skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: How is Kosmix hacking up Google Ads?
1) The ads seem query aware, and AFAIK Google adsense for search comes with its own everything (searchbox + searchresults + ads) and there is no API to simply fetch ads on the query terms. See http://www.kosmix.com/topic/Iphone_Android_Gandhi

2) The ads are embedded into the page, which means they were generated on the server.
The bill didn't start from single payer - it started as offering a public option, which would co-exist with existing private plans, which would theoretically be available to all citizens as an option.

The United States attempted implementing a single-payer system during the FDR Administration, which fizzled before it left the white house, and then again during the LBJ Administration, which was cut down to what we now call Medicare/Medicaid via the Social Security Act of 1965.
I thought of "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" especially given the default secret knock.
I didn't interpret evgen's comment as literally turning a pilot to jelly. (Hrmm, there's an interesting visual.) For practical purposes, a pilot that's blacked out = jelly.
Maybe we can spend the trillions from fighter jets and pilot training on health care?

The war machine expenditure in the USA is more than EVERY OTHER country on earth COMBINED (and it's deficit spending).

The problem is the war machine is always chomping at the bit to get into a war so they can use their toys. Did you know Japan has a military? And they are protesting against their constitution which prevents them from getting involved in other wars. They WANT to go to war, somewhere, anywhere. It's crazy.
That is weird. Even more surprising is the missing "Google Ad" text. Instead we've a superlight "Sponsored" link which is almost certainly breaking the TOS.
Their mission is to get more people using Ubuntu - a 6 month release cycle works wonders for that. People (like me) who think "I could almost use the permanently" get excited, and give it another go, when a new version comes out. Also, it generates a lot of buzz.

However, 9.10 hasn't been a smooth ride for me. When I plug in an external monitor, and open Display Options to enable it, my X server crashes, due to Compiz not handling such a large resolution.
"Invent a way to paint without paint or canvas."

iPhone Brushes?
Single payer was never on the table. Despite having majority support in public surveys, even thinking about it would galvanize all aspects of the health care system to fight tooth and nail against the bill. Big pharm would fight because they'd expect to see the price of drugs drop. Insurance companies would fight because they would no longer have a business. The AMA would fight because they have too many connections with the other two not to unify.

In fact even the massively watered down version called "the public option" is marginal. Which is why you keep on hearing about how it is in this version, out of that one, in the next, and so on.
My rather incoherent take on this is that wealth is really not generated by people as much anymore. The things we use/want are really produced by machines plus a few workers. It is not really that worker producing the products, it is a combination of historical capital leading up to that machine and then some time the worker is putting in. Basically, we are moving towards a system where wealth is generated by machines but distributed by a weird combination of factors that is heavily historical (who spent the capital on this production to have it happen?). If you work in the stock market you get a certain share of that distribution, if your dad owns a hotel chain you get a certain share, if you collect aluminum cans on the streets of SF you get a certain share. It is all a heavily artificial system of distribution that is very historically based (more so than incentive based i think). Yes, being a successful entrepreneur will get you are larger share percent, but for the same effort/luck 1000 years ago (even if the political system was same as now and favorable to startups) the same share percent would be tiny compared to today. (kinda like bill gates added a lot of value but he got way more cuz its amplified by all the machines in the world) But my point is it is no longer about how much you produce directly but how much of that distribution goes to you.

Traditionally, a humongous proportion came here to the US and its workers, again due to historical reasons (and personally i feel deservedly so or atleast close enough). But it basically went like the US increase the whole pie so much that it got more of it. But as globalization happens it is apparent that unless you are a capitalist, your share of the distribution simply has no reason to grow but a lot of pressure to shrink so that it equalizes more globally.

so i think short of the US coming up with more things that just dramatically increases the whole pie again, theres only two choices to maintain your standard of living, have capital so you have the power to get your share, or support some form of socialism that hopefully doesn't reduce incentive to the point of reducing the whole pie.
If you have no idea what you're talking about, please don't use incendiary language.
which just goes to show you that dems don't know how to negotiate. You never start off with a compromise, you start off with something you have no hope of getting and slowly get down to the compromise position.
I think any attempt to overthrow the government would have to be an inside job. Then you get to use the government's stuff.
Quite a mystery. It's definitely Google ads. My guess is they have automated a web browser to extract ads. Although, that seems like a lot of work without any much benefit. (It does eschew the default Adblock+ filters.)
Individuals would be required to obtain insurance or pay a fine of as much as 2.5 percent of income.

