skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
One reason people don't seem to mention much is that universities, particularly research universities, act as a kind of educational industrial complex wherein the government essentially funds the universities with grant research dollars and with it comes the overhead of administration and such.

That research money gets spent largely on research, but once you hire people for those projects the university finds ways of keeping them around. More than that, buildings and such over time get built to further the research agendas of the schools, furthering the dependency on federal grant money.

So, in a sense, the bureaucracy of the federal government funds the bureaucracy of universities as well.
Let's keep in mind that shifts in zeitgeist can shift somewhat quickly --the rise or decline of racism, or the rise or decline of women's rights (say in Russia or China). Things can change due to how people perceive things... but at the same time I don't think anyone outside those societies are or should feel responsibility for how societies change with change in the world...

It'd be like saying, yeah, Japan in the 70s - 80s was at fault for the steel workers in America feeling alienated, emasculated and crushed. No, absolutely not. We needed to adjust, not the Japanese. The world at large changes, you need to change with it.
The Mechanical Transmission of Power (3): Endless Rope Drives
The usefulness of physical tells has been wildly exaggerated to make poker in TV/movies more interesting. They can be useful, but betting patterns are far more important.
Quid pro quo: what percentage does originality contribute to success and greatness? Is it more than 20%? How did you arrive at the percentage? Does the percentage change based on the vertical, the market, the greater market cycle, the country, the entrepreneur, et cetera? If so, how?

If you, as a VC, can't answer those questions, then asking me how original my idea is has no value. If the answer is that originality contributes less than 20%, why should I focus on it?

If the real question is, have I thought about my competition and do I have a strategy for beating them, ask me that instead. Further, if I haven't thought about my strategy yet, aren't you then looking at my potential to learn, devise, and execute a strategy? Aren't you asking yourself, is this a person who has done great work but needs guidance and can I work with this person?

And I'll go a step further. What percentage of the 75% of failed VC backed companies had an original idea and/or knew their competition, and had a great strategy?
> I would say that most people in community college don't really want to be there.

Odd. That wasn't my experience at all.

I went to Cabrillo College, a community college in Aptos, CA.

Great school, inspiring profs (many with PhD's), students were generally engaged and excited to be there.

I transferred to Berkeley, did well there (felt well-prepared) and saved a heck of a lot of money a long the way. Zero debt post graduation.

I highly recommend Community College, albeit make sure good transfer options exist.

I have heard of people transferring the Stanford and Yale from Cabrillo, but maybe it's just an exception.
Sounds like they've developed a very good bot, but I don't believe it's possible to ever completely "solve" an imperfect information game.
I would just call these archetypes, not anti-patterns. Anti-pattern is a fairly specific domain of poor decision-making.

Real people aren't like this, and these aren't problem solving methods, just kind of unhelpful behaviors. There's nothing wrong with them in certain contexts, and the author doesn't say when or where they work. It's just kind of "look at this list of extremes I want to make fun of."

I had fun reading it. I could relate to some of that stuff. But I just don't see it as the 'doing better' that the author is trying to advocate. Which kind of makes it a greater contribution to confusion and noise than to reliable progress. You could just accuse any thought you don't agree with to be a manifestation one of these archetypes and then you're back at square one, aren't you? Bottom line: you'll always need to think. The fact that the author has to say "we're all a little of all of this" is a big clue that maybe it isn't any more useful than astrology. Hence my comparison.
I'm missing something:

"But Bowling and his colleagues have demonstrated that their algorithm always wins in the long run."

So how does it fare when its opponent is the same algorithm ?
Maybe they were using 32-bit integers as their crc?
- We are talking about HULHE only. If the game were no limit and 9 players the numbers presented in the article regarding possible states grow, by a lot. AFAIK there is no bot that could break even against a table of decent players playing NL. "Crack Poker" seems an overstatement to me.

- The articles states the bot always wins in the long run but most correctly this bot can break even at worst scenario. I mean, if you face it against itself they can't both win in the long run.
The Top 100 Startups in LA
I am interested in viewing, but a heads up: the site shows zero entries, even after enabling all first-party scripts and XHR requests. Not sure if third-party scripts are essential, but if they are, consider not depending on them.
Are there issues with booting from PCIe slots? I assume if there are, they'll get sorted out quickly as drives like this become more popular.
The Tough Decision to Leave the Classroom
Has Technology Killed the Jewelry Industry?
This is Oskari Tammelin of Buzz tracker fame (audio software): http://www.jeskola.net

Links to some counterfactual regret minimization code is on his site here: http://www.jeskola.net/cfr/
He will not, and no president will.

