skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
That only works if you have the IT infrastructure to support it. In the company I was referring to before, the IT team was effectively one guy. Plus, there was a considerable Excel expertise in the team I was in at the time, aside from calculation time Excel was working very well for what was needed.
Cancer cells are by definition immortal.
A detailed build of a working T08A2/R3000 spider tank model (from GITS)
Could you give an example of something that could not be expressed with DataFrames?
Would e.g. tree-structured data be a bad fit for DataFrames, since it doesn't fit well with the tabular nature?
So the question is - do we really want to keep our market economy and see if it will work out if entire population of the planet works as prostitutes?
eh, I'm not sure that works. A random number generator of "return number++" will pass your birthday test.
What did I just read? Is this the entirety of her argument?

> It’s consoling to think that, beneath all these distractions, we’ll discover our shining, authentic selves, or even achieve a state of “mindfulness.” But I doubt it.

How many fluff articles can be summarized as "this trend is on an upswing, but I am skeptical"?

As far as material possessions leading to unhappiness, you can find that value system at the core of nearly every major spiritual doctrine, predating Christianity. There's also a massive body of psyche theory around behavioral economics, and the reasons experiential purchases are more satisfying.

This is an eternally well-tread topic that can't be dismissed by a lazy writer confusing her contrarian doubt with reasoned criticism.
Starting my journey with Volt
> The people who are against it, I'd love to hear ideas on other effective methods. But to say it should be forbidden is a bit short-sighted.

As I mentioned earlier: If this is the biggest problem the raise the bar for asking questions.

Today the site practically begs new users to ask questions as it is one of a few options that are always available for unexperienced users.
I wrote a toy program that takes a source string and uses a genetic algorithm to transform it into a target string. It only took about an hour and was a fun process. I ended up adding in different types of crossover and trying to figure out which would solve it in the fewest generations on average. Fun stuff. Highly recommend it as a quick project for anyone.
While I'll admit that my personal project, subuser.org isn't yet at the stage of 100% sandboxed, this title is excedingly misleading. There are lots of projects that have done this allready: http://www.jann.cc/2014/09/06/sandboxing_proprietary_applica..., https://github.com/Kagami/kagome
I think your premise is correct, if our data all on one page we only need to fetch one page. If we write anything back, only one page needs to be updated. In case of two pages, read/write work doubles.
It's already there! I've connected Codebug[0] to it, I believe even the latest stable has it running by default!

[0] http://codebugapp.com/
After looking more closely at your linked post by Terence Tao, are you by chance basing your statements such as "it does not halt" in what he calls the informal platonic reasoning system (which presumably assumes ZFC as well as its consistency)?

If so, I think I understand what you mean and I agree with you.

My thoughts were a bit confused on these topics so my posts probably contain some reasoning errors, but in the end I think what matters is we agree on the answer to OP's question, i.e.

For any given theory T at least as strong as ZFC (and maybe even some weaker ones) then

- BB as function is well defined in T
- However there is some number n_T after which T can't prove any upper bound for BB(n) for any n > n_T

I think this is a very interesting result because the fact that any axiomatic system will be powerless to describe this function's growth after only a small number of steps expresses pretty well how mind numbingly fast it grows.
Maybe. Depends where one lives. In silicon valley a developer making $70K probably should look for a day job. In some awesome midwest $70K and a working spouse is very good.
Because it's not like fuel. Most people have a fairly inelastic demand for fuel. You kinda have to drive to work. You really don't need apps, and no one needs to make the apps. Running sales can increase consumer demand. Increasing the profit margins for developers could increase supply of quality apps, thereby increasing net revenues for Apple on a smaller cut of the pie. I rather like the current system for it's simplicity and while of course I'd like them to charge less I think their cut is reasonable.
Exactly. And yes, in principle we could keep inventing completely random and absurd jobs just to keep people busy earning for living - but then, what's the point? Nowdays we have to work because resources are scarce. If we reach the point of post-scarcity, forcing people to slave away their lives for food and shelter seems just evil.
I do love the PMQs of British politics. US Congress is not nearly as entertaining, we tend to have hour long monologues with lots of charts and little debate.

US politics does have it's moments though ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPwW8nBVc0g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcsNbQRU5TI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvq2tha6heU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u54H2sV-0Hc
Further complication: many RNGs will produce output as a function of their seed state (e.g., rc4 or chacha20). That output will look really good, even with weak seeds. You'll have a hard time detecting that two chacha20 streams were seeded with gettimeofday() for instance, unless you happen to check the exact time used.
6 Metrics That Matter and Every Marketer Needs to Analyze
An isomorphism between two graphs indicates that bijection exists between two graphs, or that there exists a method to permute one graph's vertices so that they are equal to another one.

