skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I choose to speak the way I do because I would rather risk alienating people like you by being myself than to allow the world to mold me based on some ill-informed[1] perception of what I think the other people in this world are like.

This very admirable and evident in this comment thread. I don't agree with everything you've been saying, but the sense of genuiness found in the way you've expressed yourself here is refreshing and very much appreciated. It saddens me that all I see in response are pleas for you to censor yourself. I already see the effects of the anti-negativity community thought police...

Admist the downvotes, know that your words have not fallen entirely on deaf ears.
A little over two years ago, I answered a related question on the Academia stack exchange site:

http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/7514/what-is-the...
It might be just my opinion, but I think this is a problem with the legal system rather than with the protocol; NTFS doesn't have mechanisms for dealing with "abuse", why should IPFS?
> Be prepared to spend two weeks in Tallinn, therefore,

I'd recommend everyone visit Tallinn.

On a quick walk you can see a medieval castle, renaissance architecture, soviet architecture, and postmodern examples from the sprint west after Baltic independence. It's like a walking through a timeline of European history.

I'd strongly advise against January though. :)
Rooted words. Appeal-to-marginality is reasonable and sensible enough for locating empathy,when we barely have social systems try to make dots between the lines.
Interesting. I had no idea "open source" meant so much more than "here's the source code and it's OK to modify it".

http://opensource.org/osd
Can we have this title changed to 'smtp.google.com SSL cert expired'? I see no reason to keep it ambiguous.
Seconded.

I'm less concerned about illegal content per-se as I am concerned about spam. I created Neocities (https://neocities.org) and we get quite a bit of SEO and pharmaceutical spam that we need to remove. There would be no way to prevent that with IPFS.

The one thing I could see this being useful for is storage with a private network. If you control all the nodes, then you could filter what goes into them. But I recognize that the point here is to make everybody run on the same network.

Bitcoin has a similar problem. If transactions were free, it would be very easy for someone to just flood the network with garbage transactions and essentially make the blockchain useless for legitimate use. The way this is prevented is by charging a transaction fee (around 7 cents) for transactions that don't meet certain criteria. It's not an ideal solution (because it's fixed in the code and doesn't fluctuate to compensate for market demand), but regardless, it's the only way they've found to prevent this sort of spam.

Without a solution like this, IPFS would not be able to be used in a decentralized, trustless manner. The solution here is probably some sort of monetary restriction, similar to the fees on Bitcoin. But I have no idea how you could implement that here.

That said, if a solution is discovered, Neocities will be front row center to implementing it for our sites. I think this is a genius idea, I've been following it for a while, and I love it.
I guess it boils down to how one defines "choice".

The minimal way to think about choice is to require the existence of an agent that is capable of producing binary outputs. Each output signifies a decision the agent has made. The agent is treated as a black box and whether the agent is deterministic or not remains unspecified and irrelevant.

Another approach is to attempt to endow the agents with some sort of free will.

An interesting realization is that there is no way to know whether humans or anything else for that matter qualify for the second option. There may exist a deity, alien or Matrix root who already knows all our choices before we do.

The funny thing is: we couldn't even tell the difference.
Two male turtles actually.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but there is a connection between the straight and narrow (i.e., the law) and the law industry. Netflix, for example, committed a legal error, and they paid for it. This is essentially private enforcement of the law. Whether the law is sensible is another discussion.
Not at all. Things that have meaning have that meaning because other people actually want them. Money is a means of exchange, legitimized by government. It has a relevance that bitcoin does not have.

Plenty of things have conditional relevance. Hygiene matters as much as your aspirations to social status. Social media matters only so much as you want to connect with others. Fashion is hard to describe, but I believe it's ultimately meaningful. If you completely ignore fashion it does affect you in certain ways. Note that I'm not just referring to clothes, technology is filled with fads as well.

LinkedIn is bullshit. Bullshit you can and should ignore. I refuse to believe that there are entire industries that, collectively, firms in that industry won't even talk to you without such a profile. You can believe that, or you can believe that its your skills and ability to sell yourself that maintains your hireability.
>That generalization is no longer a paradox; it's just a situation. The paradox is about choice theory and you have eliminated any element of choice.

You're still choosing whether to use a decision procedure that results in how many boxes to take when offered this choice, which then determines whether you get this offer at all.

And I don't know what you're trying to say with the paradox/situation distinction; "Newcomb's problem with transparent boxes" is a paradox and a situation, just like the original: how are people ending up better off by "leaving money on the table"? (whatever that would mean)

>People who choose (or act, if you don't care for free will) to take only one box are always leaving money on the table, full stop. The point of the game is to maximize winnings.

But once you pin down what "leaving money on the table" means, it's not at all clear that the concept coincides with something you want to avoid. If the people "leaving money on the table" have more money, then "I don't want to be right", as the saying goes.