This seems like a horrible violation of property rights, perhaps to the point of being a violation of the fifth amendment.
What ads are you guys talking about? The set of of link under "Web Search" just returns organic links using the Google Search API... all I see is a normal Adsense unit to the right of that.
It's at least worth considering they're doing an A/B test on the impact of removing the ads.
Oh, I was responding in general. Most articles, the one (linked included) talk about physical limitations about human pilots. I always thought it was something more gory until I found out about blackouts a few years ago.
Do they have enough traffic to merit a special deal with Google? Maybe they can negotiate a way to get a custom layout? Alexa (for what it's worth) shows them getting OK traffic, but not a ton.
Packages that are in Debian stable are extensively pre-tested by the users of unstable and testing. I have been an unstable user for years, and the one or two time a year things break (I update approximately weekly) and I try to report a bug, the bug has already been reported and resolved. This is what they call unstable, so imagine how well stable works.

Debian unstable doesn't have releases, so packages that make major changes have to apply cleanly to a variety of configurations (not just whatever the previous version was). Since people are testing these packages daily, any problems are resolved way before anything is marked "stable". These changes are also incremental, so instead of a testing team having to work out 100s of major changes with a six-month deadline, they are made and tested as-needed.

The end result is a system that is very up-to-date but rarely breaks. (Debian stable probably "never" breaks, but it is not exactly up-to-date either.)
Didn't they say the same thing about swords when guns were invented, about infantry when artillery was invented, and about battleships when aircraft carriers were invented?

It was true back then, too - it was a good 25 years between when aircraft carriers were invented in WW1 and when they sank their first vessel at Coral Sea. But new technology opens up new tactics and new economies of scale that can fundamentally change the rules of battle.

What if you didn't care about having your toys fall out of the sky, for example? Make them so cheap that you can literally blanket the sky with them. Send up thousands of computer-piloted missile-aircraft. If they get shot down, who cares? If they shoot each other down, who cares? If they get stolen by the enemy and used to shoot down your own missile-craft...well, that's what was happening before anyway.

But you could throw up a curtain so dense and so shifting that it's impossible for anything to fly through them. And that's exactly what a potential adversary of the U.S. wants: nullify American air power so the f#&kers on the ground can knife our guys. It doesn't matter if they shoot down 10 of their own missile-craft for every one of ours. If they can put up 100x as many, that still equals no aircraft in the sky for Uncle Sam.

There was a recent wargame that followed a strategy much like this, except that instead of computer-controlled aircraft it used human-controlled small boats launching cruise missiles (that other automated-pilot air weapon):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
But then nobody would be testing them.
- Normal adsense unit can not have query terms high-lighted.
- These ads look targetted to the query. There is no way Google can crawl such a long tail so quickly to target ads on the content.
- Do a view source, these ads were generated on the server, compared to typical client side google ads.
Sure, same trick the aliens use with the UFO cults.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/q8/many_worlds_one_best_guess/

tl;dr: http://lesswrong.com/lw/q7/if_manyworlds_had_come_first/
Or a higher priority than endless wars for oil overseas.

But I digress...

The reason is because most people can still afford food in US, but cannot afford $3k/day hospital stays.
I use Debian in a Windows VMware host (at work), and it is more than fast enough. The only problem is that VMWare's X server is broken in such a way as to not be able to draw window decorations if they are drawn via X's standard function to draw window decorations. Very stupid.
yes, actually Google Search Network Partners get different terms/customization options than regular Adsense accounts.
I don't understand how paying for medical care can possibly seem strange. Single-payer systems are merely an arrangement for paying for medical care. In my opinion, it's not a very good arrangement.

Everyone who needs health care should be able to obtain it. Most people in developed countries can already obtain health care. Why insert the government into the situation where it isn't needed? Any time you disconnect the amount paid for goods and services from the receipt of those things, the market (i.e. mass human psychology) will work less efficiently. Perhaps the price the government decides to pay will be less than is needed to convince enough people to provide the services in question, resulting in a shortage.

Subsidize health care for those who can't afford it. Everyone else should pay their own way privately. Similar changes should be made to the other non-public goods we subsidize, like roads, transit and education.
Saves the loading time when on slower connections (i.e. tethering on the go).
This kind of over-the-top rhetoric is great for rallying the masses, but it breaks down under the lightest of logical scrutiny. Here are three of my favorite issues with your position:

1. Why is medical care the highest priority? What about food? Shelter? Safety from rape, murder, and other forms of violence? What about electricity, water, and other infrastructure? While most people don't get very sick, pretty much everyone needs the things above. Why should medical care be the highest priority federal expense?

