skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
cmph is not the fastest library for MPHF, mostly because it uses a slow ranking function to turn a PHF into a MPHF.

I wrote a small library some time ago that performs much faster, both for in-memory construction and lookups, [1, see the linked paper for benchmarks], unfortunately I have no time to maintain it but I recently found out that some projects are using it, so it wasn't all wasted time :)

[1] https://github.com/ot/emphf

</shameless plug>
Not to mention, myopia in Asia is the prevalent in dense populated areas such as Singapore, South Korea or Japan where rice consumption per capita is lower than anywhere else in south-east Asia since they can afford more variety of food when compared to Vietnam, Thailand or Philippines.

You could almost make an opposite case that rice consumption decreases myopia but most likely there is no link whatsoever.
I use this site: http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ when trying to calculate inflation adjusted prices, as it gives results using different methods.

So, this page gives the adjusted price between $300,000 and $1.5 million.
Yes, that counter was confusing and kind of wrong.

But the followup is mostly correct.

It is possible to carve pixels into uncountably more pixels, but you need uncountably many lines to do it.

Division by countably many lines, aka rational division, does not increase cardinality.

The cardinality of rational numbers is the same as the cardinality of integers.
Agreed. View your prospective employer as if you were an investor. Think like Buffett. If your timing is right, a profitable, proven and sustainable business model is worth far more for most than a lottery ticket. Grow rich slowly.

Joined a post-IPO company, saw peers waste options on cars 10K cars that would be $800K homes today, sat tight, did good work, collected equity, which, if spread over my whole career, equates before tax to about 3-4x my average annual salary per annum over a very long, multi-decade career.

It was risky, no doubt. Had I not executed, my cumulative equity might have ended up 1-1.5x salary over a long career. But the downside was incredibly low given the risk taken.

One caveat: since companies IPO so late now, to luck into it like I did, you will likely have to find pre-IPO companies (but post having a non-insane biz model) to achieve similar results.

Happy Hunting.
Nice article, just came across readme.io a few days ago when coming across another product (GridGain) for the first time. Thought the makers of readme.io had something really nice, interesting to read the history now.

Goals and plans, especially 5 years in the future, can be hard to keep up with but the feeling of achievement at the end if truly amazing. I think even the practice of just sitting down and setting goals and making realistic plans goes a long way to helping you get there.
> the word for this archaic job. This person did layout after the articles had been typeset.

pasteup
Voice based phone verification using Twilio in Rails
[1] pasteup? man I got trained in how to paste stuff up with wax and whatnot in college and deliberately forgot it within seconds because desktop publishing was so obviously obsoleting that.
If you use a fast hash function you still have to look up a hash table, so the memory access is still there. If you use some clever probing strategy you might be able to have only 1 cache line access per lookup on average, while most perfect hashing functions, which use the MWHC scheme, do 3 random accesses.

However, these 3 random accesses are independent, so the CPU can mostly pipeline them, and the perceived latency is that of a single random access.
In terms of CMU, I'd say your first point is short-sighted. Because of the relatively large Design/Art, Architecture, and Business programs, the generic freshman orientation/prereqs, a surprisingly inclusive Greek presence, and the small social scene there's plenty of opportunity for mixing with different people.

In fact, I'd go so far in saying that meeting people outside of your typified social circle isn't institution dependent, rather an individual preference (so I wouldn't be surprised if your generalization isn't applicable to MIT either).
North Dakotan checking in. I've seen this tower many times, from the road and up close, it's pretty uninspiring. Hard to get a sense of scale when it's so thin and transparent. Also, you can't see the view from the top (legally). What fun would the Space Needle, Empire State or Burj Khalifa be if you couldn't see what the view is like from the top?
Wallaby.js – An intelligent test runner that continuously runs your tests
I thought everyone knew this. Never talk to representatives or agents of the US federal government without your lawyer present. Never, ever, ever.

When they make contact, ask them for a phone number your lawyer can call. Ask them what matter the questions will be regarding. Get a card if it's in person. They're going to tell you there's no reason to hire a lawyer and you can clear the whole thing up in five minutes if you talk to them. They're lying, which is something they can do legally, but if you do it you're off to the gray bar hotel.

http://corporate.findlaw.com/litigation-disputes/how-to-avoi...
> Then we form a bijection (x, y) <-> x/y and we see that there are as many pixels as rational numbers.

