skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is the second time on this thread you've suggested there might be "another side to the story". When the "other side" would belong to an anonymous abstraction, the suggestion that we dig for it is disingenuous: it comes across not as truth-seeking, but as a mendacious attempt to discredit the account.

The moral of this story wasn't "here is a person who is evil", or even "here is an event that doesn't do a good enough job to keep stuff like this from happening" (is the event even named?).

The moral of the story is "this stuff happens, and this is what it is like for people who experience it".

You may just have to live with the fact that there's no way to interrogate her account without sounding like a creep.
From what I have seen (aside from the monetary argument) is the trade offs are stability vs freedom.
At a larger, more established company you can benefit from the knowledge that they won't be going under any given year. They will also most likely have most of their systems dialed in already, ie: build system, performance reviews, etc. This can be beneficial for a person who is just starting in their career or somebody who doesn't thrive in an uncertain environment.

Start ups tend to have a lot more flux in all things. When there is no established review cycle you are required to advocate for your own merit increases. Additionally you may be required to hack things together, or take on many roles in order get your product to succeed. The trade off is that if you are knowledgable/confident then you won't have existing mistakes from previous generations and you can help forge the path of the company. In a smaller company your voice is much louder (yes this is good and bad).

Finally from a finance perspective, you don't end up on top if your company goes out of business or never IPO's. You're investing in the startup with hopes of seeing a payout.
News flash: all it takes to be an investor is money and time spent hanging around in the right crowds. You don't have to be particularly smart, savvy or even a good person.

It shouldn't shock people that any random scumbag with a few hundred grand in the bank can style themselves as an "angel" and get fawned over by the best and brightest entrepreneurs in the country. This type of dynamic will attract unpleasant types of people who pull these kinds of stunts. As an industry we should be more realistic about fund raising, and perhaps slightly more cynical about the types of people we're trying to pitch ideas to.
Here's where I would start: https://www.google.com/search?q=computational+modeling+cogni...
Sometimes things change only when people start sticking their necks out, but ... that's her business and not mine, and I can understand if this is not the place and time for her to get involved in something like that.
Like unsolicited groping?
One offhand sentence in the article articulates my biggest fear: specifically about scientists getting involved in advocacy. I fear this would create a dynamic where the science is written off because it is too associated with a cause of the left or right. That has already happened with some issues like AGW. My pet theory why the right is so dead set against believing scientific consensus on AGW? Because the first most people heard about AGW was from Al Gore, so the battle lines were drawn at that moment. Now there is an association that the climate scientists are fighting for the left, making them easier to dismiss by partisans on the right.

I know staying out of the political battles is not going to solve all the problems, but when science has an agenda, it becomes much easier to doubt the results.
I can't imagine why you're being downvoted. This is the most important part of the discussion. We cannot abide a society in which the state claims domain over all the air. The FCC already does this in a sense with airwaves.
No open source licenses require that. An early version of the Emacs license did require that (I think TECO Emacs and not GNU Emacs), and there may be other licenses, but both the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition based on them are careful not to require that people contribute modifications they’ve made privately. The reasons for this are discussed in the DFSG FAQ: https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#dissident
Ask HN: Should I self host?
I own a few websites, one of them with about 20-30 concurrent users on average, 40-60 during end of the year's peaks. It runs WP and it's hosted at WP Engine. My problem is that I feel I'm paying a lot for it. Also, I need to have a second host to handle webmail and my other domains. But my second host just updated its plans and wants me to pay twice as much to be able to host simple one-page projects I do from time to time. I feel now's the right time to gather everything in one place.

I can install a LAMP server and have a website running but I'm really not sure if I should do this by myself. My website brings some cash in and I want to maximize its uptime. What kind of emergency situations could arise once it's setup? I've seen the guides at Linode and I'm confident I can follow them. What kind of specs should I go for, too? Or is this a bad idea and I should stay on shared hosting?

Thanks for any advice!
What I always find interesting reading the comments sections in newspapers, is that certain groups of people deny and dismiss the hard science of climate change, yet the same people seem to believe the very poor science of economics as if it is some kind of proper science.
> So yes, anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOs, anti-nuclear, et al. are wrong. Stupidly wrong.

Why is that? Another reason people lost trust is the arrogance of some scientist that seem to ignore the complexity of their subjects and don't see the limits of their research.

Also people like you that believe that everything that has gone trough a scientific study must be true, science can also get it wrong sometimes, don't stop thinking and questioning.
Could someone point the link to http://robots.thoughtbot.com/building-haskell-projects-with-...
You need to not have the wrong cofounders, the rest is up for debate with successes and countless failures either way.
You know, I had always wondered why, despite having 16GB of RAM in my X230 (and having had 16GB in my X301), the newer X240 and X250 models are capped at 8GB. Knowing that it's an Intel marketing thing certainly clears up my confusion.