The only way to get back at that attorney is to wait until he decides to run for public office, which they tend to do - being tough on crime is their ticket to public office.

When and if he decides to run for office, friends of Aaron may then decided to wage a campaign against him, to ensure that he loses.

It's a dirty game, but guys like that deserve that kind of treatment.
ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some?

a lot of the time i see this sort of rage surface most assuredly (in myself and other people) for topics which:

a.i am definitely not guilty
b.someone else definitely is guilty
c.a lot of other people agree with me.. but not everyone

your argument as put forward satisfies these three points.

as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children? or are you saying you should be judged according the outcomes of actions, whether you had the correct foresight or not? the first is demonising them to make yourself feel superior / the second is demonising all parents for the myriad of things they do everyday to damage their children. which is it?

"I think it's the ultimate disgrace to make choices that endanger the entire population." once again here, is the prior knowledge / intent important? here if you are suggesting, foresight or not, it is bad to endanger the human race - as a logical test of sorts, what if it turns out that overpopulation is the biggest danger to the human race? would that change your stance? likewise, if intent is important, do you stop driving your suv? or is it just about scale? do you stop using fossil fuels?

the thing that gets me about the vax/antivax, is that neither side really understand the complexity of the argument. i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses. now, i know statistically this is due to vaccines preventing a whole lot more illnesses, and that for certain illnesses there is a minimum threshold of vaccinated people below which the effectiveness is seriously compromised. but at this very point what does it matter to the parents if they have just as much chance to hurt their child either way?

most anti-vaxers i have run into actually want to pick and choose the vaccinations and the timing, rather than the couple of hundred they are forced to get by the state (in three or four different injections). is it better to get all or none? is it better to force them into a position of getting all or none?

if you don't understand your own arguments, or the people you are trying to convince otherwise, how do you know you are not just reacting emotionally? who does it serve for you to get enraged?

*(because clearly it is just a stats vs economics thing, hardly something to get riled up about)
> I agree when this is about suppressing opinions, but things are trickier when this is about suppressing disinformation.

Somebody has to decide what is classified as disinformation. If you have the government do it then whoever the people elect as a censor may make bad decisions. (This is historically what has happened.) If instead you have independent media outlets do it then you have the same problem. Citizens may choose the outlet that publishes disinformation.

The difference is that in the absence of censorship the choice is made by the individual. If 51% of people watch Fox News and Fox News reports disinformation, 51% of people are affected by the disinformation. If 51% of people elect a censor who prohibits everything but what is reported on Fox News then 100% of people are affected, which may lead to a feedback loop in subsequent elections.

It's not that you don't have anyone whose job it is to prevent disinformation from being reported. It's that the person whose job that legitimately belongs to is called a journalist, and you get to choose the ones you like.
(Disclaimer: I'm an atheist myself. I'll try to make this as coherent as possible, bear with me.)

"Everyone has a right to their opinion", as long as it remains an opinion. Right? But let's elaborate a bit on that.

Some background first: We, as humans, most likely will never really know the answers to the very existential questions in the universe. If you start asking "Why?" a lot, go all the way outside of the bounds of society, you'll find a lot of very weird questions that you would think you'd get an obvious answer to, but it always tends to come down to "because that's how we defined it".

An extreme example: "Why is killing bad?" - An easy question to answer within the bounds of a functional society, but it's not easy to keep answering it if you remove that boundary. Since you're a fan of thought experiments: Many insect species' females eat their mates after copulation. What if our society evolved from such a basis and never quite got past it? You would face the same challenges explaining why not eating your mate would be positive for an established society. (Fun weekend project: Read post-apocalyptic books while keeping such considerations in mind. Authors tend to have a field day with these questions...)

Okay, now that that's out of the way: We, humans, do get to define our own ideologies. We get to define what is good and bad, because unlike with mathematics/physics, nature does not dictate rules for philosophy.

What I personally believe is that for those potential ideologies to have a chance to prosper, we must never remove their voices. You can choose not to listen to them, but removing the opportunity for them to spread could in fact remove a change for the better. Just like it could prevent a change for the better, but then we go back to the argument earlier: who are we to judge what is good and what is bad? We get to define it, but those that come after us may disagree. At least we have a choice.

So no, I'm not giving islam special treatment, I'm just careful of not removing its voice, as much as I can disagree with some of its ideologies (and agree with some others).