>In my opinion, the resolution of the paradox is that's an impossible situation.

I disagree. At the very least, you can play as omega against an algorithm, with varying degrees of scrutability. How should that kind of algorithm be written so that it gets more money (in transparent boxes, how to get omegas to offer you filled boxes in the first place)? Your answer would require addressing the same issues that arise here for humans in that situation.

There are also statistical versions of the paradox, like merchants vs shoplifters. Obviously, they aren't perfect predictors, but they do well enough for the sort of "acausal" effects in the paradox to happen, ie people not shoplifting, even when they could get away with it. Here are some more real life examples:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/4yn/realworld_newcomblike_problems/

To be sure, people aren't predictable enough now to get the kind of scenario described in the problem. But they are predictable enough for the uncomfortable implications: even an accuracy slightly better than chance gets you situations were one-boxing is statistically superior.

(I do agree that in pracitce, whenever you see this kind of situation, you should assume there's some trick until overwhelming evidence comes in to the contrary.)
How useful is it to develop non-gaming applications (including 2D UIs)? And how much overheads it results in in terms of application performance and size? Thanks.
And you would know.
Pretty interesting, but you do have to be careful with eating a number of "weeds" that grow everywhere. A good friend of mine in high school ended up strapped down to a gurney for a few days after overdosing on jimsonweed. He was never quite right after that.
My experience with Xamarin:

I've been working for half a year with Xamarin Forms. I Think using Xamarin is the way to go, there is no need to re-code something for 3 different platforms when you can just have a shared codebase. Tools like Cordova and Phonegap don't work. They produce a very crappy experience that doesn't use the native OS functions, doesn't look and feel native, feels slow and has many bugs (for example they can't use the hardware back button).

So Xamarin can create real native apps, which is a HUGE advantage over Cordova/Phonegap/others, but there are also serious downsides:

1) It's BUGGY. Many components have bugs, and the code often behaves in very very weird ways (I had exceptions not being caught by catch blocks for example), many debugger functions don't work properly with mono (like locals) and very, very often exceptions are thrown without ANY indication what caused them or where they occurred exactly.

2) You a limited in the features you can use because it's a wrapper (as mentioned in OPs post).

3) Documentation sucks and is very limited. It's getting better (mostly because of StackOverflow), but it's still not sufficient.

4) It has XAML which is very nice combined with MVVM, but the XAML implementation sucks. It doesn't have intellisense and it's just generally very awkward.

I don't think the 'big cost' is a valid argument against Xamarin. If you can develop 1 app for $40k where you would normally have to develop 2 or 3 apps for $30k each, that's a BIG win and Xamarin's costs are negligible.
I'd be curious to see this adjusted for inflation.

That said, monastic approach is interesting. There is something personally appealing in this type of control.
International Space Race History Through Kerbal Space Program
The 50-40-90 Club
You typically don't open NTFS to the world & if you do, don't be surprised if law enforcement comes knocking. The fact is, there's a lot of child porn on the web as an example and the fact is, if child porn is found on a server you host there's a good chance you will be taken through "legal hell" in many countries as a result.
Watch Movies Online: Watch Sagaptham (2015) Tamil Full Movie Online
There is a lot of tools of this kind [1] but nearly all of them work with CSV or other delimiter-separated data. What made recutils stand out for me is that it has tools to modify files in place, not just select data from them, and its file format is different.

The rec format is interesting because it is a specification for what others have used before without one. It seems quite readable and does not suffer from the ",,,,,," problem of CSV.

[1] Here's the list of ones I have run into so far:

* https://github.com/harelba/q

* https://github.com/tobimensch/termsql

* https://github.com/samuel/squawk

* https://github.com/tjunier/sqawk

I've also written one: https://github.com/dbohdan/sqawk. It turned out I wasn't the only one to come up with the name.
Doesn't seem like a problem to me. The occasional weak reference to break cycles wouldn't hurt anything on Android, would it?
Ugh. This kind of arrogance is a significant contributing factor to the contentiousness of bitcoin discussion. Nobody is fearful of bitcoin, especially not with regard to the idea that bitcoin will somehow replace fiat money and "devalue my pension fund". It's intellectually insulting and it goads skeptics into sarcastic and unproductive debate.