Unfortunately, this means that people like me who prefer powerful laptops in a smaller form factor are pretty much limited to the retina MBPs now.
You'll understand in ten years. I don't mean to blow you off and be all "wise" and crap, I really, truly mean it.

With that said, I absolutely, completely agree that the humanities majors need more than basic scientific literacy. That's 50% of the problem.

But I challenge you to think deeply about why the other 50% of the problem might lie with how scientists understand the humanities, because I really strongly believe that.
“less precise, and just a little bit more spitty” I initially took that to be in reference to the handle, but the trailer clearly shows blades that appear to be almost made of flame.
The peripheral vasoconstriction is part of a reflex known as the mammalian dive reflex in which your heart actually slows down, rather than work harder, as soon as your face touches cold water. Muscle cramping is a direct result in the decrease in cardiac output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammalian_diving_reflex
I'm not trying to heap additional responsibilities on victims of harassment. I'm just saying that I think there are certain responsibilities everybody has, whether they're victims or not. If one of her co-founders had been writing that email, I would have exactly the same comment.
I had the same issue, someone put it up on youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQNNgvvVgi8
Obama – Domestic Policy
Mostly by talking to friends that work at these places.
In part, maybe, but the issue is a little more subtle. People who go all anti-vaxx or anti-GMO are not just saying that science is wrong. Hell, they often try to twist the science into supporting their point. What those people feel is that government and corporations are trying to hurt them. You don't see heated arguments about whether vaccines interact with this or that metabolic pathway. The issues is whether vaccines will hurt your kids, and whether government is forcing you to do something bad to yourself. It's not about facts - it's about trusting authorities that they're not trying to exploit and harm you.
None of her responsibilities involve sending "the message he needs to receive". His needs are not material to the conversation. It is not her job to fix him.
At best it makes her feel a little bit better

No, at best it might prevent a sexual assault.
As I said above, my displeasure seeing stories like this one centers around the comments. (which to be clear is not a problem with the story).

I agree the moral of this story wasn't "here is a person who is evil". The commenters calling for OP to name the investor don't seem to have grasped this.
> I'll basically never support something that can majorly impact a person's livelihood which lacks due process.

Thank you. If we can manage to learn something from the many Justine Sacco's with ruined lives due to misinterpreted words and actions, it's that due process has value.

Taking the time to process incidents properly is more important than expressing our (appropriate) outrage at the alleged actions. Doing so honors the victim as well, as today's victim is tomorrow's alleged perpetrator.
Nice lifestyle, kind of semi-nomadic. Love that.
Sticking up for the possibility that maybe the guy didn't realize he was touching her breast seems like a worthwhile endeavor to me.
"but surely the mistake is a bug in some automatic algorithm"

Not quite, from the article:
"Some background: Facebook doesn’t police names itself. It relies on reports from other users."
Show HN: Collect – Search collections of your cloud files and favorite webpages
This is my first web app, let alone SaaS built using golang. I would love any feedback, from general such as whether it's a good idea at all to specific such as certain aspects of the service (pricing, features, etc.).

Eventually I want to be able to add any file/data from any cloud service.

You can contact me at contact@qolleqt.com
At the risk of plugging my own work, I did a follow-up to the (really awesome) Watt's experiment using data from reddit and Hacker News:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.07860

The work isn't complete yet (always more to do) but the TL;DR is:

1. Yes, randomness governs a lot of article outcomes. Whether something hits the front page or not is pretty arbitrary.

2. However, conditioned on making the front page, popularity is actually a good reflection of "intrinsic quality". I think the ultimate relationship between popularity and quality is stronger than the MusicLab experiment suggests.
What I remember about Svbtle may well be completely false, but these are the impressions I got from it at the time: it's an exclusive club for bloggers who see themselves as elite, enough so for that perception to get in the way of perceiving the actual content. I didn't even know you could sign up for it as a mere mortal without being invited, so the marketing message was quite strong.

It's not that Medium is great either. Those obnoxious gigantic pictures on top, serving a page that should be pretty simple but somehow manages to suck up a lot of CPU/GPU (enough to make my Macbook switch graphics cards), and annoyingly you can't drag and drop URLs into a Medium page which I do a lot to recycle tabs.

In the end it comes down to perception. Both services showed up too many times on HN initially, often for content that didn't seem very worthwhile. It's par for the course, as far as blogging is concerned though. But only Svbtle managed to actually convey a strong negative bias upon an article before I even open it.
I'm confused then -- why, in terms of correct vs. incorrect outcomes, does skepticism work out so well for those trained in the methods of science, but so poorly for those who are not?
This is a big problem that we are trying to solve.
This document detailing the overall vision of the project is worth a read: https://www.humanbrainproject.eu/documents/10180/17646/Visio...