What Merlin is saying to Arthur is that no matter what kind of graph K Arthur comes up with, it cannot be congruent to both G and H, or, that there exists no method to create a graph that is both G and H.

Lastly it is zero-knowledge because Arthur learns nothing of the relation between G and H, only that the K he computes is not both of them simultaneously.

Not sure if that helps.
Really small web dev company. Almost 15 years in business. 15 employees. <$2m annual revenue. Something like 90% of the revenues went to wages, and their processes were ridiculously slow. They had 3 actual devs, 3 designers, 2 SEO people and the rest were managers or admin staff. So many manual processes that could clearly be automated.
Just because it happened twice--from ag to factories from factories to service--doesn't mean there will be a huge new need for employment. In the past, human consumption just increased. I'm not so sure there will be a need for all that much more consumption. If the promise of near human level AI occurs, we'd need to have exponential growth in consumption to keep up the pace.

Also, a lot of those jobs disappeared forever in the third world and never came back. Ag jobs were never really replaced with manufacturing job. Only now are some third world countries getting manufacturing jobs. If they are replaced with automated manufacturing those coding, engineering, and management jobs will go to the first world.

So maybe it works out for America and Europe. But someplace like Indonesia and India get permafucked yet again by a new industrial revolution.
Not only you have zero-sum status games, you have plain old zero-sum games, which do nothing but just waste resources. Prime examples: marketing, political campaigns. Every additional effort people put in those two basically goes to cancel-out the effort of everyone else, giving you a system in which you can waste infinite resources for no marginal gain.
I suspect they could do better than random chance in guessing the gender of the sample source.

Their tables show pretty big differences in the categories Actinobacteria (73% more in men) and Verrucomicrobia (88% more in women). Maybe their sample is so small even these very different averages are just attributable to random chance, but it seems they've made a conscious choice not to reveal the size of their database.
LLVM isn't really a VM, it's just a compiler toolkit. And really, the overhead of converting your data structure to LLVM IR is almost certainly trivial compared with the cost of the optimizations it is performing.
It's about as unsurprising as the MythBusters finding that both men and women fart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mNU6MFQP1k
Well, you could try anti-androgens like finasteride or spironolactone. They would lower your libido.
after second reading of the document this sure is the right interpretation. error on my part thinking apple would block you for dialing the number.
D'oh. Missed that we were specifically talking about IEEE floating point. That was very stupid of me.
I bet that most new users became new users to ask questions, including users that are not high rep veterans.

I think that if you do what you propose, the site will just freeze in terms of user base.
The interesting thing is, about 75 thousand years ago is humans were almost wiped out complete when the Toba supereruption happened in Sumatra.
Shared nothing. Simple deployment. "Web" focused. Those are PHP's strengths, and why it continues to do well, despite it's huge amount of quirks.

Modern PHP, with Composer, the PSR standards, and the Framework Interoperability Group's efforts is a very different beast to PHP4 or <=PHP5.3. Sure, one can make an argument that a "better" language would be a nicer target for this sort of amazing talent, but that ignores reality: So many things run on PHP, that it's a good idea to fix PHP's issues. HHVM and Hack are doing sp (in parallel with the communities efforts), and I thank them for it,
> I'm likely to keep working in my job to have this

You are assuming that humans will remain better at developing towards the remaining non-automated desires of humans. That is unlikely. When a robot is able to reconfigure your house to meet predicted desires, you will probably (and most people will certainly) no longer be relevant in any job that you (or they) are capable of performing.

Anyway, that doesn't matter. What matters is that even if you are a super elite engineer that can compete a few years longer than the average joe, that doesn't fix the problem for some % >50 of the population that are already being rapidly obsoleted.
Ever since the start of the 30% take, people who have complained about it always sound like they have no experience on the business side of things. For that 30%, you get a canned marketplace, with all the financials and fiddly bits done for you (as you say). A 70% take as a producer of goods is very high for a manufacturer that doesn't own the distribution channel.

Also FTA: At $70K in net revenues per year, your spouse could be telling you to get a day job.

"Don't you want me to be happy, doing what I love?". I mean, if we're manufacturing convenient numbers to make an argument, let's also look at all the reasons why someone would want to be self-employed as a developer. :)
All the Data Tech Companies Collect Still Can't Rival the Old-School Census
Ah, you're correct, a copy can be made at the call to eq.

I stand by the rest of what I said. It's no more strange for (eq 1 1) to be false than (eql '(1) '(1))
To gain more development support. More developers = more apps = more users = more revenue.

It makes sense.
> Instead, my job will be outsourced to a datacenter. Everything I do professionally, from reading and giving feedback on specs to estimating development schedules to architecting and typing in the code and writing unit tests to reviewing others' code, every one of these things will be subject to automation. We can't do it now, of course, not at any price.