2. You think it's barbaric to think about paying for medical care, but guess what: you do pay for it. Everyone does. Your "right" to healthcare is not free; someone has to pay for it. And because you think you're entitled to that free of charge, someone else out there is having money taken from them under the threat of force so that you don't have to worry about healthcare. The right to private property far outweighs the right to healthcare, according to the US Constitution, but your system reverses this relationship.

3. The decoupling of supply and demand in the type of system we're about to pass is likely to result in dramatically higher costs and lower quality care over the long run, not to mention the fact that we have no way of paying for it. Granted, our current system is screwed up, but this is far from a fix. This is just moving further in a bad direction.

EDIT: Added a third item :)
The challenge comes in the definition of a minimal insurance plan. What exactly does it have to cover to count as insurance? Am I going to have to put my policy number on my 1040 next year? Many things to worry about given the sordid history of bureaucratic implementation.
"I see my children's children living in a world without war."

Do you honestly believe that? I don't see how it's even possible unless we sedate everyone in some kind of matrix like false utopian state. It's good to dream though.
I am not sure why people expect reliability from a bunch of unrelated software packages written in C without any automatic testing. Of course stuff is going to break. My laptop's sound card alternately breaks every other major kernel release. Nobody to test + no automatic tests + minor changes in the sound subsystem = breakage. (I don't care about this, though, as the card is junk and I have a decent USB DAC connected to my machine. But still...)

I am mildly surprised every time I see a Linux system boot to completion. (And yes, Linux is my favorite OS.)
I agree it's a bit big brotherish. For a while after we sold Viaweb I didn't have health insurance, because I figured I had enough in effect to be my own insurer. I ended up getting health insurance eventually, because I found the system won't treat you without it; you can't simply offer to pay doctors with a credit card, the way you can with dentists. But from a civil liberties point of view it is a bit alarming to think the government could force you to purchase something, and jail you if you didn't. I hope they don't enforce that too diligently, or we could end up with a string of Ruby Ridges.
I reality it would probably be more like how the software for voting machines is developed. In secret by large companies who's only specialty is doing anything they can get the government to cough up money for.
Unemployment is going to increase even more in the future. There just isn't enough work to be done anymore. Increasingly sophisticated robots are going to render even more workers irrelevant. Exactly what happens to these unemployed humans is going to determine whether we are living in a dystopia or a utopia. If the corporations have their say, it will be a dystopia.
"You seem to be conflating the "Higgs production does something funny to suppress the amplitude of possible histories leading to the event" hypothesis with the "LHC destroys the world with black holes/stable strangelets/vacuum energy state change/etc., so only futures with a broken LHC have humans around to observe" hypothesis."

No, I'm not. I'm really only talking about the suppressed amplitude case, as it is the only interesting thing. "Quantum suicide" is a direct, uninteresting, and hopefully untrue trivial consequence of MWI, and generalizing to civilizations is also trivial.

""a fragment of Boltzmann Bread[0] appears in a critical component of the LHC" becomes more likely than "no world-ending event occurring in X collisions"."

Ah, but you're getting caught up in the wrong formulation of the problem. The question is not "Is sticking a bit of bread in the wrong place going to prevent the Higgs from forming?", it is, "Given that the universe will attempt to prevent the Higgs from forming for the sake of argument, what is the most likely way in which it will manifest?"

Does sticking a bit of bread in the wrong place do the job? Yes. But it's a fantastically improbable manifestation of a quantum effect where merely "not forming the Higgs boson at time of collision" is way, way less improbable, what with the odds against a Higgs in the first place.

The probability of "bit o' quirky event plus a bit of bad design" is well in the domain of human experience. The probability of "this is the lowest-effort way the Universe could find to shut down the production of a Higgs" is absurdly small, when I can easily lay out "easier" things, including simply not making Higgs when the opportunity arises, which requires merely a couple of quantum zigs instead of zags within very small fractions of a second of the potential collision, rather than an enormously long chain of causation spanning human-perceivable time frames, all of which are unspeakably huge from the quantum world's viewpoint.
Apple Store Down
Doesn't seem impossible. Within Western Europe that is close to a reality now, after endless centuries of war.
part of the requirement is the deductible. So, people who have the $2,000 deductible (because you have other means to deal with the smaller stuff) would be out of compliance.
Your comment reminds me of the early 19th century. There was this group called the "Luddites" that believed the same thing. It didn't turn out as they predicted.
I found the system won't treat you without it

Now there is something that could use some reform. I have a hard time picturing a good solution coming from a government though; something that looks like more like a union than an insurance company might be effective.
This seems like it will be a rare political discussion on HN that won't be flagged, so I'd like to take the opportunity to copy/paste a comment I made on reddit a while back about how the public option is a bad idea, and see if intelligent discussion follows this time around.

