skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We know how to work with fire
and not burn down everything we care about.

We know how to fly at 0.80 Mach,
safely.

Well, we understand fire and airplanes.

Altman is correct: So far we don't have
even as much as a weak little hollow
hint of a tiny clue about how to
construct what he calls machine intelligence;
I thought so when I was
at IBM's Watson lab
where our team shipped
software products and published
a string of papers on artificial intelligence;
I still think so now;
and some maximum likelihood estimation
heuristics, rules, finding
parameters to do nonlinear
fitting
to data,
etc. don't change my mind.

When we understand how intelligence
works well enough to construct it,
then likely we will also understand
it as well as we do fire and airplanes
and, then, also how to have
machine intelligence safely.

Just don't put the robot factory in
Chernobyl or Fukushima!

So, go ahead and develop this
intelligence machine.
Then I will formulate a Turing test,
but you don't get to work with the
machine after I show you the test!

Secret: Here's the test:

Here's W. Rudin's Principles of
Mathematical Analysis;
hand a paper copy to
some machine learning computer
and have it read the book,
work the exercises,
read Knuth's The TeXBook,
learn Emacs,
use Emacs to type in the TeX
for the solutions to the
Rudin exercises, and post
a link here to a PDF with the solutions.
I will be glad to grade the solutions!
Try browsing for tickets with and without private browsing enabled, and from different geographic IP addresses, from different computers, and different websites (cheapair, Expedia, Orbitz...). You should definitely see a fluctuation in prices, for the same seats. I always do.

It may well be that elite members get lower prices, as this may be the way for the airline to maximise their profit off you. Their algorithms are quite inscrutable, intentionally so.
This is about a team of 4 people, so pair programming is 50% of the team writing all code. I don't think there is a problem with visibility.

Whether this has many lessons for teams 10x the size is another matter of course.
Interview with a Vivek Wadhwa
Boston’s astounding month of snow a 1-in-26,315 year occurrence
This would be great in the Android world. There are dozens of SMS/XMPP chat apps that all take a slightly different approach to chat interfaces. Some have implemented material design makeovers, but there still seems to be slight differences amongst the ones that have. Something like this for Android would go a long way to help the apps that still haven't made the transition.
Read again. I'm not saying that they're Apple's native apps.
If you disable CSS you can read the text. This works on many sites that refuse to load without JS.
Physical adaptations of humans have Increased, not decreased, with the invention of civilization. The last 50,000 years have seen more changes than the previous million.

Why? Perhaps because the pressures of living in villages, towns, cities requires a more sedentary, low-calorie low-aggression citizen. So we grow up but stay more infantile (hairless, small chins, eager to please, social) so we can cohabitate by the millions without killing one another.
Give Bill Gates more credit: his vision certainly went beyond BASIC. They had a directed effort to provide microprocessor versions of all popular (or business significant) languages. For example, they had Fortran and Cobol before they had MSDOS.
> Yes, but intelligence isn't magic either.

What's your point? Nobody said it's magic. The fact that it isn't magic (and that its tremendous complexity far surpasses our current ability to understand it) supports the notion that it won't suddenly spring into existence. If we placed some primordial sludge in a petrie dish overnight, we wouldn't worry that a sentient creature will have materialized. And if we program a computer to optimize numerical functions, there is just as little evidence (perhaps less), to suggest that the computer will somehow gain sentience.
Correlation means correlation, not that something is impossible. In other words, just because, for example, a poor person can afford to go to sauna 4-7 times a week it doesn't mean that there's no correlation between income level and sauna usage.

Another example would be drinking an "expensive" wine at least once a month. I'd claim that a lot of poor people can afford a $25 wine monthly, but there can still be a correlation between income and buying an expensive wine at least once a month.
woo-hooo semweb :D nice resume
This Incredible Animation Was Made by Code That Could Fit on a Floppy
Yeah, it definitely isn't for everyone. I also love getting into the zone too, but also enjoy pairing.

The most rewarding part of pairing for me is probably the learning/teaching dynamic.
You are young and many companies that offer internships are most likely prioritizing acceptance to college students that are fulfilling requirements for degrees.

With that said, don't give up though and keep pressing. I grew up outside of DC and was lucky enough to land an internship while still in high school. You may want to focus on the government sector (I found one working for a contractor at Goddard Space Flight Center doing network cabling. Learned a lot about infrastructure and also got to see some really cool stuff).

You may also want to check out the Washington Post job section. Do a search for volunteer or non-profit. Although many offer non-paying or low-paying positions, there are some good ones in there. A lot of non-profits look for people to help with their websites, intranets, or other IT related projects. The bigger non-profits sometimes have budgets that you can get a stipend from, but it is the experience you really want.

