skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The problem is this: You need a solid background in statistics and some mathematics to perform these tests properly. Most apparently, people from that field lack these skills. If someone can't hit a nail on the head with a hammer, blaming and banning the use of hammers won't solve a thing.
I kind of which that the widely read publications, like newspapers, that have turned out science articles based on all these now pretty much discredited research articles would issue retractions or at least clarification for each of the articles that has been challenged in this regard.
Free, plain English agreements for and between game developers
That's why I said not now anyway. In the past, sure, it drove innovation to a great degree. But at this point we've wrung out the biggest gains. Almost anything NASA develops nowadays has little benefit to the public at large. It's entertainment mostly.
My team recently added a microservice to support our fairly monolythic backend service. The big challenge we found was that it takes a lot of effort to make a new (micro)service. We need to create a system of alarms (instead of relying on existing catch all defaults). We need its own test environment, we need to find ways to send traffic to pre-prod. We needed to figure out how to bootstrap the new service into the companies infrastructure. We needed to think about how the dependent service would authenticate against the new service. All of that on top of the core feature work.

All these things are good. You want isolated, focused test environments. You want tightly defined alarms. However we underestimated how long creating a new service would take. In the end we ended up pushing features out when they were ready but before the operational work was complete. Unsurprisingly we saw the issues we knew we wanted to protect against.

Better microservice franeworks that match the companies infrastructure would be helpful. Make building microservices cheap by building tools to speed up the process.
Actually, CoreOS is using the version of godep that rewrites import paths, so that most developers can use "go get". The only time you need to use godep is when you're updating one of the vendored dependencies. That's actually the awesome thing about godep - it keeps your repo go-getable.

> the simplicity it presents to regular contributors and users used to go get make it worth the additional effort
The theory you link to would likely not have any bearing on the issue of the existence of this supermassive black hole at such a time. Based on my understanding of it, that new theory predicts that the Universe has always existed, by doing away with the singularity prior to inflation ([0] for some information on inflation). But it does not really affect our understanding of what happens post-inflation. The post-inflation period is when quantum fluctuations are amplified by gravity, resulting in the formation of structure[1].

To be a bit more specific, the relevant time interval for this Nature paper is between when dark matter halos began collapsing and when this quasar turned on, not the interval between the start of the Universe until the quasar turned on. However, in the currently-favored cosmology, the "start" of the Universe is followed very rapidly by the onset of structure formation, so the two are effectively the same point in time (at least, for the purposes of supermassive black hole formation and growth). As it relates to this Nature paper, the theory you reference merely separates the "start" of the Universe from the onset of structure formation, so it doesn't affect the relevant time interval for this particular question.

> I always new that there was a relationship between black holes and quasars (In/Out) but was unaware that there was an established relationship between specific events. Does anyone have links to this ?

It isn't so much a link between specific times as a limit on how quickly you can grow a black hole. The formation of supermassive black holes is fairly uncertain[2], but models generally predict that you start with a black hole that is 1–100 times the mass of the Sun and then grow it by accreting gas. There's a limit to how quickly you can accrete gas[3], so there's a limit to how quickly you can grow the black hole. If you put those two things together, there isn't enough time elapsed between the onset of structure formation and this newly discovered quasar was active, with such a high mass black hole.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole#Format...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_luminosity

Edit: modified wording for clarity.
Feedback on our proto
http://www.tm.org/

So the foundation that was eventually created after Maharishi moved on is actually based in Iowa. But they have TM Centers in most places. You can find your local contact through the website and make an appointment.

It's not a big deal, you go, you pay once, you get a mantra and then you're on your own depending on whether you feel it's beneficial or not.

As an East Coast skeptic I was surprised by how legit the results were.
> There are some pretty cool and useful things you can do with an Android app that you just can't do on iOS, period.

Such as?
All the articles are based on leaked drafts and interpretations by local lawmakers who are not allowed to take notes, e.g. TTIP (similar to TPP) lawmakers in the EU are allowed to read the drafts but not to leave with copies. The leaks have been consistently reported by multiple countries who are at the negotiating table.

If the concern is overblown, why has the US offered to delay enforcement of non-commercial criminalization laws until current governments are out of office? Are existing US laws not sufficient to prosecute commercial violations?

Under TPP, trends and views in U.S. courts may be less important than an ISDS arbitration panel which would rule on any multi-country conflict between a country and a corporate investor. Under current law, a country can tell a corporation e.g. that "guesses don't make valid patents", e.g. http://t.thestar.com/#/article/business/2015/02/11/canadian-... .

