skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem with this is that you have to determine what the goals are and how to evaluate whether they are met in a meaningful way. A computerized process like this will quickly over-fit to its input and be useless for 'actual' intelligence. The only way past this is to gather good information, which requires a real-world presence. It can't be done in simulation.

It's the same reason you can't test in a simulation. Say you wanted to test a lawnmower in a simulation... how hard are the rocks? How deep are the holes? How strong are the blades? How efficient is the battery? If you already know this stuff, then you don't need to test. If you don't know it, then you can't write a meaningful simulation anyway.

So that is not an approach that can be automated.
I am an American of Irish descent who quite enjoys the type of drinking establishment you are currently discussing. I have never once in my life called one an "Irish Pub" though I have used the expressions dive bar, corner bar, or just bar, thousands of times.

Your methodology here is deeply suspect.
> But if the machine that stops when it has proven ZFC is inconsistent does not halt, then surely it means there is no proof of the inconsistency of ZFC?

I'm not sure what this question means. Are you referencing an earlier discussion of a machine that demonstrated a proof of "0=1" using the axioms of ZFC? If so, what is your concern?

When thinking about undecidability/independence from a computational perspective, it's helpful to be cautious about the phrase "does not halt". How would you know a machine "does not halt"? You might run it for a long time and observe that it has not halted yet, but that's not the same.

Instead, you can talk about "a proof in $AXIOM_SYSTEM that this machine does not halt".

So, using that terminology, consider a machine that enumerates all valid proofs of ZFC and checks if their conclusion is "0 = 1". Certainly, if ZFC is inconsistent, this machine will find a proof and halt. However, if there is no such proof, then ZFC is consistent, the machine will not halt, but there will be no proof in ZFC that the machine will not halt.

This ability to enumerate the proofs is related to semidecidability/recursive-enumerability.

When you say "for sufficiently large n, we won't be able to prove that BB(n) = N", I agree. There is some n that is so large that there is a Turing machine of size n that does loop, but the fact that it loops will not be provable in ZFC.
This is definitely the biggest limitation of our approach right now and there are certainly some things that we counted as blunders that aren't true blunders. We're working on rectifying this by doing another pass with a better engine and more time to analyze.

That said we tested this on a smaller set of games by comparing it to results from better engines and found that only a very small number of moves tricked crafty. It's still generally quite reliable for the majority of moves.
The difficult part is getting in without any other Hackathon experience.
Explicit or Rule Based Font Replacement and Improved Presentation Rendering to PDF
the very simple algorithm we used for Streets & Trips to start was "get to an interstate on both ends, then route the middle bit" with a bias towards staying on larger roads longer. as it turns out you don't get optimal results but you do get pretty good results with very little computation.
Wow, this suggests a really interesting hack by first setting up a 'nail salon cleaning service' :-)
Aha. You now have achieved a solid comprehension of the obvious.

Americans call small neighborhood type buildings where people gather to drink alcohol "bars" not "pubs" as a general rule.
I'll read the paper, it sounds interersting. But isn't all Math "circular" -- Goedels Second Incompleteness Theorem yeah?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_the...
Why be a dentist, an optometrist, a physiotherapist, etc when you can just be a GP? Why live in a box?
> and it is assumed BB numbers, given enough time and resources, can be computed

They can't be computed - they can only, at best, be proven to be within some bounds.

But it's unimportant since it's not really required in order to do what you said.
Yeah. Signed by just about everyone, except for Israel, India and Pakistan.

Funny that this is never mentioned, Iran is an NPT signatory, Israel and India are not. Yet...
Goedel's incompleteness theorem uses Peano Arithmetic, which Nelson claims is (possibly) inconsistent. He develops his own "predicative" arithmetic, to which Goedel's theorem does not apply.

(large pdf) https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/books/pa.pdf
My thought (predating your post) is that there are two ways you can stay on the edge of your comfort zone; one of these is by expanding laterally into things you don't already know much about, and one is by expanding vertically into things you do already know about.

The risk of expanding laterally is that you can pretty much surf on a fairly clean wave of documentation, examples, tutorials, SO q&a and github code to solve most of the "problems" you face (and many of these "problems" are shit like "learning an API" or "gotcha config files"). This isn't to say that this is how expanding laterally will work in every case, especially when you're picking up a lot of knew paradigms.

The upside to expanding vertically is that you're eventually going to run into problems or questions that you can't just research your way out of. Not to denigrate all of the other learning we do, but I think these times when we have to go out into the wilderness and test ourselves against problems that, even if only by dearth of documentation, are effectively novel, are when a lot of growth happens.