Good luck, you have plenty of years ahead of you so don't get overly bummed out if you can't find something for this summer. Just keep doing what you are doing.
64k? ReallY?
Companies can fail because of bad idea, but also finance/capitalization, personal issues, bad execution...

Want a huge fight? Assign the dreaded smart watch to one of those reasons for past failure and likely near future. Or "the smart house". Or "voice control" or alternative UIs in general.

If you can convince a couple people the only reason the cuecat failed was their capitalization structure, then the world is doomed to a flood of plastic cat barcode readers and barcodes all over legacy media. Not all the different from QR codes (aren't they officially dead now?)
That could happen even if you did patent it.

Say you invent a new kind of power amplifier. You spend 3 years securing a patent and bringing the product to market. You discover that some Korean company copied the reference implementation found in your patent application. You also discover that the Chinese manufacturer you licensed to produce your product has been running ghost shifts to make low-quality knockoffs. Bunnie dips the chips in fuming nitric acid and posts the photos to the web. You sue to enforce your patent and discover that the best you can do is to prevent x% of the knockoffs from entering the US as discrete parts in containerized shipping through the largest ports. Your amp design somehow shows up in dozens of low-end consumer products anyway. You silently rage into your ramen noodles, and your lawyer stops answering your phone calls the same day.

You focus on support services, quality assurance, and brand identity. You seize the center of the market by determining what the product is. Notice how well ARM does without a chip fab. Why do companies pay for ARM licenses (oops, licences--they're a UK company), when they could make OpenCores chips? Because the other chips are not ARM chips. They might not use the ARM instruction set. They aren't the same as what's in your iPad. When people lack the ability to fully comprehend what it is they are buying, they invariably rely at least partially upon brand reputation. Defending your trademark is far more important in this context than defending a patent.
Bright (YC W15) Aims to Bring Solar Power to Mexico
Sweet.

Any speed improvements to the ArrayBuffers? http://geekregator.com/2015-01-19-node_js_and_io_js_very_dif... For us with Clara.io, TypedBuffers are pretty important.
It's kind of unfortunate that the spectre of "AI doom" has blown up in the popular press the way it has, in that it's forced a lot of top people to push back against caricatured, sensationalist arguments in a way that distracts from the more serious conversations that ought to be happening.

Most of these people you cited actually have more nuanced views on the future of AI, e.g., LeCun and Bengio are (along with many others) signatories to the "Research priorities for robust and beneficial artificial intelligence" document (http://futureoflife.org/misc/open_letter, http://futureoflife.org/static/data/documents/research_prior...), which encourages research into AI's social and economic effects as well as research into technical questions of designing provably valid, secure, and controllable AI systems. Unfortunately when the conversation becomes "Stephen Hawking says we shut down AI research now before it dooms humanity", it becomes harder to express the belief that there are potential consequences of increasing machine intelligence that are worth understanding and planning for, even if we are not currently anywhere close to building superhuman general intelligences.

For what it's worth, expert opinion is not unified on AI risk in the way that it is on, say, climate change. First of all, most AI researchers don't spend their days thinking about long-term risks, so their main reaction is "the stuff I'm working on right now is such a toy that it has no chance of ever becoming a threat to humanity", which is probably true, but doesn't really make them an expert on the topic. Of the researchers who actually do think about this stuff, Stuart Russell is at least one example of someone who believes that there are serious questions to be asked (http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~russell/research/future/, http://edge.org/conversation/the-myth-of-ai#26015):

"None of this proves that AI, or gray goo, or strangelets, will be the end of the world. But there is no need for a proof, just a convincing argument pointing to a more-than-infinitesimal possibility. ... No one in the field is calling for regulation of basic research; given the potential benefits of AI for humanity, that seems both infeasible and misdirected. The right response seems to be to change the goals of the field itself; instead of pure intelligence, we need to build intelligence that is provably aligned with human values."

Hopefully once the popular fearmongering dies down a bit, the field can move towards more of a sane, thoughtful conversation regarding what if anything we should be doing to prepare for the potential arrival of very intelligent (specialized or general) machines in our lives.
The official Twitter plugin for WordPress is here
Tessel Powered Plant Watering System by Max Ogden
Sam, please don't make up a new acronym.

Seconded. I see people using it here in replies and it's a new unnecessary acronym burden. Plus, if anything, it should be NBI (non-biological intelligence). At least that can be fun to say. "Why can't you go outside today?" "Sorry, my super-nibby said I haven't been working enough."