This is a very tough subject. We don't know where the lines are, different people tend to put them in different places. The law is what we've chosen to draw the lines for us, and we change it all the time. But without differing opinions (christianity, islam, vegetarianism, nazism, kopimism, ...), we can't ever hope to change.

And isn't change the reason we are here, exchanging experiences and ideas?
Insects are eaten in most of the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entomophagy
I'm very curious to read the paper if anyone can find it posted online.
HULHE SNG's especially.

Short stack NLHE too.
>After all, Cepheus honed its strategy by playing the equivalent of a near-perfect opponent that made practically no mistakes.

So why don't you f king use that instead of making your own program?

Also, how do they know that play is optimal if poker hadn't been solved before? They're comparing it to perfect play, but if we can compute that, then the problem is done anyway.
Finally! If Jet.com doesn't charge amazon style fees this means I can mark my products down by 25-50% ! and still make the same profit as I do on Amazon. Amazon fees are massive even without the penny pricing snag. Here's mine: http://i3.minus.com/i0tJucuLy5zPB.jpg

When Jet opens up to small sellers I'll be the first in line. Hopefully consumers will notice the big price differences and buy a membership.
I used to get the Baffler, and I read that Albin article years ago. The Internet didn't help, although there was one band in the first dot-com boom that tried to IPO. (Whatever happened to them?)

What happened next was that the technology got so cheap that anybody could record. Then came AutoTune, and anyone could sing. Then laptop bands. At one point Myspace had something over 10 million bands registered. A few of them probably didn't suck.

"Being in a band" just isn't a big deal any more. This is a return to the historical norm. Historically, most musicians ranked below bartenders socially. The "rock star" era existed only because, for a few decades, the economics of marketing, stamping out and distributing phonograph records in volume favored bulk sales of a modest number of titles. A limited number of radio stations also created a mass market. That's over.

The people behind AutoTune (http://www.antarestech.com) have a whole range of products now, including automatic sing-along and vocal tract models. It's quite possible that musicianship will go the way of calligraphy.
That's not true. I played and studied poker for a many years, and I will say for certain that physical cues is a huge part of live games, and definitely not ignored by good players.
In case you're wondering how they accomplished some of that there was a piece of software called Megaphone[0] released during the 2006 Lebanon war that automatically cast votes for users on online polls on the internet concerning their favourite middle eastern country. It even received attention and support from their Foreign Ministry.

The developers went on to form a company[1] "to influence ratings on sites which allow users to rate articles or other items" with $2m in funding from Sequoia. Not sure if they still up-and-running.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collactive
House to Take Another Stab at Terrible CISPA Internet Bill
> I also ask that same question "isn't X or Y already doing this?" to most startups that pitch me. I'm not trying to make the founder feel bad, or sound smart, or anything like that.

The question itself is adversarial because it assumes that you understand completely what the founder is doing and implies that it isnt any different from X or Y. Thats why people like Paul Graham who want to know the same thing phrase it differently: "how are you different from X or Y".
If perfect play is known, why not just use that? The article compared this program with perfect play, which means that perfect play must be computable. I'm confused.
It's interesting that that was a decision by Justice Taney. But, yes, one would expect an Article I power to be a power of Congress.
> ignoring the whole vax/anti-vax thing* i am really curious about people who are enraged about such things and why a particular topic like this enrages them? are you enraged about all things which endanger the population? or just some?

I am selfishly enraged by the actions of people who put my children's health at risk (especially since they were premature and they are prone to catching a lot of bad stuff) because these people choose to ignore facts (most of the time for religious reasons).

I am selflessly enraged at anyone who endangers other people because I have empathy for these people and very low tolerance for irrationality.
Losses equal to rake percentage
Onoisms
I love freesound; been using it for years. Hopefully more people using it = more great sounds.

I do wish they'd have an easier way to credit people who request CC Attribution.
My experience with Cabrillo was similar. For me, it made an excellent highschool.
In another article I read they said it would "never do worse than even", and I would assume that the even case is when playing itself (or we have a logical contradiction). A lot of game theory winning strategies work that way; when you play another perfect strategy you draw.
> as to your stated arguments, do you really think anti-vaxers want to make bad choices for their children?

Of course not, they think they are doing the right thing, in much the same way that Mormons refuse blood transfusions for themselves and their children or that certain parents kill their children so they can get to heaven faster.

You're still building a straw man, though.

The intention is completely irrelevant here, what matters is the safety of the children and of the rest of the population.
There is a trick to prevent this. In Britain, at first they brought in many male immigrants from Pakistan. Since they didn't have their families or female kin with them, they assimilated well. They stopped assimilating once they brought their families.