There are already $30B of corporate ISDS claims against EU nations, http://www.computerworlduk.com/blogs/open-enterprise/ttip-up... , and that is before the expansion of scope that will come with TPP and TTIP, which will reportedly require that countries (including the US) submit to non-public arbitration.
Can Technogy Identify China's Top Graduates?
To put this result in context, an important open question in astronomy is how supermassive black holes are formed. There are currently two viable formation mechanisms:

1. The bottom-up model: After the first generation of star formation, the most massive stars formed black holes with masses somewhere between 10-100 solar masses. These then began accreting material and merging with each other and gradually grew into the supermassive black holes we see today.

2. The direct collapse model: As galaxies were forming, there was generally a concentration of gas at the bottom of each galaxy's potential well. If this cloud were dense enough, under the right conditions it could collapse directly into a ~10^4-10^6 solar mass black hole without fragmenting into individual stars.

The bottom-up model has historically been considered more plausible because the physics involved is better understood. However, discoveries of very massive black holes very early in the lifetime of the universe are starting to pose very serious challenges for this model. The reason is that black holes cannot grow arbitrarily rapidly. The rate at which a black hole can accrete matter is limited by the "Eddington accretion rate" or the "Eddington limit." Above the Eddington limit the gas gets so hot as it accretes onto the black hole that radiation from the infalling gas blows away the rest of the gas. (There are many details in this process which I have glossed over, but suffice to say it's generally difficult to get an accretion rate that is much more than this limit.)

If you start out with a black hole with a mass of ~100 solar masses and you feed it constantly at the Eddington limit, you can just barely grow black holes large enough to power the quasars we see in the early universe. But as more distant and more massive black holes are discovered, it gets harder and harder to grow a stellar mass black hole into a supermassive black hole in the age that the universe has existed at that time, and you have to invoke mechanisms like super-Eddington accretion and black hole mergers to grow a large enough black hole. This may be possible for individual black holes, but the more fine-tuned the model becomes, the less likely it is to be the primary channel by which supermassive black holes form. These sorts of discoveries are therefore providing evidence that the simple bottom-up picture may not be correct and either super-Eddington accretion, mergers, or direct collapse is necessary to form these black holes.
I lived for a while overseas for a while in a "micro" smaller than these. Bed, closet, small desk, almost room for a chair if it was a folding chair and I kept it folded up most of the time. Restrooms and kitchens were all common areas. I think the entire room was under 60 sq ft (under 5.5 m^2. I know some people put a bunk bed in their rooms and split the rent -- it worked better when the roomates worked different shifts.

When people talk about what you "need" as living space, it can't get too much smaller than this, but it's not a great existence.

I was working long days so I didn't really have time for much more, but it wasn't what I'd call a "great" living experience even then. You had to really be ultra-disciplined about editing stuff into the trash and keeping organized. Even if you were absolutely exhausted, you still had to go through certain "rituals" to keep the place livable on an item-by-item issue. I found it pretty stressful.

I had a chance to buy some great stuff at incredible discounts, but I didn't even have space to stash it before shipping it back to the U.S. so I lost out on all those opportunities. Not having space for a computer or TV meant I started losing track of current events and down-time was spent away from my place, only to come there to crash/sleep or change clothes. It wasn't really a place you could come back to and relax or unwind.

I remember it being really hard to clean because there simply wasn't anywhere to move things out of the way to clean under and around...where things were was where they were going to be. I didn't have place to even store an extra set of bedding, so I had to plan around taking my stuff to the laundry and making sure it got back to me and on the bed by night. Small things like that add up.

I'd say it was a little bit like a dorm room experience, but smaller.

If somebody really enjoyed the life they lived in their college dorm or in a prison cell (that you could leave when you wanted), I can guess this would appeal to them. Personally it got old pretty quick and I'd rather not live like that again.

These are positively spacious by comparison.

I have a friend in Seoul who lives in a place not much bigger than the 313sq ft one shown in the article. I've spent weeks there sleeping on the floor. It's much more reasonable by comparison. There's some oddities in the cramped bathroom, shared fixtures and the like, and the kitchen it a little cramped, but it's not a bad existence for a single person.
To "stop" a behavior or other action, one would still need to be partaking in said action.

See, I can use a word or phrase in an internet comment as an excuse to be miserably pedantic too.
It was Idea Sunday: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=Idea%20Sunday&sort=byPopularit...

It was killed, with good reason.
Pretty interesting, this research showcases the power of what can be done with just the metadata.
on saturated markets:

many of the companies you've never heard of made their money building an easier to use X in a saturated market.