When enthusiastic bitcoin supporters parade around this kind of nonsense while simultaneously heaping on volumes of nebulous praise like "transformative", "revolutionary", "world-changing", likening bitcoin to the early internet, claiming it will stop wars, stop corruption, free the people and all the rest, it really puts up red flags for a lot of people.
No one exposes NTFS volumes to the open Internet. A sibling comment got it right, IMHO, that spam, and not illegal content is the real pitfall here.
This post seems to be getting more than usual upvotes for a comment deep in thread, and I can't edit it anymore, so let me add that I typically will consider deleting the first sentence of every email and comment I unleash on the world. It is often detritus that just doesn't belong there.
It doesn't mean he's being dishonest. If I was making 7-8 figures a year I'd own some expensive things too. It doesn't mean that money would be my primary driver though.
Cerebral hierarchies: predictive processing, precision and the pulvinar
I logged off email for 99 days, here is what I learned
hey, thanks for checking this project out guys. I appreciate it.
The FDA requires that drugs be both safe and effective. It's the "effective" part that bothers some people. Effectiveness has to be established by clinical testing, which is expensive. Many new drugs fail, even after approval. The gold standard for "effective" is "after 10 years, are patients significantly better"?

The "natural"/"herbal"/"homeopathic" drug industry managed to get Congress to exempt them from the "effective" requirement. There was a big right-wing push for this. Rush Limbaugh had a financial stake in Zicam, which sells homeopathic cold remedies, and used to promote it on his radio show.
Max Headroom: the definitive history of the 1980s digital icon
> But once you pin down what "leaving money on the table" means, it's not at all clear that the concept coincides with something you want to avoid.

In this case (which I have to imagine is deliberate on the part of Nozick or Newcomb), "leaving money on the table" means literally leaving money on the table. Taking one box always, always results in less money than the total amount of money available in the boxes to people who take both boxes. (Of course, the evidence to date is that people who choose both boxes always have less money available to them in the first place.)

But the equally justifiable decision-making method is to perform the action that has yielded the best observed results in the past for others, despite there being no way that one's actions now can possibly have affected the past (choice or determinism doesn't matter).

The nature-of-the-predictor stuff is just irrelevant nonsense in either approach to the problem, which is a happy coincidence because it is, in fact, irrelevant and impossible nonsense. :)

Edit: "there's no way that one's actions now can possibly have affected the past" is given in the original problem. Wikipedia's article quotes it as "what you actually decide to do is not part of the explanation of why he made the prediction he made."
It is perfectly fine that many design choices in Rust evolved from "let's copy what $random_language did", but mentioning the drawbacks of that kind of approach to language design suddenly requires "scientific studies demonstrating your points"?

Are you kidding me? That's exactly what I meant with "Rust people are actively hostile toward input".

It is even more "I don't want to hear what you say" than it appears on the first look, because we both know that counting all "scientific studies" about language design probably wouldn't require more fingers than a human usually has.

So all we have is some empirical knowledge. You even got some findings for free! Things no one ever said:

- "Having two different ways to call/invoke/execute stuff
made it much simpler to learn the language."
- "Making the casing of types inconsistent really helps
when reading code."
- "Dropping random characters in functions and types made
me feel at home coming from C! I would be terribly
confused if ptr was called pointer, vec vector, fmt
format, iter iterator or rt runtime. The only thing I
don't like is FromStr, it should really by FrmStr
instead! .. I love str's rsplitn btw!"
- "Calling Strings Strings and String views str ... that
makes a lot of sense!"
- "Having used both <> and [] extensively, <> is much
more readable."
- "It was a really great idea to have special syntax for
arrays, so the language designers could overload []
with two completely different meanings."
- "Having both () and [] available is great because you
can write code where foo(x) and foo[x] do different
things!"¹
- "Not having varargs really worked out! Nevermind that
most popular macros exist solely to emulate varargs!"
- "Despite most macros not needing the do-whatever-
you-want syntax, let's require ! for all of them. This
way, macro writers don't have any reason left to try
making their macros behave predictably! Isn't it great
that they can just claim 'you knew that all bets where
off when you wrote that !, so stop complaining!'
instead of fixing their macro?"
- "Fucking up Generics so badly that it requires
different ways of writing them depending on the
context really paid off. It's certainly not an issue
which is hit by every person writing something Generic
for the first time."
- "Inventing unnecessary differences between modules and
objects is great, because it forces you to think
whether you need to use . or :: and breaks use-sites
of that code when migrating from one to the other."
- "Given all the lessons of terribly broken dependency
management systems out there – let's just ignore them
all and put every package in a global namespace ...
what could ever go wrong?"

The language could have been much better if Rust devs wouldn't have been so insecure and defensive, but now it's too late anyway.

So why bother evoking any more excuses in different places? Rust-the-bad-parts is basically unchangeable now.

So what's left? I think it's only honest if Rust devs would be more open about the mistakes they made, and wouldn't require outside expertise to point out the issues.

¹ WAIT ... that's actually what Rust devs said when they defended having both () and [].
Rather read http://estonianworld.com/security/attacks-estonias-e-voting-... and https://www.ria.ee/e-voting-is-too-secure/
> This conclusion seems paradoxical, because it implies that information has been gained about ravens by looking at an apple.