Of course, it's perfectly possible to work in one domain and never have to really stretch yourself. It's also possible to be perpetually expanding laterally into technology so new that you spend more time testing yourself in the wild than many who go "deep" on more thoroughly-trodded ground.
Thanks for asking! Argentina: 1890. Chile: 1891, plus direct support for the 1973 coup. Sorry about Paraguay and Brazil, US merely engineered and directly advised murderous corrupt dictatorships. Invasions however also include Bolivia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Grenada, Haiti, Mexico, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

Regarding South Vietnam, does "full cooperation" include assassination of their president in 1963?
By 'upgrade everything from human secure' I meant that some targets aren't necessarily appealing to human targets but would be for AI targets. For example, for the vast majority of people, it's not worthwhile to hack medical devices or refrigerators, there's just no money or advantage in it. But for an AI who could be throttled by computational speed or wishes people harm, they would be an appealing target. There just isn't any incentive for those things to be secured at all unless everyone takes this threat seriously.

I don't understand how you arrived at point 3. Are you claiming that somehow memory safety is impossible, even for human level actors? Or that the AI somehow can't reason about memory safety? Or that it's impossible to have self reflection in C? All of these seem like supremely uncharitable interpretations. Help me out here.

Even ignoring that, there's nothing preventing the AI from creating another AI with the same/similar goals and abdicating to its decisions.
Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_C...

E.g.:

> The U.S. provided material support to the military regime after the coup, although criticizing it in public. A document released by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in 2000, titled "CIA Activities in Chile", revealed that the CIA actively supported the military junta after the overthrow of Allende and that it made many of Pinochet's officers into paid contacts of the CIA or U.S. military, even though some were known to be involved in human rights abuses.

Brazil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat...

Nowadays invasions aren't explicit like in colonial times (where every superpower raced to colonize as much as possible), but there is definitely covert "warfare" going on.
>To me, ratings at the top feel more like an exponential scale than a linear one. For example, I have beaten International Masters at chess lots of times but have never once beaten a GM.

If true this is purely psychological. You are unable to beat a GM because he's a GM and you think you're unable to beat GMs.

The strength difference between IMs and GMs simply isn't that great. Because the GM title is based on results and not ratings there are frequently IMs who are higher rated than GMs.
There's no effort, it's a bot.
Here is the most entertaining article I've ever read about large numbers:
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/11/1000000-grahams-number.html
Exponentiation is right associative.
OK, but as the article states you'll have to write a paper to a low-level journal to use it, and I'd have to be really into and good at mathematics to consider doing exactly that to win a name-the-biggest-number competition...
Life is perfectly balanced in this regard, I would say.

Only those without a clear focus on their goal may ask a question 'why am I here?'. If you've ever achieved something in your life that others will admire or build upon - it was not in vain. That's why we are here: being its members, to advance humanity as a whole.

That's also exactly why we should never achieve immortality (so that we have motivation to do something in out limited time) and if we do so, it would be one of the worst events humanity has ever encountered.

Sadly, this day most people look at this world through prism of financial wealth, but trading things (often completely useless things, I might) back and forth can hardly be considered an achievement future generations can benefit from. All in all, in the modern world, realization of one's potential has stepped back to give way to greed and that cannot be called progress in any way.

EDIT: Well isn't that a knee-jerk reaction. People always reject this argument for some reason and always fail to come up with the solid reason for this. Is this what we've come to as a humanity?
>In the US, "austerity" was done by the Congress and forced on President Truman from 1946 - 1948. It worked quite well after the war

The only reason it "worked" was because it was implemented after the New Deal, which had provisions (like social security) that acted as a counter-cyclical automatic stabilizer.

>The modern US has not bothered to reduce its borrowing or spending in a meaningful way.

Naturally. The US economy would crater if it did. There has been a lot of political pressure to chip away at US social security, however, with austerity used as the pretext for why it is "necessary".

Fortunately the AARP is a powerful enough political force in Washington to make this politically impossible. For now.

As in Greece - all arguments about austerity go out of the window when talking about the military's budget, so this is most often used by Congress as a means of giving their constituents' economies a keynesian kick while not offending their corporate backers.
might be easier to use a language like Idris, which can check that functions are total (i.e. return a finite number in finite time).
> For example, how many doppelbock's are made in the U.S.?

Beer Advocate lists 618 Doppelbocks: http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/35/ and, taking a quick look down the list, it appears that at least half of them seem to be made in the US.
Lots of people would mix antifreeze with wine. Adding antifreeze to food is legal in the US at up to 50 g per kilogram. It's legal in Europe at up to 3 g per kilogram [1]. Note that there are different kinds of antifreeze alcohols, and not all of them are legal.

That doesn't always stop manufacturers. There was a big scandal in the '80s with a small Austrian wine maker using the bad kind. This was the basis for The Simpsons episode where Bart went to France as an exchange student and ended up being forced to work at a winery that was putting antifreeze in and making Bart drink it to see if they had put too much in.