The whole thing derives from these flawed premises. Machines are incredibly dumb. Even these machine-learning wizz-things. They can do statistics, inferences, correlations. That's very very far from enough, especially for something like programming, which we can see as turning a spec into code. First, one still has to write a spec (so the "programming" isn't totally gone). Second, it means you essentially need to have "solved" natural language processing; as well as have assigned semantic values to linguistic constructs. Good luck with that.

At this point, I feel compelled to point out that humans don't agree on the meanings of what they say. Most of the time, humans can't write software that meets a spec. That's because of ambiguity, and machines are way way worse at dealing with that than humans are.

I think the error is simply to think the current rate of progress will keep going (and actually even the idea that there's been an acceleration of progress in AI recently is an illusion -- what we're seeing is increased application). It's the same error the fathers of AI made when they assumed everything would be solved in a matter of years. That's where the expression "AI winter" comes from.
I do sympathize because people shouldn't have to put up with discrimination for any reason, especially at work, but her message gets eroded through poorly chosen arguments.

There's a difference between discrimination and assumption. If I wear scrubs while visiting a friend at a hospital because I like walking around in scrubs, people will assume that I'm medical personnel working there. If you're a woman in a dress at a company where all other women in dresses are recruiters, people will assume you're probably a recruiter, until they find out otherwise. They are not discriminating against you, it's just the prior probability. It's not okay to take this personally and lash out and call them a sausagefest.

An extroverted man wearing more fashion-conscious clothing in an introverted company-shirt crowd will stand out, and might face less sympathetic reviews in interview situations. That's discrimination, and it's not okay, but it happens. Having to look the part or not when it matters is a compromise we all face. This is not a good argument for her case.

And look here:
> And if that wasn’t enough, my achievement was questioned by male colleagues. I’d occasionally hear, “Oh you’re a woman, you’ll get a job at Google or Facebook just fine!” Which was the most discouraging encouragement. If I did get the internship, it was because I was a woman and if I didn’t, I’d just failed to leverage my upper edge.

They said it because there is truth to it -- she won't get the job because she's a woman, but she will have higher chances because she's a woman. In the very least, it will muddle the reasons behind the decision. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're in support of gender diversity awareness in hiring, you've given up the license to complain about it. Saying "Let's hire more women!" when selecting from a decidedly male-dominated pool fully implies that women at large are given higher chances solely for being women. Sad, but true.

At that point I'm starting to doubt the interpretation of other examples like the older guy who called her dresses "fun." Was it a creepy guy making underhanded passes, or mere a fatherly figure lending his support for her unique choices? I personally don't doubt her judgment that it was the former, but it's hard to be convinced given the way the rest of the article reads.
You're rather missing the point; when robots are intelligent enough to replace you, you won't have a job nor will anyone else. All your new wants will handled by robot works, if you can still afford them now that you're out of work. This idea that there's always new work for humans will not hold once we have AI; that's the whole point.
A graph G is isomorphic to H if they are the same up to permuting the vertices. If you have a graph 1 -- 2 -- 3 (a path on 3 vertices, with 2 edges), it's structurally the same as 3 -- 1 -- 2, only the labels of the vertices are different, and that doesn't matter for a graph theorist. So we say the graphs are isomorphic.

I had a hard time understanding what it means when I was in undergraduate school, because it seems so trivial -- why can't I say that the graphs are simply the same, like 1 = 1 or {0} = {0}? You could say they are the same, but the interesting point is that it is not easy to decide whether they are the same if the two graphs G and H are big. Therefore, "graph isomorphism" is a computational problem in its own right.
High fee ??? You should do some research, before Apples App store the split was often 30 % / 70 %. With the store taking the 70 %.
If we dealt rationally and benevolently with it, 100% unemployment would be an age of abundance... almost a post-scarcity society. I do not expect to see it soon, but I think it's possible. If technology continues to advance at the same pace it has for the past 50 years and if we can engineer our way out from under the impending fossil fuel energy crunch, I'd say it's probable within the century.

Even before things get as extreme as effectively "100% unemployment," I could certainly see a massive drop in the need for labor. We may already be seeing the leading edge of this.

It wouldn't mean nobody would do any work, but it would mean that basically everyone would be a trust fund brat and able to work on whatever they want.

Truly intelligent beings would do that.

But so far we aren't known for being that intelligent. We will probably continue with means-justifies-the-end market fundamentalism, maybe with a bit of ham-fisted wealth redistribution done in an unfair and inefficient way thrown in to keep the masses from rioting too much.
As far as facts go, there is no indication that whoever is using -CURRENT in production is doing so out of ignorance. I've only seen hearsay so far and I'm guessing that number is very small and comprises actually knowledgeable people that know the risks.