I'd be very surprised if they come anywhere near reaching their goal of a comprehensive whole-brain simulation, but even if the overall project aim falls short, many of the sub-projects are likely to provide worthwhile outcomes.

For example, structural and functional data generation projects described in there (SP1, SP2 and SP3) sound reasonable and reflect the kinds of topics and techniques that are being researched already. The neuroinformatics (SP5) and medical informatics platforms (SP8), while very ambitious, seem like they could be a tremendously useful resource for linking disparate data sets together into a single, more easily-accessible database.

I can see why many neuroscientists are scoffing at the rather over-hyped grand aim of the project, but that doesn't mean the entire thing should be scrapped. Personally I think that funding comparatively open-ended, long-term, risky research is a good thing. Even if it 'fails', that failure is informative in itself in helping to provide scope for future projects. And it increases the opportunity for serendipitous discoveries.
I think you're better off demanding an explanation since I would expect that companies become more serious about this sort of thing as they grow rather than less serious (as seems to be happening).
First one, was a classical onsite job, which i transitioned into a remote thing. Second big one was offline network, there too it started with onsite for a few months, now quite remote. It helped here being nomadic, as employees were already spread out geographically. I had smaller ones in between that i found online, but they were not fulfilling.
Microsoft buys Equivio, provider of machine learning based compliance solutions
Exactly. I believe in some science. The hard part is knowing which science is reputable, which is just a hidden agenda masquerading as science, and which is just pure ignorance.

I have no formal science training, just read a few books. I keep up to date(ish) with the science sections in reputable magazines and newspapers (Guardian, Economist, etc). And I read web forums like Hacker News and Reddit.

But short of reading everything and developing formal training in everything, how do I decide what's reputable? Whom do I trust? Someone with loads of internet points? Someone who has a well designed personal website? Someone with loads of shelf-space in my local bookshop?

So, for example, with vaccines. I believe in vaccines, I have had my son vaccinated and would recommend to anybody else to do the same. But it's really based on blind faith because I would have no idea where to start if I want to establish the truth myself. I trust my local doctor, and he said we should get vaccines, but that's all I have to go on.
According to research that you smart people need to google up on your own as I'm too lazy to educate you 70% of all the money spent annualy in the usa is spent by women. This much about feminism and inconvenient truths as far as the liberal left goes
Programmatically replace fonts inside the Presentations using Aspose.Slides
As someone interested in this lifestyle, do you receive your work from a network of clients you built up from a more traditional job or do you use online job sites.
Not a neuroscientist (never thought I'd use NANS), and this may well be the boondoggle of a charismatic man who's using it to buy yachts and laugh at the EU.

That said, the one benefit I could see is that it's a billion+ motivation for folks to think about a hard problem. They likely won't accomplish a 100 billion neuron sim, but 100's to 1000's of people will hopefully be thinking about that goal, trying to decompose it, and producing useful sub-advances. Maybe like the HGP or the LHC or space flight, intense money will lead to enabling technologies that accelerate what is possible.

The other problem is that humans are horrible at predicting scientific progress, even in fields they are comfortable / experts in. Edge scientists may actually suffer from this the worst. So much of life has been devoted to becoming an expert in the field that it becomes more challenging to consider large changes. Even while most major breakthroughs are built from analogies to other fields, and more "simple" every day phenomena. Ex: Relativity, one of the weirdest advances ever, came from thought about trains.

Maybe a billion+ could be spent more wisely, but at least they're spending it. These are the same folks who decry our governments whenever they reduce funding and malign the sciences. Stop complaining and find a way to write the grant, or meet the right folks, or whatever's necessary so you can be a part of the money train and get something useful done.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. I have a more expansive view of "duty to society" than you.
Imagine yourself as an douchey groper - maybe you thought that the friendly pitcher was into you? You throw an offer and do a small grab imagining a solid yes followed by night of good sex. Instead, the lady immediately takes distance and then sends you a polite "thanks but we don't want your money for this politically correct reason."

You will not feel like a sexual tyrannosaurus, but realise you just got dumped. She was not into you, and walked away from your awkward sexual advances. She even ditched your money after jumping through hoops to pitch you into doing the offer you did. Of course she dumped you because you were you, not because they suddenly didn't want the money they wanted.
How about simply letting people use whatever name they want?
See, here it is: the point in the conversation where we nerds manage to discredit an account through our perverse attempts at first-principles interrogation. "She didn't even try to correct the guy? Maybe it didn't really happen like that, because I don't have a state machine transition that represents the alternative".

This is toxic nerd logic. Fight that urge.
Science is a process, not a substance. It is the process by which it is possible to believe things. So if you're having trouble believing something, it's probably because you're not doing science.