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-29847999
"usually include", but not always.
Hostile nations now include Belgium and the UK apparently
Because your evidence that yeahyeah is a shill is circumstantial at best, and sowing doubt by invoking an intangible enemy within whose only observable property is disagreement with some orthodoxy is itself blatant propagandism.

And even a cursory glance throughout this thread would reveal that it isn't exactly brimming over with warm and fuzzy feelings about the US, so I don't know what it is you're worried about. This pervasive shilling you claim is happening here doesn't seem to be working.

You may be right. You may very well be right. But you're not accomplishing anything except signaling to people that if they think too hard about certain points of view, then they're just being stooges. You can argue against it without stooping to the same tactics you're accusing others of.
a) You are making a false equivocation with WWII that I did not make.

b) We don't need political capital to do it.

c) Lacking political capital is not why we don't do it. We don't do it because US leadership and the US people do not think it's a good idea.
Just because the US doesn't invade by name, doesn't mean they aren't involved, often at a fundamental level. Look a Chile; Nixon gave the orders and supplied to weapons and CIA support behind the coup that brought Pinochet into power. 3,000 people were killed and 200,000 were exiled during his reign. The US has always tried to get its way by pulling strings behind the curtain, where public awareness is absent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_re...

Also take a look at East Timor.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB176/

U.S. support was fundamental to a conflict that killed 100-180,000 Timorese. But not many are aware of this.
Read the second link in my original post. The way it worked out, basically, is that the German banks could lend to Greeks at very, very low real rates, but because inflation was higher in Greece / Spain / Portugal than in Germany, the real rate that they got back in Germany was quite good (since they didn't account for the increased risk because they, correctly it seems, guessed that Germany would force a bailout if they got into trouble).
I believe it. In the little midwest town I was living at the time in the mid 90's "Irish Pubs" started appearing seemingly out of nowhere. Somehow St. Patrick celebrations and "Irish Pride Heritage" was also started to get popular.

Even some highschool people who had no Irish heritage decided they wanted to be "Irish". One hung the Irish flag in his room, smoked pipe tobacco, and wore a green kilt to parties.

It was Irish-mania.
Be sure to check out other code written by Douglas and the team at RedJack - for example this sick LMAX Disruptor C implementation: https://github.com/redjack/varon-t
>It wasn't the single cause, but it was a major player.

It wasn't a cause at all, as I pointed out above (with citations to the relevant studies).

The line you keep spinning is the same line used by the banks as they tried to dodge responsibility for the subprime crisis: blaming it on Congress "forcing" them to lend to black people.
it was the watch display case the author talks about later.
I would like to ask anyone reading this to hypothesize with me. What if the US government was broadly and knowingly corrupt? How comfortable would you feel knowing that they had such broad and powerful technical capabilities? How would you fight against such a machine, to uproot the corruption?

I'm in awe of these technical feats, but also cautious about the implications of an all-knowing, all-powerful government presence who can infringe on your basic rights at-will.
These results surprised me. I expected a much wider gap in correct move % between a 1500-player and grandmaster. It'd be interesting to see if the slope of the graph is steeper for minor blunders that reduce the evaluation by less than a pawn. These are the more subtle positional errors - weakening a square, not maximizing piece activity, wrecking your pawn structure, etc. Amateur games are filled with these mistakes, but they are much rarer in GM games, and I'd expect the difference to be more than just a few percentage points. But Crafty's not the right engine for this job. You'd want something with a more sophisticated evaluation function, like Stockfish (several-hundred ELO stronger than Crafty).
nothing you said changes the incentives in front of researchers. Grant money is there in the billions for cancer research, obesity research etc. There is essentially no grant money there for basic longevity research. I say this having spoken with people trying to get funding for basic longevity research.
NAVCAM images of ESA/Rosetta close flyby on February 14
So, keep borrowing and hope it all works out?

"The only reason it "worked" was because it was implemented after the New Deal, which had provisions (like social security) that acted as a counter-cyclical automatic stabilizer."

references?
Yes, completely. You can read the technical report here: https://securelist.com/files/2015/02/Equation_group_question...

The firmware malware is mainly to create hidden, unremovable, persistant space on the drive, and likely hijack the boot process. At that point it passes off to other malware.
Has there ever been a non-theoretical use of microcode in malware? I would expect it to be difficult for a lot of reasons (the maximum microcode size is probably quite limited; the format is extremely proprietary; and there's only so much overhead you can add at the instruction level before you start causing a noticeable slowdown).