We have words, words mean things, use words to mean things. Half the business emails I get have new TLAs nobody has ever seen before (how about that MQ for DL DW and DMSA) and it needs to stop, don't we all agree?
Did they say anywhere who's network they were using for their MVNO buildout? I didn't see that on the Kickstarter page.
Yeah, I'm not talking about morality at all here. Our technological prowess, resulting from the application of our intelligence, has enabled us to wipe out entire species.
[I'm at RealScout.] Our pairs rotate, and they work across different stories in the same epic. So more than two people (on our four person team) see the code that's being committed.
The meal advertised comes from Skillet, which has three locations and a food truck in Seattle: http://skilletstreetfood.com
Will this allow deployment to a rooted phone?

If it does, then it will be possible for a third party to read the stored data.
For me, if I was put in a 100% pairing environment, I'd resign instantly. 10% maybe. 20% of the time at a stretch. Any more, and I'd be out the door and never look back. I don't get how people can stand it other than (very) short stretches.

The times I've paired up have without fail been the most frustrating, maddening experiences of my career. I hate having someone looking over my shoulder, and I hate the pace being set by having to take someone else into consideration, and I hate having my schedule constrained by someone else.

Pretty much nothing could make putting up with that worth it for me.
You're mixing up two issues here.

Say someone holds a gun to your head and forces you to sell your house for $500,000. Your neighbor's almost identical house sold for $490,000 just a few weeks ago.

Do you agree that both points can be true at the same time:

1) It's wrong to hold a gun to someone's head to force them to sell a house.

2) $500,000 is a reasonable price for the house.

Now, realize that the two issues are independent. You've got a gun to your head, no matter what price you get for the house, and the price for the house is reasonable or not whether or not you've got a gun to your head.

Now, so long as you support government subsidization of R&D, you're stuck with (1). Your dollars are paying for something and you have no choice or control. But your argument isn't that the government shouldn't support R&D with public money, so your beef must really be (2)--you think the government is getting a bad deal for the money. Whether the deal is good or bad can be evaluated standing alone.

Objectively, you're right--the public should get some sort of discount. But it's also true that it's unreasonable to demand that the technology be released freely. Just because you invest the money to develop something does not mean the developer should get zero upside on the arrangement. That's not how it works in any other context.

This isn't a theoretical nit-pick. Practically, the government is just another investor. If you constrain the government to only offering unreasonably bad deals, then you'll only attract bad prospects that have no other options.
So this is basically a business plan contest, like b-schools run, right? No equity stake, a relatively small prize, and no expenses/stipends for participants during the program itself.

The advisors in the announcement are all either employed at Kaspersky or the investment fund sponsoring the contest.
Could you please detail your experience with FH: what you use it for and whether your are satisfied (other than the latency issue)?
An Interview with Jay Henderson: Product Prototyping on Tessel
miniMAL: Clojure inspired Lisp implemented in 1024 bytes of JS
Yeah, I'm not buying it. I have two complains about this article in particular and this kind of "science" in general.

1. Their conclusion is unverifiable. Science is about hypothesis, experiment, and falsification in a reproducible context. When someone says, "I can look at these tree rings and tell you whether rats or marmots spread the plague," I say, "Cool! Show me the results." And when they say, "What do you mean results? I just mean that we infer from the rings to the marmots," then I say, "Okay, well I just infer from planetary alignments to mood swings." Speculation is part of science. Speculation is not science.

2. An extremely strong inference is, by definition, acceptable without further evidence. You don't have to show me an experimental result if you can show me a strong logical case, with very strong causal or inferential links from one piece of evidence to the next. Although you can't reproduce for me a precise result showing that the Grand Canyon was the result of many, many millennia of erosion, you can show me over observable spans of time the general erosion rates in soil of that type with rainfall of that type and I'll accept your inference that many millennia were involved in the Grand Canyon. But tree rings in Asia to disease vectors in Europe? Give me a break.
I think what is really interesting in your story is that you directly had a lot of the knowledge and tools to fix the part that you felt was severely lacking in Microsoft's product. Was that the only reason you felt MS was doomed? I would definitely recommend to anyone who feels they can be the missing piece to be that missing piece.
The first link you referenced contains a chromium dev stating the flexbox spec was stable as of summer 2012. This is an example of a secretive Apple not being transparent about why they lag behind the rest of the industry. This behavior helps no one.
Honestly, keep applying.

Being rejected 2/3 of the time for a first step is actually quite good! I have one friend who was turned down 42 times in a row and still landed a sweet job. He even uses that as part of his story for Meetup presentations about never giving up.

Keep applying!
Who needs branches? 10 mobile-only banks doing it all from the app
thanks for the advice! the internship program at Goddard is the one I'm waiting to hear back about. one of the ones that turned me down was the SEAP program . the fact that I was turned down for that is what worries me since it makes me question my qualifications since other high schoolers got in.
Ah, here's a nutshell description of
the AI threat --
the classic Faustian bargain
as in Goethe's Faust!