I don't think that works, though. Take for example these two coordinates:

(30, 75)
(90, 225)

Those would both map to the same rational—2/5—and that would make it not a one-to-one mapping.
Without disputing your main point about how philosophers typically behave, I want to clarify the is-water-H2O argument. As I understand it, it's making a point about how we use language: people have been using the word "water" to refer to various puddles, lakes, oceans, beverages, etc for a long time before electrolysis was discovered. We know now that all those instances have being-H2O in common, but it's not a necessary property for the word "water" to apply: if some other chemical fulfilled the everyday requirements for water (being clear, wet, thirst-quenching, etc) without being H2O, it would be "water," and if a particular variation of H2O doesn't fulfill those requirements (^2H2O, heavy water, is poisonous) then it's not water. See "Water is Not H2O" (Michael Weisberg, 2003). http://www.phil.upenn.edu/~weisberg/papers/waterfinal.pdf
Uh, publishing your source under a usable license is sorta really the definition of open source. Whether or not you like their dev style or other things is separate and trying to make new definitions. You shouldn't just throw caps on a common description then claim no one is that common thing because you've redefined it.
Good news! We already support Google Fit. I used to wear a Moto360 and was using that to track my steps for a while, and it all ended up in Gyroscope.
How is this different than http://www.dbad-license.org/
I think your argument implies that the rationals are uncountable, but they aren't, so your argument must be wrong somewhere- I'm too rusty at this to form a nice argument quickly though.
Yes, philosophers have such arguements: Water on some alternative universe without H2O structure vs water on our earth with H2O structure.

Even here, the issues are related to metaphysics, not so much about chemistry:) There is a jump from empirical world (the world we are in) to possible worlds. Here is the article: Is water necessarily identical to H2O, by David Barnett http://spot.colorado.edu/~barnetdb/my_papers/Barnett_Water.p...
MY FIRST MAPPING IN ODI – TABLE – TABLE MAPPING
1891 patent solves the 'over or under?' toilet paper debate
Let me see if I have this straight:

- Keeps source closed. Is therefore evil.

- Opens source. Must be up to no good, because is evil.

This might qualify for the original meaning of, begging the question...
If anyone is interested, I have a cute nearly-minimal perfect hashing algorithm designed to have good cache-friendly properties. It works very well in practice and in my particular application was performing faster and more consistently (no long tail) than anything found in CMPH.

Briefly, it is somewhat similar to hopscotch (or robin-hood) hashing, only you pre-calculate positions of the elements to put them into optimal spots by solving the assignment problem (via Hungarian assignment problem solver or such). Works for up to about 50k elements. It feels like it might have good theoretical properties, might be even optimal (after all, we pretty much calculating optimal positions of the elements based on the costs of our memory/cache accesses and probabilities of each element), but it was a while since I've taken the algorithms class.

If anyone is interested to do a writeup and publish clean source code - you'd be welcome, ping me via e-mail.
Interesting. I don't mind using Moves for that, but I didn't see anything under Vitals that indicated that it would use my Moto360 heartrate measurements.

Looking forward to playing with a real account once I get through the waitlist!

Also, I'm glad and impressed you guys are responding so quickly (I asked about FourSquare/Swarm on Twitter a little while ago).
Okay. I believe you.

I'm not familiar with those.

The sorts of things I've seen are more like Berta Lovejoy / Doritan Cheeto.
How to Stop Tracking Your Pageviews in Blogger
Bah...if you had skills that could guarantee you could retire at 55, and equity that might let you retire at 30 (best case) or 45 (worst case), why not take the chance if you believe in your work, your company and your mission?

If you know what your company is making is bullshit, then by all means bail as soon as you can. If it is important work, then the risk is far less.
Whiny ass comments so far. Bravo Microsoft!
As a .NET developer who has wholly abandoned Ruby and it's culture, I'm having the time of my life!

C# and Visual Studio are seriously good tools. I'm using Typescript and Angular, too. Good times!
You're right - good point. For one way, I guess you could let p_i represent the ith prime number (there are infinitely many) and use p_x / p_y instead. Unsure about the other way.
How Putin helped me launch my chattymaps ;)
You have an infinite number of both since the counting never ends. In your example, if you've counted n positive integers, you've counted 2n even integers associated with those (by going both ways). But if you continue counting, eventually you will count 2n positive integers (at which point you'll have counted 4n even integers). For any number of even integers that you count, you can just keep counting the positive integers and you'll eventually reach that number.

Here's another way to think about it: are there more positive integers than there are positive integers? (Any "correct" approach should say no, or at least not yes.)

Using your approach, however, here is a proof that there are more positive integers than there are positive integers.

Lets rearrange the positive integers in this manner:

X--->
1, 2, 3, 4, ...
..., 7, 5, 3, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, ...
<--X-->
And MIT to be honest.
I suppose we both could have said "some" eh.
Another similar product: http://www.buzzphraser.com/index.html
That's exactly her argument. She has dreamed of it since she was a little girl and she just could not accept the fact that maybe, just maybe, the dream was false.
Really interesting backstory, and congrats to @Greg and team for joining YC. Curious to know more how this worked out, since readme was gaining dev adoption pretty rapidly when they launched last fall.
It has a pretty weak argument for it. It allows two spaces when using a typewriter, even though the spaces are already twice as wide!
We use Parse to speed up our development process. We are building the entire app without maintaining any backend for now, and it definitely helps a lot.