If the dominant company in the industry has not made significant changes to their product in 10 years, then that's an obvious opportunity for a startup, even if the market is completely saturated.

at least in B2B i've found that many companies solve a problem for their customer demographic in year X, grow pretty big, and rake in the cash. They stay stagnant for X+5 to 10 years and they leave their customers frustrated without any real options.

-----

Another fallacy I hear from people thinking of ideas has to do with "solved problems"

A "solved problem" is just a problem with 1 solution. People are different, customers are different. Is there another way to solve the problem that obsoletes the previous solution?

ex: transportation; solved by "horse and buggy", and then obsoleted by cars and public transportation.
There's some serious sharp shooter fallacy going in this article.

The bottom line is that most of the startups based on a lame idea are, indeed, lame. It's all too easy to focus on the ones that succeeded.
Thought this was a great article and found the Pixar storytelling framework particularly interesting. Thank you very much for taking the time to put this to paper. I'll definitely check out RethinkDB!
Facebook's HTTPs is breaking lately for me
It will load an insecure image from places like speed.pointroll.com is this a man in the middle attack on my network?
Isn't this a case of execution that matters? This could have been made into its own mobile app. It could have tried to create a "connection" service where they tried to put you in contact with the individual task runners. Instead it was created using text messages, significantly lowers the barrier of entry for the app and by simplifying to texts it makes it easier to use.
(Arguably) the most direct way to evaluate a software developer's skill is to read code he or she has written. Since most programmers can't share code they've written for their employers, open source code is the quickest and easiest way to get a sense of someone's abilities without administering a coding test (which many engineers consider insulting or a waste of their time).
$2000 to $3000 a month is supposed to be... affordable? Jesus, New York is even more expensive than I thought.
> The community asks that you acquire some experience, work with what is there, make sure that you understand it, then suggest improvements.

And then it proceeds to ignore these improvements anyway because it has a dogmatic view on certain features and the credentials of the person suggesting the improvements are absolutely irrelevant.
I think it is a fallacy that startups create jobs.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/531726/technol....
"According to Chris Benner, a regional economist at the University of California, Davis, there has been no net increase in jobs in Silicon Valley since 1998; digital technologies inevitably mean you can generate billions of dollars from a low employment base."
He could very well write a custom GPL that is compatible with regular GPL, thus allowing any project to include his project to be GPL or his custom GPL, not only his GPL variant.
Are you not replying to my main point (most merchants are honest therefore chargebacks are rarely needed) because you agree with it?

> That may be a problem with the current implementation, but it doesn't have to be

I agree. But I highlighted this to show you that credit cards have kinks, as currently implemented, yet are reasonably successful/useful. Therefore for the same reason Bitcoin doesn't have to be perfect to be reasonably successful/useful.

> The only reason this isn't a problem for Bitcoin is that you can't set up bill payments in Bitcoin at all.

Yes it is possible. Some hosted wallets let you set up recurring payments. This is awesome because unlike credit cards, you don't have to give the merchant authorization to debit your money, but you give this authorization only to the wallet hoster. This gives the merchant zero chances to screw you up (eg. continuing to debit your card when you want it to stop, or setting up a recurring payment disclosed in the fine print when you think you are authorizing a one-time payment.)

> It works for a restaurant but that's a very special case

This scenario covers literally ALL in-person transactions. Hardly a "very special case".

> But the kind of person who gets their credit card PIN stolen (which is what we were comparing to) isn't going to have a well-protected private key.

No we were comparing typical users. A security conscious credit card user can STILL get his number stolen and money stolen (eg. a merchant gets hacked). Whereas a security conscious Bitcoin user using a hardware wallet is virtually impervious to being attacked (only highly sophisticated hacks like stealing the hardware wallet and decaping the secure chip to steal the private keys without knowing the PIN).

Some users are so bad with security and detecting scams that they will always get their money stolen (regardless if they use credit cards or bitcoins).
>> I am wondering that what kind of real life problems could be modelled this way.

Driving a car? Making a taco? Working the checkout counter?
I made a typo: the linked paper in the parent comment to mine is about an object at redshift z=5.18, not z=2.5.
If you didnt get a PhD at an elite university, good luck finding an academic job
I guess that's why they're doing a demo: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9099467
Further (a roadmap for pfSense)
Tom Wheeler tweaks net neutrality plan after Google push
Ember Actions by Example
Depends on how specific you let the problem be.

Horses (and the first cars) didn't solve the problem to travel 100km in under 1h. Which can be seen as a new problem itself.
In my past experience with hiring the first few engineers at tiny startups, I viewed Github profiles valuable for the same reason Facebook, Stripe, et al didn't need product managers for their first [x] years: full-stack developers with product minds are tremendously valuable for startups. An active Github profile is a great way to flush that trait out.
Selection bias and post hoc rationalization. You can always frame success in any way you want- it'll sound good, because if the company's successful then your argument proves itself. How many successful companies don't fit the mold that was just described? I can think of many examples that had fairly straightforward road to success: Facebook, Dropbox, Stripe, usw.