Not nearly new!
Minor point: conservatives and liberals love their guns. What they say publicly doesn't change the fact that the gun manufacturers hold huge political power in the form of the NRA over both parties, and that's not likely to change. If this was not so, we'd have an Australia-style buyout a long time ago. As is, we are stuck with monthly (or is it weekly now?) mass shootings, staggering numbers of handgun murders, and a crazy amount of police brutality simply because access to guns is easy and protected by the NRA.

To bring it back to crypto: there is a correlation between easy to obtain $TECH and use of $TECH. Currently, HTTPS is not as easy as HTTP, so its adoption is less. Let's Encrypt will change that. Currently, access to guns is easy, so their adoption and use is high. With the current political climate that will never change.
They're protesting for "fair wages and better working conditions" says the event's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/National-Adjunct-Walkout-Day/...
How Coffee Meets Bagel Makes Money
Office 365 Encryption Secures Your Business
Prop 13 causes all sorts of issues. Many people want to move (kids moved out, changed jobs, etc.) but they can't because they would not be able to afford the huge jump in property taxes.

It's just another thing that creates artificial scarcity.

Note this also affects commercial real estate!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978...
This. There are so many things that having a pair will just serve to inhibit (exploratory development/research, etc), and some things that just don't need it (simple tasks, automation projects, etc.)

I love pair programming when working on something tricky, especially if I'm working with someone who knows a lot about the domain, but I really think that 100% is overkill - the parent commenter mentioned burnout, and I think that's right on the mark. Reserve pair programming for a specific project or task, especially one that's especially tricky, mission critical (security, reliability), or difficult in some way. Let developers work solo on everything else.

Maybe having a formal "ask-for-a-pair" policy would be a good compromise. If everyone is expected to participate regularly in pair programming when someone else wants backup, you can reap many of the benefits of paired work without driving your devs crazy :)
So you believe a person living on 29k a year is in a 200k house?
Interesting ...
How much of the total government budget did your taxes contribute to? And how much of that budget was assigned to fund research? How many people share your sentiment that your tax money should benefit corporations (domestic and foreign) that don't pay their fare share of taxes? And how many of these even would have agreed to fund this research due to their political biases (think anti-vaxxers and vaccine research)? Would all your collective tax contributions give you a say in this matter?

I don't think this issue is nearly as easy as "publicly funded research should be free".

Additionally, is it better (along any number of metrics) to make it free and let existing companies use it, or patent it and give a startup a better chance of commercializing it? (If there are any studies on this question I'd love to read them.)

>But personally, I'd rather the research be free and have it benefit society.

"Benefit society" sounds nice in theory, but it glosses over an important and long-standing economic problem, that of free-riders. Which is exactly what grandparent comment refers to.
why upgrade something that works? calm down.
Yup, that is what I've also been doing.
It's definitely not common in the UK; the only time I have seen it over the past few years is the CVs of continentals applying for jobs (particularly in London, since there are many more Europeans settled there, and usually Germans).

Marital status and driving license status is common; NI number not so much (but it's not as valuable as a SSN). Citizenship is definitely important; employers are on the hook to ensure the right to work.
Because the question worded that way is more specific. I asked myself the same question you ask and my answer was that the question "what is the company's vision?" or anything that has the words "vision" or "mission" immediately gets eyes rolling.
Show HN: Slenke – virtual workspace to manage your company from anywhere
Cold warriors said the NSA spying on domestic targets was the worst possible scenario? Not, say, global thermonuclear annihilation?
Good points in there. It might be that our personalities on our small team lend well to pairing and it might not scale out as we grow the team.

I would say though that it feels like we have even better visibility into new discoveries/successes/failures.

Every morning, we have a standard standup and afterwards we talk about anything anyone jotted down on the whiteboard from the previous day.

Today, it was huddling around some code for 10 minutes that refactored the way we setup some of our specs.
HP in talks to buy Aruba Networks
> […] if they offered free SSL certificates. In fact I think they should go ahead and disrupt the SSL industry by doing that too. Nobody should have to pay for a silly cryptographic signature.

Mozilla is doing this very soon: see https://letsencrypt.org/
Web developer from Layer here, glad you enjoyed it! It was the perfect fit and typer made it simple to implement. Thank you to the LayerVault team!
> It is impossible to ship e.g. Chromium on iOS right now. We just collectively buy the arguments put forward by Apple

No. Some people buy androids too. Quite a few, last time I checked.

Developers limiting themselves to support apple's modern msie are not allowing the market forces to drive healthy competition.

What? When androids browsers were lagging, locking them out from websites en masse was OK. By the same standards we should be locking out apple laggards this time around? Or are we going to be hypocrites about it?
Maybe you could literally explain why?