Everything else is just politics (and probably wrong).
What non-usability? The missile has demonstrated reliability (the warhead perhaps less so, but not at the point you'd want to bet your country on it fizzling). It can hit anywhere on the planet's surface, and there's no credible countermeasure short of burying yourself deep underground. The submarines are very difficult to track and we always have at least one at sea.

I guess the missiles are expensive and single-use whereas a bomber might carry enough bombs to make them affordable for tactical "battlefield" use, but that's a terrible idea strategically; a scenario where two sides were both sufficiently committed to a war to drop hundreds of nuclear warheads and restrained enough to not escalate to attacking each other's cities is immensely implausible.

The SLBMs do the job of providing a UK nuclear deterrent, which if you're talking about having nuclear weapons at all is presumably something you consider valuable. We have full second-strike capability. And we have it cheaper than any other nation with the same. What is it you think we're missing?
Yeah, but it’s not a big deal. I mean, it was only the side. $50,000!! That’s a lot of money!

When did $50K become a "lot" of money? I live in a country which has a 1/10 of the US gdp per capita, and $50K is certainly a nice amount but not really a "lot" of money. Is a 0 or 00 missing here?
Anybody know how to efficiently make smexy graphs like that? Did Adobe have a hand in their creation?
As a male, nothing. I can no more end sexual discrimination at work than I can lower the deductible on the health insurance plan, or increase the match on the 401k. You need leverage to make change happen, and simply being male does not provide any.

The culture will not change without some form of advocacy group, such as a professional association or labor union. What you can do alone, as an individual, is to seek alternative employment in a better working environment. Or you could scuttle your career by filing a lawsuit for hostile working environment against your employer.

Edit: I can't quite tell if this post is being down-voted for being pro-union or anti-whiteknight, so to be clear, I intended it to be pro-union. Noble intentions are always praiseworthy, even if they are ultimately useless due to a lack of coordination with like-minded individuals.
What is it like to be the first non-tech hire of a tech startup
It's nice to block out the odd loud jackass but wouldn't this kill the 'atmosphere' of a place?
That made me very, very uncomfortable. Probably one of the worst things I've ever felt while comfortably sitting in front of my computer, browsing the web.

Well done! :)
I guess you're not being sarcastic. The iPhone was perhaps the only line without a entry-level component: the plethora of iMacs, iPods, and iBooks each had expensive/professional and entry/cheap lines, if not more than two.

And even then, Apple typically left the previous iPhone model around at a discount so price-sensitive consumers could buy a discounted 4S instead of a cutting-edge 5, for example.
Waze: Google’s New Spying Tool
What average house size do you expect for these? Or will it vary by the popularity of the city?
I think my main take-away from the forest plots in that paper (and the discussion of the specific studies) is that the evidence for even the dental benefits is really wretched. Not a single randomized trial, and the heterogeneity is insanely high.

(Can you imagine proposing fluoridation of everyone's drinking water these days based on evidence like that? If fluoride were being proposed to the FDA as a drug, it wouldn't even make it to Phase III trials...)
5 top tips and secrets for Windows 10
Call Code in Your Xbox One and PC Games from Managed Applications with MSTDK RPC
I agree. Perhaps my skepticism didn't quite come through in the words "that is possible".
Saving you a click, the greatest lie according to Huh is:
> "Learning to lead effectively, Huh explained, was just as imperative as building a successful product."
Svtle was invite-only for a while. And it's not just a theme, the main selling point is the workflow and management for the writers.
This reminds me of my first ever job interview. I was enrolled in tech+management program at a decent university and as a part of the curriculum you're required to do an internship over summer. Our career counselor advised us to get informational interviews with people working in organizations we liked. Excited to learn about a particular organization and how they function , My class mate and I decided to schedule some time with a person in the senior management . After a few email exchanges We set a time for 3pm in the afternoon on a weekday. On said day my friend and I were waiting outside his lobby by 5 minutes to three to create a sincere impression. He wasn't in his office. As we waited for him to come , we chatted about how it would go and asked each other about a list of questions we had for him . I was slighty nervous as it was my first ever interview. He walked the corridor towards his office and As soon as the three of us made eye contact I introduced myself and my friend. The first thing immediately after that he said to me was "you reminded me of my ex wife Alicia, the mistake I almost made and how his current wife wouldn't like him telling me this". My mind was like what the hell is going on? Is this normal small talk. I was studying abroad so wasn't sure about the culture and it being my first interview in life didn't help either. I just let his comment slide and brought back the focus to his organization. He did end up offering us internships but i decided to work with someone else. He is since promoted to a more senior position in that organization. I just don't get why grown adult men behave in such ways.