The real measure of a theory is how successful it is at predicting whatever it predicts. So out of all of the companies that you predicted could become the next "Microsoft of X", how many did? If your method doesn't perform better than randomized selection, then it's worthless. I suspect that's the case here.

Of course, the law of large numbers combined with the high returns offered by tech companies means that even if investors aren't performing better than a randomized process, they feel like their theories about what makes a successful companies/entrepreneur are valid.

Here's an experiment that will never happen, but that I'd love to see YC perform: for a given batch, select who makes it to the batch randomly from the pool of preselected applicants (you want preselected applicants and not all applicants because it's fairly likely that the 90% of people who are applying with their "Facebook for cats" idea that they came up with after beers 2 hours before the submission deadline won't make it. Or will they?). Then, look how that batch performs. It wouldn't be surprising if the batch performed no worse or no better.
I lived in an apartment in Manhattan that was somewhere around 180-200sqft (it was originally larger, but the owner of the apartment decided to make a very large closet between the kitchen and 'living room', for whatever reason). It was surprisingly pleasant, when I was single. I had a queen-sized bed, a desk, and lots of shelves.

Once my then-girlfriend moved in with me, things got a bit more stressful. Not because we needed more space to live in -- we were surprisingly comfortable -- but because we weren't using the city as our living room anymore. When you're going out nearly every night, you don't tend to care about the size of your living quarters, but when you're spending your whole day there, it gets a bit tight.

I can't imagine going back to that now, but it was the perfect place from which to experience New York.
Inside the Forbidden Temple
"And they happened to be all women. To me, that’s diversity at its finest."

Nice conference and all, but a rather puzzling take on the concept of "diversity".
My own very small data point is booking a few flights for our Executive (2013, former company), and my own (recent 2015) flights, which had the correct flight time/date on Google Flights, but when "ordering" from the sight, were munged into different dates.

Booked all flights incorrectly :)
Argonne National Labs Shutting Down “Ask a Scientist”
Taking hammers away will solve the problem of holes in things which aren't supposed to have them, including thumbs, walls, people's heads, and candy jars.
He meant number of apartments
Well, maybe the lemma is flawed. Maybe they are not always ahead. I mean, to date, no one has even been able to decode Kryptos, right out front of the CIA in plain view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kryptos

Again, what the NSA does to protect the US is an open question; if they did their job right, you'll likely not know it. Updating systems, at least large commercial ones that foreign governments use as well as the US citizenry, is not in the purview of their mandate, its the opposite. They do try to tell the world what they do, so as to justify themselves in some degree to their ultimate bosses (the US voting public). The Iranian nuke viruses are a good example, though, as far as I know, they have not claimed that particular hack yet.
I think it's definitely true that the vast majority of people (even intelligent) don't realise how little influence they truly have. And that naiveté is present in the GP.

But, fall for what really? This was the best chance at hope-and-change amidst the reality of 'commercial forces', twice. As another respondent said, the alternatives were clearly worse.

I'd rather have a hopeful-of-change person in charge constrained by "the beast" than a status quo option also constrained by the beast. At least the former can apply some pressure via public support.

Even those that realise the beast is largely in control of proceedings had to reach that at some point; I didn't realise the extent of it until I was 35.
To _Racket's_ logo.
> You know it wasn't fixed wing. You know it wasn't a helicopter. These are both absurd misdirections to try to justify the nonsensical demands for specificity.

I really don't know. It's nowhere in the article - neither stated nor implied.

> 99.9% of readers read the article and knew it was quadcoptors.

[citation needed]

> The 0.1% knew it was quadcopters, but want to engage in a ridiculous bit of nonsense on HN, playing to the crowd.

Excuse me for trying to get a coherent picture out of that article. Also, you realize that contemporary journalism is mostly misleading mixed with blatant lies? I'd be wary of accepting as a fact whatever is not stated but what you're led to implicitly belive.

> "IS IT A NUCLEAR BOMB? WAS IT A PLASTIC BOMB? A TNT BOMB? A BLACK POWDER BOMB? A REPURPOSED ARTILLERY SHELL WARHEAD? A...."

Nope. Try a headline "a mysterious explosion occured, no one got hurt" and me asking whether it was a gas explosion, a conventional explosive, or just some random kid who discovered that mixing potassium nitrate with sugar leads to fun things happening.
Venmo Money, Venmo Problems