I remember how I used to be confused about ad-hominems. It's known as fallacious because "an opponent's credibility has nothing to do with the truth-value of their argument". Yet common sense dictates that if a pathological liar makes a proposition, it would be unwise to take their proposition at face value. At some point, I realized that my distrust was not directed towards the proposal per se, it was directed towards what a bayesian would call "the likelihood" [0]. I.e. how much the proposition changed my beliefs. Therefore, the reputation for pathological lying did not imply that the proposition was false, but that I should hold my beliefs constant (set likelihood to zero) as if the liar had never said anything at all. I think my initial confusion is similar to the raven's paradox because we're confusing the hypothesis itself (our prior) with the weight we assign the evidence (the likelihood).

Let's consider the two proposals. The original proposition is "all raven are black". Modus Ponens says "black, given a raven". Now if I were to see a raven though a monochromatic lens, then I would expect to see a black raven without the lens. Now consider the contraposition "everything non-black cannot be a raven". Modus Ponens says "not-raven, given non-blackness". So if I were to see a green object, I would expect to not see a raven.

In the original proposition, the raven was the signal while the color was the hypothesis. But in the contraposition, the color was the signal while the raven was the hypothesis. The insight here is that when we contrapose the claim, we also switch the hypothesis with the evidence. Therefore, the sentence I quoted above is incorrect because a green (non-black) apple doesn't provide information about ravens, a green (non-black) apple provides information about non-blackness. Namely, whether non-blackness is a strong signal of non-ravenness.

E.g. suppose we saw a raven and, upon closer inspection, the raven turned out to be a green raven. The correct reaction is "huh, I guess raven-ness isn't such a reliable signal of black-ness after all". And suppose we saw a blur of green and, upon closer inspection, the green object was a green raven. The correct reaction is "huh, I guess non-black-ness isn't such a reliable signal of non-raven-ness after all."

[0] I didn't know the terminology back then, but I vaguely understood the concept on an intuitive level.
First Look at OSMC RC on the Raspberry Pi 2 – Linux Links
Even though they've stopped bad drugs, they've also stopped good ones. If you look at the net benefit of the FDA it's negative. Not that we shouldn't have any any drug approval process, just that the current one is too conservative.

The reason for the conservatism is simple. Everyone sees when bad drugs get through. It gets media attention, there are lawsuits, laws are proposed to retrospectively fix it, etc. But no one cares or even notices when a life saving drug is delayed or prevented from getting to those who need it.

And so there will always be extreme bias towards conservatism and we need to fight it.
The Fed was established by an act of Congress and can be changed or abolished by an act of Congress. Congress is democratically elected. That's the connection to the people.

The reason Congress has not abolished the Fed is that most people think that the Fed is pretty good at what it is supposed to do.
Staples definitely used to use it here in the UK, not sure if they still do.
https://www.odesk.com/ is a freelance job board, where a premium account buys you the ability to apply for more jobs at one time. The grandparent comment was being satirical.
A good rough rule is to halve the power of two: so 2^16 = 65536, which is close enough to 77163.
SaaS Companies Look to Change the Interface of Web Design
I agree. A system that requires a 100% approval rate is unworkable.

However:

Here in Colorado, we have legal(ish) marijuana. However, there is a federal law that says that banks can't deal with these businesses.

The result of this is lots of armed robbery. This doesn't seem very responsive to the needs of people in Colorado.
I know, I'm a philistine, but I have never understood the allure of Rothko paintings. Yay, colors in big blocks... I appreciate the efforts of painters who aspired to photo-realism in the age before cameras far more.
We tried mostly anything (and not only tried; we used for production work because clients wanted us to) and, outside native, Xamarin really is the best thing we worked with so far. For it's downsides, the upsides are too good to not take advantage off. Some cons I recognize but the case everyone keeps mentioning that you get into issue when you really want to do complex native platform stuff with animations etc I haven't encountered. Nor is integrating SDK's an issue. It's just something you plan in your project; it's a one-off. We integrated very large SDKs for hardware products and the hardware vendors, when something goes wrong, always blame the wrapper and it has 0 times been the wrapper; most of the times a bug or undocumented feature by the SDK creator. The wrapper is so thin and the mapping is so clear that it's actually never an issue.
My experience with third party libraries has been quite different, for the most part.

I've often been surprised at how easy it is to create bindings to libraries written in Obj-C even if no one else has before. Usually it requires extracting the compiled library from the framework, and then translating each declaration from the library's header into the C# binding definition. In many cases it's a couple of hours work (or less).

That said, libraries that are provided as source files, with the instructions "just copy them into your project," can be incredibly frustrating. Our designer would love to use github.com/MengTo/Spring but I have yet to find a way to use it in Xamarin easily.