For immigrants to assimilate better, it would be a better policy to bring onky one gender. Like say a quota of 500k women from the Philippines and a 500k quota of males from another country.
#3s can get their student debt discharged if they can demonstrate undue hardship: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/523

It requires a good attorney & YMMV
Since republicans control congress at the moment, they know it will be veto'd, but it will only help to push the agenda that republicans are bad. I see this being used to push the next presidential race.
The real solution here is not to interview people, but to discover people OUTSIDE of a hiring scenario, and recruit them after you've determined they would be a great fit (inverting the game). It's just unfortunate that it is much more effort to invest as the employer, but it is essentially the best way for everybody involved.
PHP String Builder, Mutable Disagrees
> Producers and engineers who use meaningless words to make their clients think they know what’s going on. Words like “Punchy,” “Warm,” “Groove,” “Vibe,” “Feel.” Especially “Punchy” and “Warm.” Every time I hear those words, I want to throttle somebody.

Sounds like every single person on any online forum or community related to music, audio production, or audio hardware.
> i actually know as many people whose children have had serious reactions to vaccinations as i do parents who children have had serious preventable illnesses.

You're trying to use anecdotal data as data. That's not how science works.

Scientist are way, way ahead of you. Adverse effects are the number one thing that is studied when a new vaccine is being considered for public use. At least in the US (and most of the industrialized world), if a vaccine receives approval for wide use, it's because the statistical risk of adverse effects and the actual adverse effects are completely benign compared to the positive effect that the vaccine will have on the population.
I am pretty into high-end foodstuffs and really anything that tastes good, so I am somewhat surprised that my inner self says "bring on the bugs!". I think it would be kinda cool to eat an entirely new source of protein and know that I'm being just a tiny bit more sustainable.

Plus once in a while I get some pang of guilt about factory farming. Not gonna happen with cockroaches; I'm pretty sure there is no possible world where I develop sympathy for an insect.
Making Evolution Make Microbes Make Products
Social Media Guide for Ministry Gets Summarized by Ministry Library
http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/
I think, particularly in private education in the US, there is going to be a bubble that is going to pop soon. With continued monetization of education obviously comes people whose job it is to continue monetizing it (more administration). It then follows that there is a continuing push to turn a school into a 'business'. As a developer that works at a SASS company working in education, we've seen the admissions departments of higher education institutions turn from a passive information providing source, to a proactive sales team with set quota's and goals. It's actually quite startling to look at the shift from the perspective of a decade ago.

Eventually though, students are going to realize that the product they're paying for isn't worth it. $200,000 in loans for a liberal arts degree is gratuitous. With that, private education will see a significant drop in enrollment and public education will explode, I presume. However, the thing I'm most afraid of is tiered pricing for universities, which I'm sure is bound to come. Want an art degree? Those are practically free. Want Computer Science degree? You're going to have to pay for that...

The moral of this story is that there needs to be a serious paradigm shift in the motivations of schools in the US soon. Motivations need to switch from income and attendance, to outcome and employability. I know personally, I have yet to be asked by my alma mater what I would change to make the university better. This lack of focus on outcome, curriculum, and education 'ability' I think is one of the biggest downfalls of private higher education.
I notice you used the word "sparked". That seems like a fair medium between "created" and "hosted". Let's try it.

There is certainly no intention at HN HQ to slight the remarkable achievements of our senior sibling.
Humans, Robots, and the Consequences
Why is the bar set at becoming independently wealthy? As far as I know, that term means wealthy enough to not require further earning of income. It's an incredibly high bar.
Hall talks about how to make enjoyable games, not massive margins. Sadly, the two seem to be increasingly disparate these days.
The student loan crisis is a much bigger problem.

18 year old kids are being given the ability to take on massive, crushing debt that is too easily used for vacations, boob jobs, or whatever else, and even when it is only used for classes, people feel like they need to take on this debt to spend 4 years learning (and forgetting) material that they will never use, for degrees that probably won't be relevant to their career.

Just to get a slip of paper that says "bachelor's degree". It is trapping people.

Making community college easily accessible is a nice step, but community college is already incredibly cheap in most places, people don't go there because of costs but because they don't have the name recognition of a state school or a big private school.

Sometimes small policy steps like this (it won't get passed in this climate anyway) are more destructive than not doing anything at all. They give the illusion of progress, or treat the symptoms when the real illness remains unresolved