But we are probably going to build our own backend very soon. So keep that in mind when you design your code structures if you are only using Parse for a short development period.

I've never used GAE, so I can't comment on any comparisons.
Reference cycles aren't a problem for GCs because any objects that aren't reachable from a root set of nodes are considered garbage and get collected. (I only read part of the article, but hopefully that answers your question...)
Pakistani Talk Shows
This is just one of many steps. For instance if you take a look at the following merge someone actually comments regarding what you're talking about: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/485

Basically many teams are still on TFS versus GIT and will take some time to move over. But once they're moved over GitHub and their internal stuff will be treated more like separate branches and there will be good, useful history instead of simple bombs from TFS.
You will lose that feeling after 30 years. I have no special place for ZX Spectrum Basic anymore.
What grounds are there for excluding "how the knowing subject that is an emergent property of the matter of the brain experiences colour" from "all knowledge about colour"?

fenomas correctly points out the argument is begging the question based on the I've raised here, but the argument is even more deeply flawed than that because it assumes that "knowledge" is a thing rather than an activity of a knowing subject.

If you take the epistemology of a knowing subject seriously then knowing is an activity of the subject, with the ontology of an action rather than a thing. Activities are not conserved in the way things are. It is easy to slip past what "know everything there is to know" means when we assume (incorrectly) that knowledge is thing-like: we can image books full of sentences that exhaustively list laws and properties. One might say that if Mary knows Maxwell's equations and a long list of information about matter she might "know everything", but considered as an action, to "know everything" means "to be able to have any thought that anyone might be able to have about the thing", or something similar.

From this, we can immediately draw an important inference: Mary is not a human being, so this is not an argument about human beings. Not even in the wildest philosopher's imagination could any human being be able to have every thought about light that could be had. There are no-doubt "single thoughts" of such enormous length and complexity that they could not be fit into a human lifetime. And because the actions of the mind are serial (mostly) rather than parallel, the absurdity of the proposition that we can "know everything there is to know" is revealed. Human life is simply too finite for it.

Any expert will attest to this: no matter how much we learn, with ongoing experience there is always more.

So like all imaginary arguments, the primary purpose of this one is to mislead us about the subject. It isn't about human beings or human knowledge. It is about some other kind of being, unrelated to humanity. Which I guess might be interesting if you're in to that kind of thing, but personally I'd rather spend my time focused on the world that exists, not the world of some philosopher's imagination.

If the argument were honestly stated it becomes a tautology:

"Imagine a knowing subject that is capable of thinking every thought about a given subject, which necessarily includes all the thoughts a knowing subject might have when it physically interacts with the material reality the subject describes (otherwise it wouldn't be able to think every thought about the subject). Is such a knowing subject capable of knowing the thoughts a knowing subject might have when it physically interacts with the material reality the subject describes?"
You can see the same version on gyrosco.pe site

https://gyrosco.pe/aprilzero
Another way to not lie is to speak the truth.

No, absolutely not. Even if you tell the whole truth as you know it, it can still get you into trouble. Maybe they have another eyewitness that remembers things differently than you do. Maybe they have an eyewitness whose account agrees with yours, but the LEOs themselves misunderstood or misheard or forgot something. The police are going to think you lied. Maybe you just honestly misremembered something. Nope, that's a "lie".

There are so many ways that you telling the truth can hurt you, and basically no ways in which talking can help you, that it's not worth the risk. Law enforcement does provide a useful benefit to society in general, but there is zero reward for helping the cops, and a lot of risk that you could land yourself in hot water for something that seems completely innocuous.

In the specific example from the blog post, there's no reason to lie--taking that call was not illegal, so there's no reason to lie.

The psychology of the situation is not to your advantage. The LEOs are trying to get you to lie. They know how to do this. I'm not saying you're powerless to withstand them, but the example in the blog post is just an example. They can and will use much more sophisticated tactics to catch you in a lie if they think it will help them.

And even in this example, what if you do tell the truth, and say you did talk to them about it? Then they're going to ask what you talked about with your friend, and maybe you don't quite remember it exactly how they do. That's "lying" in their book. It also opens you up to further questioning in general, and just when you're feeling comfortable talking to you, they'll ask you something somewhat ambiguous that causes you to lie, even unintentionally.