Additionally, it's stamped everywhere [1], if one cares to look, that CURRENT is unsupported, bleeding edge, buggy, "will not build sometimes", etc. Do we really want to modify a development process that has been in use for over a decade because of a few clueless/extremely-gifted people?

Another possibility is that this person is a FreeBSD jedi, well aware of the risks and payoffs. In that case, this bug is no surprise and she/he is prepared to act on it and regenerate some keys, review commit logs (if a developer), and look for signs of intrusion etc.

I still think this is a "non-news" and poor attempt to use HN to spread fear and trigger useless discussions. The usual drama show.

[1] https://www.google.com.br/search?q=freebsd+current
What about things like "Wow that's a really cool dress! May I ask where you got it?"
> bleeding-edge software without ever having any problems

Did you seriously just suggest that Arch never has any issues? How did you manage to achieve that, because I gave up on Arch due to it breaking at least once a fortnight. The "bleeding edge" is called that for a reason: you're likely to bleed when using it.
The difference is, previous automation replaced human muscle. Today's automation replaces human brain.

Of course, it does it gradually. So you see low-skilled jobs disappearing, and no useful jobs being created in their place. As this process continues, I expect we'll be facing a growing number of people trapped in poverty who have no means and abilities to retrain themselves for jobs with more skill requirements.
If you think about it, Apple is like government. They "tax" you. An independent app developer is basically running a startup as the developer has to cover marketing, production development, customer support, finance reporting, and even human resource management (hey he/she has to sleep and get away from the computer!). Very curious: what kind of benefits do small app developers get from Apple?

The difference is you don't really "elect" how Apple decide what to do, unless you start a mass campaign and challenge Apple's authority. AWS and Google are always cutting their cloud price to attract customer. But as app developer you probably should let Apple know exactly what works and what doesn't work for you. I read all the comments below like how App Store's discovery sucks (+1). I think Apple is obligated to improve how apps are discovered, used, and marketed.
> How does anyone who has a passing familiarity with minimalism have the nerve to write 'how is it pos­si­ble to be “the best” while of­fer­ing less?'

Minimalism is not about offering less. Minimalism is about offering more, and presenting less — "more" here meaning depth of experience, in the broad sense. I think that is what he is suggesting, especially easy to discern in the context of his main thesis (that Medium isn't minimalist, it is homogeneity).
Regarding your edit, you mean like FreeBSD -STABLE?
Patent Troll Takes NHL to Court
Talent may be BS, but difference in memory, learning, and concentration are not. So while everyone can improve some people have easier time and higher ceiling.
When I read "CURRENT" I assumed that was the label for the most current stable release. I would expect NIGHTLY or ALPHA/BETA for something that shouldn't be used for important things.
SimpleLegal (YC S13) is hiring an engineer in SoCal
Need #1: Front end / back end engineer in the Irvine, CA area. Seeking Python, Django, jQuery and all sorts of other tech; you'll help set the future of our technology stack. Come help redesign the landscape for software standards in this space.

SimpleLegal is a SaaS offering used by companies (not law firms) to manage all their legal (IP, trademark, litigation, billing, vendors, documents, etc) initiatives. Used by all types of customers including hyper growth tech companies, publicly traded global corporations, household / brand name retail companies and many more. Every company can benefit from using our software.

Resume info is good, but real examples are better (apps, github, etc).

Apply: http://www.simplelegal.com/careers
Buy low sell high. Research value investing. Although some would argue he is not, Warren Buffet is a self described value investor. It is a method that is no thrills, but has a great track record. The premise is to buy securities, which are undervalued. The trick is learning to "value" a company. Personally I like to mix Peter Lynch's buy what you know with value investing. Once you do a few google searches on value investing, Read Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor; it's a bit dry and seems outdated in some sections, but it is a classic, and he was buffet's teacher. Next Google search for Berkshire hathaways shareholder letters. After this, I would focus on valuation metrics and learning how to value a company. Eventually though, you just have to buy a stock. No book or course can predict if a stock is a good investment, but by employing the techniques I mentioned, you provide yourself with a margin of safety.
Most people are paid to drive trucks, not solve novel problems or understand subtle linguistic constructs.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-the-...
COME MANGEREMO DOMANI?
That is fine that there are firmware updates or whatever, but your smart tv is like 1000x slower than a roku 3 and doesn't have the app depth.

In 2 years it will be several more orders of magnitude worse than whatever new peripheral I have attached to my tvs, and they will have stopped updating the software on your tv because the hardware can't handle their little tv OS.
A minor relaxation of the 30% cut, to 25 or even 20%, won't change the bottom line for developers all that much, but cuts Apple's take by a third. In the article, the grumpy spouse who thinks $70k is not what they married into? That person isn't going to be much happier with $80k.