A government run plan will be able to easily attract customers because it gets free advertising, making it more attractive than even private, non-profit insurers. Once the government plan has enough customers, it will be able to demand lower prices while still getting the same quality of care for its customers. If doctors refuse to accept it, they'll be turning down a huge chunk of potential customers. The government's even lower prices will draw more customers, thereby intensifying the effect until we get to the point where the government dominates the insurance industry and can set whatever price it wants.

In a functioning market with several players, prices stabilize at a level that customers are willing to pay for the goods or services in question. Healthcare costs have been rising so much because we've always valued healthcare greatly, and lower costs of food and other necessities leave more money for us to spend on it. As a result, advances in medicine come fairly quickly. If the government uses its power as the dominant insurer to drive down prices, advances in medicine will come more slowly because less money will be available. Most of the arguments I've seen for the public option seem to assume that cost reductions will come solely from eliminating non-medical expenses, like advertising. If you think that's the case, can you explain how that will happen? When the government tells doctors what its willing to pay for certain services, are they going to pay no less than private insurers are paying? That's not what happens today with Medicare, and that's not what a private insurer would do if it became the dominant insurer. This isn't about hating government; it's about how markets don't function properly when few players rule them. A public option will almost guarantee that outcome.

The public option is undoubtedly the best way to lower the cost of healthcare. However, I don't think that should be our goal. Our goal should be to maximize the quality of care for everyone, not minimize the price. We should ensure that everyone can afford healthcare by subsidizing it for those who can't, but trying to create dominant government insurer so we can provide healthcare for everyone isn't necessary. Let's get rid of silly things like preexisting conditions and the antitrust exemption, then pay what it costs to ensure everyone is insured and maintain the progress in healthcare technology that we enjoy today.
I'm pretty happy with my high deductible plan. I'm guessing this bill will put the kibosh on that, though I'm not totally sure. I'll add reading the 1,900 page bill to my todo list.
I would say that they have a customized deal from Google for their ad blocks. The Sponsored link has their name in it and is hosted by Google http://2.afs.googleadservices.com/images/partners/CKTosOXg-p...
I just cannot understand how we can keep looking at medicaid, medicare, and social security projections and think that this will save us money. I find the rhetoric and fiscal foolishness of this bill to be beyond the pale.

Also, how is this the top priority. Perhaps some of the congressmen need to check the unemployment rate and economic numbers.
Mortuary services.

More seriously, I think there are a couple of possible meanings to the '-ary' progression: if more abstract, making use of the lower levels, the quintary must be finance. If the progression is 'less directly crucial to life', then it probably is the whole service sector. Entertainment would be pretty far out there.

A 'mixed feeling' aspect to this is, that free software is greatly helping this along.
I read this comment 3 times, up and down, and I can't find an assertion about security in it that is (a) based in any kind of fact or (b) falsifiable in any way with any facts I can bring to the discussion.

Suffice it to say that I'm not a Microsoft "astro-turfer", and you're just flat out wrong --- and not only wrong, but actually making things up out of whole cloth. "More money promoting their wares than properly securing them". I'm surprised you feel comfortable making claims like that. In any case, I'm sure you'll never be convinced either way, so, enjoy the last word.
If you want to know where your money goes just look at this list...

http://washingtontechnology.com/toplists/top-100-lists/2009....
"I have a problem with the idea that security bugs aren't ordinary bugs, [...] becase they are still bugs and should be detected and corrected".

You just said absolutely nothing about security flaws OR QA. You want to try again? Because I think all you've got here is, "bugs should get fixed". Yeah, you got me there.
Disagreed. No matter how much you automate, there will always be more work to do, even if you don't as a species "climb up the value latter" which of course we will do.

This is due to the fact that once basic meets are met, whether by manual labour or mechanisation, then more sophisticated needs will evolve for the markets to satisfy.

The same fears have been around during industrialization. How about thinking again about some basic principles that are unlikely to change from one technological/civilisatory wave of change to the next?
http://runwayapp.com

I find it's quite helpful to have my to-do list be the first thing that pops up at me when I launch a browser.
I really think they need to look at the input costs to health care and take a serious look at tort reform. For a look at how bad hysteria and court run amok can be look at the history of asbestos cases.
I ask primarily because I'm curious where programming lies. Programming seems inescapably meta. Also, thank you for an excellent answer to a rather vague question.