It's just not worth it. When law enforcement comes knocking with questions, they are not there to help you. At absolute best, it's a neutral encounter, but it's very easy for it to go against your best interests.
NASA Deploys VSee Video Chat on the International Space Station
Nice comment. Let me know your github handle and I'll see what's your OSS contribution and then show'em how it's done.
Dramas Online
Will you be supporting TAP (Test Anything Protocol)?
Clearly because the two winners are intended to mate and bear the most mathematically competent children our species has to offer.
This seems to be more about a limitation of language than a problem with the logic. Using "knowledge" in both premises looks clumsy. But looking at it purely conceptually, where Mary would intellectually understand the complete theory in the B&W room, and then gain new experiential insight when leaving the room, it seems to at least prove that experiential knowledge is inherently different than theoretical knowledge.

That's more what confuses me about the structure of this argument, though - I would take the experiential insight to be more "physical". So I still don't understand what they mean by physicalism.
In general, Javascript is fine. But some heavy sites kill my notebook's battery. CSS-heavy sites add another hit by warming up the GPU. Some even spin up the fan. Browsing without JS can be a better experience, when the alternatives are warm & loud or totally drained.

Oddly, the native applications rarely seem to have much impact unless it's doing a hard task, like video encoding.
We have had a very similar experience, and I was a paying customer the first day they launched. However, over the month of migrating documentation - we discovered a couple of areas really lacking:

1. Having to use JS too often and they only offered it in their higher plans,

2. surprisingly poor md support. I don't usually write markdown in visual blocks.

In the end, we built an aggregation of open-source tools to create something similar to the effect of readme - https://github.com/appbaseio/docbase. It uses github for markdown editing and versioning, flatdoc for rendering docs, and creates a beautiful single page routing for the doc. http://docs.appbase.io is using it.
That's exactly the point - she has all physical information. If you could show that some piece of information fits the definition of "physical information", then it's assumed that Mary has it, and someone defending the knowledge argument would have to agree.

The point is that even IF you give Mary all that information, she's still missing some information. Then, that information must not be physical information. More to the point, there's a difference between the points you presented: In (A), you say Mary has all _physical_ knowledge (Jackson uses the word information, but the difference is unimportant). In (B), you note that she gets new _knowledge_. It follows that this knowledge must be non-physical, since we assumed that she had all physical knowledge, and yet, she didn't have this new knowledge.
More Uber Cars Than Yellow Taxis on the Road in NYC
Each pixel always starts at coordinate n / 2^k.

There are no limits involved here. Just a construction of an infinite series of rational coordinates.
What's more offensive is if you get caught with that pot in ny, it will essentially get dismissed as long as you have money and get a real lawyer, not a public defender.

Read this discussion of the so-called right to a speedy trial in nyc in practice: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/nyregion/justice-denied-fo...

tl;dr: misdemeanor cases, despite your supposed right to a speedy trial, regularly drag out over years. If your lawyer understands how to work the system, misdemeanors appear to largely just go away because the court system is simply incapable of dealing with them within the bounds of the law.
I see what you mean and I agree that from her point of view this might look like I don't care about her. At least not enough to bend my principles. But on the other hand, I have mentioned this on the day I've met her first time, obviously she didn't think much of it back then.

I'm happy, not proud. I'm happy, because I'm not alone who's thinking this way. Believe it or not, there isn't a lot of people that agrees with me.
It is quite rare to die from ulcerative colitis. I am curious as to what the fatal complications were.
It's going amazingly well so far. Demo day is this week!

Shoot me an email at greg@readme.io if you want to talk more
If there are countably many rounds of division, then there is a vertical (and horizontal) "division" for each path (from the root) in an infinite complete binary tree. The number of paths in an infinite complete binary tree is uncountable, just like the infinitely divided screen is (each "pixel" corresponds to a path in an infinite complete 4-ary tree).
Plenty of people would prefer not to have their personal data harvested, too... but I doubt that would stop you or your roommate from creeping on them as much as possible. Can't help but not feel bad for you here.
Medley: lightweight Clojure/ClojureScript library “missing” from clojure.core
So what have you learned from that? (genuinely asking, and besides the privilege bit)
The discussion of resolution is entirely in terms of clarity, not size.

Imagine if sites and GUIs and fonts no longer had to align to pixels to be crisp.
Not sure about NoScript but I just disabled JS using Chrome Developer Tools and HN seems to work fine.

To answer your question, I think that NoScript users tend to appreciate (and even expect) minimalism... consequently some get irritated when even a simple blog can't load without JS. I get the appeal of the minimalist, standards-adhering, machine-parseable website, but it's not a big source of emotion for me :P
http://nucleotid.es/about/
Software Defined Storage Is About Control
gendered awards are a way of inviting and encouraging participation. The author acknowledges low female participation, but purposes to abolish something that sends a clear message ("females are welcomed and encouraged to participate.")

you can frame sexism in a ton of different ways. these awards are sure to spike debate even among entrenched feminists. the phenomena is not specific to the pmc though--Oscars, anyone?
This list is company of interested to hire foreigners in Osaka Japan
You can find a refuge at Google. You'll need to pick up some programming skills, but we have lots of math-y problems once you're here.