super interesting startup articles
Radical Transparency: Here Is YesGraph’s New Content Marketing Strategy
> "Zhanggong district is Ganzhou’s administrative center and home to about 460,000 people.
“There are at least 5,000 districts this size or bigger,” said Qiang Xiao, editor of China Digital Times (CDT), a news site affiliated with the University of California Berkeley that first reported on the emails."

So, this means that China is home to at least 2.3B people??? The math doesn't add up.
This has been common knowledge since Apple started selling Macbooks with SSDs. They simply refuse to do anything about it unless you can prove that it's not working.

I'd shortcut the SSD if that didn't mean being without my laptop for a good two weeks.
Watched the video. It was interesting. Gilad Bracha certainly knows his stuff. However, while he knows his stuff, his grasp of the stuff he's criticizing is less thorough.

He does seem to have a reasonable grasp of the what, but is shaky enough on the why that he's presented a few straw men.

Regarding Hindly-Milner type inference, I believe that there have ever been advocates that have gone from "you don't need to specify a type anywhere" to "you shouldn't specify a type anywhere". That is not how practitioners use these languages, these days. That you need redundancy for error correction (an accurate and important point) does not mean that your particular level of redundancy is best. Inference allows you to specify types where they will make things clearer, and lets the compiler fill in the gaps. It also lets you ask questions of your interpreter about what shape of thing will fit in a given hole. Even before GHC added TypedHoles, you could open GHCi and say :t (\ x -> some expression involving x) and get back the type of x as the first argument.

There's not enough room in this margin to fit the rest...
What if we gave up on the idea of fixed disk storage and just filled our computers with enough fast RAM to use as a permanent RAMdisk that wrote to these super fast SSDs on occasion, effectively treating the SSD as a backup for the RAMdisk? With a proper battery backup implemented, I imagine it could work.

2 GBytes/sec is crazy fast. That's my entire steam library in 20 seconds. What percentage of those files change per day? 10% or so at most? So when I shut it off, its syncs up the diff in 2 seconds.

When storage gets this fast and RAM this cheap, why bother with fixed disks? Imagine the new Macbook Air with 8gb RAM installed and another 128gb as a RAM disk and a 128gb SSD to back up the RAMdisk.
They meet up much closer in the evolutionary tree than things like pigs or cows. What exactly is the huge difference? They seem fairly similar overall, aside from size and where they live.
I did not realize that one must have money to voice an opinion.

Yes, I have money. No, it wouldn't be a wise investment to throw it at OpenSSL. Some problems are subtle enough that merely throwing money at them won't make them go away. I also have the requisite talent and experience to make a sizable dent in rectifying the problems I have expressed in this library. However, that is also useless unless attitudes around the project are shifted so that such efforts would be maintained.

Fixing the project requires changes at the very top of their organization all the way down. At this point, nothing short of a fork -- which OpenBSD has done with LibreSSL -- may be enough to drive this sort of change. Which is, not coincidentally, why I donate money to the OpenBSD project.

LibreSSL, once it is mature, may be a good launching point for some of the ideas I have expressed here. However, I would have to see how that code base matures before making such a determination. It's a largely meaningless exercise unless people start moving to that library and away from OpenSSL.
This is my post, I help make YesGraph. I'd love your input, questions, or comments
> That said, someone explain to me how mocking people's beliefs brings positive change in this world.

Nothing is sacred,that's the positive change to the world. Everybody will have, sooner or later, to acknowledge the fact that religions are no different from fairy tails.
Sushi honking the horn Soooo funny
Don't forget the Burroughs B5000, from 1961: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burroughs_large_systems#B5000

The fact that we had an architecture running entirely on ALGOL with no ASM as far back as 54 years ago, is quite astonishing, followed by depressing.
In manned space enclosures, getting rid of heat is usually more of a problem than producing it.
My pessimistic prediction: FCC will go for Title II, a legal shitstorm will ensue, it will be determined somehow that they don't have the right to regulate ISPs in that way, then ISPs will start charging per-service and home internet will basically be like cell data plans, but worse (Google Maps requires the maps and navigation package!).
The super-hard part is figuring out what 'perfect play' (GTO) is. Thats what the post is claiming
I am reminded of Slavoj Zizek's story about Niels Bohr having a horseshoe above his door:

"surprised at seeing a horseshoe above the door of Bohr's country house, the fellow scientist visiting him exclaimed that he did not share the superstitious belief regarding horseshoes keeping evil spirits out of the house, to which Bohr snapped back: "I don't believe in it either. I have it there because I was told that it works even when one doesn't believe in it at all." This is indeed how ideology functions today: nobody takes democracy or justice seriously, we are all aware of their corrupted nature, but we participate in them, we display our belief in them."[0]

[0]-http://brooklynbooktalk.blogspot.com/2010/02/its-ideology-st...
Thanks very much.