Also, microcode updates aren't retained when the system is powered, so you still need to have a persistent backdoor installed at the OS level. Given that, it's not clear what additional benefit a microcode backdoor would provide.
I have been pretty vocal about my dislike of Angular, I will not beat it to death because it has been gone over, again and again by others far more willing to argue those points. Sufficient to say, Magic comes at a price and a lot of people are now paying that price with Angular. I don't see the switch away from it as more churn but as an acknowledgment that it was a wrong direction for web front end technology.

Honestly, I hate to say it, because it is becoming the trendy framework, but my personal opinion is that React is a step back towards the write direction. Events and Web Components lead to decoupled code that can be treated as independent black boxes. Which translates to a scalable and maintainable UI codebase. We have circled around this concept with a few frameworks over the years but none of them have hit critical mass like React/Flux seems to be doing.

Anyways long story short, I know these has been a lot of churn in the front end world, but I see this one as a needed and correcting step to get UI development back on track.
My experience with Elm was that it's very elegant and fun to work with if you are building a purely clientside application, but once you need communication with server the APIs are not very well developed and it becomes a major headache.

Note that none of the examples in this page (or in any Elm tutorial I found) flesh out interaction with a backend.
Skyy Vodka was featured on the Frank-Lin web site back in 2006.[1] "One of our current contract customers is Skyy Vodka. We are very proud to mention that we bottled the first bottle of Skyy for Maurice Kambar and have bottled every single bottle for him since." That was in 2006. Campari later bought out Skyy, and moved production to a Campari facility.

It's all ethanol, water, and flavoring. Deal with it.

Coca-Cola's "Dasani" is tap water that's been run through a deionizing plant and had some minerals added.

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20060318162306/http://www.frank-...
but think of the shareholder value!
BB(6) could be bigger than Graham's number but we don't even know, that's how big it is

the busy beaver function grows so fast that for some number N it's always going to be larger than any number we can describe in normal math notation

so if you define Graham's number as a function of N like g(N) where Graham's number is g(64), busy beaver still grows faster and for some N it will be bigger
How to Survive Winter in Antarctica
Give us a few days :p. We'll have exactly the dataset you need to answer these questions. (And we'll be releasing it publicly.)
Ask HN: What is your start up idea and how can I help?
As someone who would love to help build up my resume, I'm always looking for interesting project ideas to work on (in my spare time). I'm sure other people here also would love a new project to work on.

So for those of you working on your start up or other personal project, how can we help?

Edit: So anyone who wants help, post a comment starting with [Help], if you want to assist others post a comment starting with [Assist].
Well you said "if ZFC, a rather strong axiom system, cannot prove a machine halts, it does not halt.". This particular statement is what I was replying to. I agree that a non-halting Turing machine is not a very well defined concept in the general sense (hence my reply), but I would think the onus is on the one who used it first to define what they meant by it :-)
Create Powerful Checklist and Manage Teams Workflow with Process Street
In India?

Even in first world countries, incomes for poets and musicians are not distributed on a bell curve. There's the very wealthy, and the paupers elsewhere.

And as other posters have pointed out - the goal for education is to be employable. Witness all those pol sci majors who have themselves to blame for not choosing an employable profession.

So the idea that someone can study music is a luxury.

Further this is India. Construction and road workers live under crushing poverty, where the daily calorie deficit alone makes survival difficult. There's a deficit of teachers for children let alone adults.

And America is today starting to ape the educational pressures of India and China, where taking up a non STEM field was a sign of failure.
i think she's wrong that time is the only absurd thing:

i've often wished i could hibernate; there's a ton of victorian art that shows a clear obsession with humans flying like birds; i spent many childhood afternoons trying to hold my breath longer (so i could stay underwater); there's been tons of fiction, philosophy, science and engineering put into talking to animals...

however, most of all, i agree with all the comments above suggesting that the notion of permanence itself is absurd, our insistence on a hard-nosed materialist viewpoint is absurd, our insistence that we're smart enough to understand the universe is absurd (we're little smarter than our dogs and cats, who we're sure can't possibly understand the universe)
My point was mostly that I will not defend secret war/aggression/cybercrime especially in light of recent history. I'm surprised so many people here defend this malware claiming that it's (1) justified and (2) targeted. Since, we have no idea what it's for and it's heavily infected 18 countries. I'd guess they also support targeted torture and rectal hydration too. Just as long as it's not citizens. Except for just the really bad citizens.
>This was the basis for The Simpsons episode where Bart went to France as an exchange student and ended up being forced to work at a winery that was putting antifreeze in and making Bart drink it to see if they had put too much in.

And to go full circle with the topic of discussion (Los Alamos), the exchange student visiting Springfield in this episode was really a spy agent visiting to steal nuclear secrets.
Wow, bringing race into this? really? Nope, not going to discuss anything with someone who substitutes race to win an argument when we are talking about economics. Unable to pay has nothing to do with race. This is a shameful tactic.
The Game of Power: Online community dedicated to discussing power