If you have experience or expertise in this industry, would you be willing to disclose it?
The one with the racist stereotype caricatures of pregnant women enslaved by Boko Haram saying "don't touch our welfare" seems pretty racist to me (the lame French play on words about child-benefits/wefare is revoltingly callous and mean-spirited). The huge-nosed Jews they feature with discussing Jews are completely racist as well.
This may not be what you mean, but it sounds like you're saying the computer just plays hands with favorable odds of getting winning cards. That's trivial and not at all what this is doing. It's finding the game-theory-optimal play, which means it bluffs in the most effective way possible.

It does that with the assumption that the opponent is also very strong, so it doesn't attempt to exploit weaknesses. If you try to exploit weaknesses, you have to vary from optimal play, thus opening up your own weaknesses. The software doesn't do that, it just plays a perfect game.
Pasture-raised beef still uses an obscene amount of water compared to every other protein we eat, by a very large margin.
I was waiting all of 2013 for that X1 refresh, and spent a whole day swearing at random inanimate objects after seeing what they actually built. Bought an ASUS Zenbook instead. I would LOVE to have somehow lasted this year without a new laptop and sprung for this fixed-up X1, had I known they would correct course. Alas I only buy new laptops every 4-ish years.

So Lenovo lost me as a customer for a 7-8 year span because of those asinine touchscreen keys. I loved Thinkpads as reliable Linux workhorses, but the phrase "Will change their usage per app!" might as well say "Will never work in Linux!".
But not as different as, say, lobsters and cows. Lobsters and Cockroaches are both nocturnal, omnivorous, scavenging, arthropods.
That doctor is wrong. All human problems are caused by the constraints of our physical world.
But is it really a jerk move? He had the foresight to tie up those 2MB at the very start so that later on it could be removed. And in the scenario written about, doing that ahead of time saved the project and major content from being cut.
— and so is their mutation rate… ;)
Responding broadly to other comments here...

tldr; If an anonymous system is can't protect sequences of bits you abhor, it can't protecting your sequences of bits either.

--

Freenet is a solution to a problem many people refuse to believe exists, and therefore is mostly only used by people that are either at least a bit paranoid, or are actively persecuted. As long as people favor convenience over privacy, or have zero qualms about having their lives monetized by others while seeing little to no benefit from forfeiting their individuality, freenet will almost never be used for anything that is not frowned upon by the mainstream.

Yes, the first thing critics will do is point at child abuse because it's an easy straw man. But for a counter-point, check out some of the Japanese release boards on Frost or FMS. Byte for byte, there's probably more unoffensive anime raws being dumped into freenet daily than all of the CP that has ever existed on the network. The perceptive difference? There are no frequently updating freesites being created for those inserts, so you have to know where to look to find the keys.

--

The idea of the Darknet was supposed to keep people from feeling icky about Freenet. You only connect directly to friends, and you're not friends with pedos, right? User base never grew large enough to allow organic growth of the network that way though. Maybe with better tools...

--

The main reason people shit on Freenet while holding up Tor as some pure and noble effort is that they can buy and sell things over Tor, while Freenet has no profit incentive.
Indeed. It's pretty easy to win against somebody who only bets with strong hands.
Azure Virtual Machine Images for Visual Studio
I did not had to check anything as I had read the newspaper. They do not mock the religions themselves but the way people practice their religion.
It doesn't seem to work reliable with dell laptops even.
why they don't wrap a house in this fabric instead?
For those in the Bay Area, I highly recommend checking out Don Bugito. They've done a great job of making insects palatable for the uninitiated. Everyone I've taken to their food stand at Off the Grid has ended up trying some bugs (despite insisting they would not). You can also buy them pre-packaged at the Ferry Building. http://www.donbugito.com/
No they're not. Parkinson' Law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_law is the adage that "Work expands to fill the time allotted to it." But Parkinson's original book looked humorously but semi-seriously at actual administrative growth such as the growth of the British Civil Service and Admiralty staff even as British overseas colonies and navy were shrinking.
I was referring to the null deref.
Protect Your Freedom of Speech
Perhaps a home of the future might have the ability to roll the sheet up or down like window blinds inside the wall depending on the outside environment to self regulate.