skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Except that poor people pay the most money for value transfer even using Hawala, just like paying the most for electricity or water or healthcare. When you can't make large infrastructure investments like most OECD countries can, ordinary utilities become massively expensive. And even clever systems like Hawala command a market price just like any other service. In a world without great alternatives, that price is high.

Read some reports and you'll find the average cost of remittance for poorer countries averages around 10%, an absurd borderline criminal rate.

You'll simultaneously find inflation rates of 10-30% not being uncommon.

The ability then to access international derivative markets, i.e. the option to easily buy and hold dollars using bitcoin providing relief from crazy inflation, and the ability to transfer it to others at the cost of moving 500 bytes of data, is hugely interesting.

Services like Bitpesa (cheaper remittance) or Bitreserve (hold money in different currencies using bitcoin) are the first such steps. In a few years I expect these things to massively undercut remittance costs and provide interesting relief from inflation. Some of the things the early Paypal founders were interested in, including Peter Thiel who spoke on the topic often in the early days.
Chute (YC W2012) - http://getchute.com - San Francisco, CA or Itapema, BR or REMOTE (US time zones)

Hiring full-stack and front-end engineers to build our marketing technology platform that is used by Nike, Condé Nast, Starbucks, Benefit, Vogue, ESPN, NBC, NYT among others, as well as many independent developers. We're working with the latest technologies and <3 open source.

We're using Ruby/Rails/Sinatra, Node.js and Go on the backend (plus Python on the data science front). We're running on AWS, Postgres, Mongo, Elasticsearch, Redis, Storm.
On the front-end we're using React/Flux/ES6 (transitioning from Backbone/Marionette).

For more info: http://getchute.com/jobs
Right, because Somalia has never had a government, or the lack thereof today has nothing to do with the previous government.
Compilers (at least optimising ones) bloody well do! For example discrete maths/graph theory for control/data flow graphs or optimisation algorithms for register allocation/loop unrolling.

Or, if those don't count as maths to you - look up the polyhedral model: linear algebra applied to loop tiling/parallelisation.
'Laughable' can be defined as 'absurd'. Absurd things aren't trustworthy. Here's your reference on something that may enable untrustworthy behaviors: https://pdf.yt/d/DvKApeRf6FHiJZ7t/download. That's the Executive Order, and within it is a declaration of a 'national emergency' which gives the government sweeping powers to seize assets if they think someone is cyber-enabling anyone. That statement is absurd, and presumably enables untrustworthy behaviors when put into practice.
...And an abundance of strong governments who are willing to fund various factions to kill other various factions to fight a proxy war over natural resources.
I agree with you. I don't think Bitcoin will ever be mainstream.

However, the features it has should be a huge source of inspiration for the banking system imo.
>All it takes for Bitcoin to be worthless is the belief that Bitcoin is worthless.

But that's true for almost any modern currency. If everyone believed that the US dollar is worthless it would become near worthless. There will always be some demand because US citizens have to pay their taxes in US dollars but that wouldn't be enough to keep the dollar at anywhere near it's current value.
Tell that to Zimbabwe, who still doesn't have a national currency because of exactly this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe
That article had many words but didn't really say much on the topic, nevermind the questions it posed.

Why do things go viral? I don't know, it appears to be somewhat random or luck based though. Why one cat's face can become a "hit" and apparently make its owner almost $100m[0] versus the "funny" faces of many other cats certainly eludes me.

Why one good looking guy at a marathon can be catapulted overnight to widespread recognition over other equally good looking people at marathons also eludes me.

Should we care? Well, it's clear there's money to be made off it, and quite a lot of money at that, so the phenomenon certainly warrants at least some attention.

If it's seemingly so easy to catapult something to recognition and "fame" then figuring out what's behind it could also very easily be used for propaganda. If people are working on it for that reason then we certainly should care.

[0]http://www.aol.com/article/2014/12/08/grumpy-cat-might-look-...
You could also send an email with your CV
Bitcoin tries to be two things:

A currency.

And a way to reliably account for who owns what, with no central authority.

As a currency, it has the problem that there's no natural demand for it. Nobody needs it to pay their taxes, and it's not widespread enough to be worth having for the common person. Naturally this could change, but until then you've got a game theory problem.

The protocol side is what makes it interesting. The protocol is basically a way for us to collectively scribble on a giant wall that grows every 10 minutes. And that wall cannot be changed, thanks to the clever incentive system that makes the primary use to account for who owns which bitcoins. The technology would still work if you used it to scribble love letters, but nobody would have an interest in keeping the system going.

So is this protocol useful? It very well could be. For instance, any number of currency-like things could be (and are) accounted for. You could put the whole land registry on the blockchain, and then you'd always be able to verify some person owned a parcel. You can put documents (or hashes of documents) in it and prove it existed at some time. The list goes on.

The big question is whether this protocol is economical and convenient enough to actually displace what's there already. We already have a land registry. We already have notaries.

There also needs to be some thought put in about how the infrastructure will be paid for. If the currency is useless, why do miners want to keep mining? Sure, there's the potential it won't be useless in the future, but how long can you string along an operation like that for? How do you plan if the price is so volatile it might be zero or a million in five years? Each price implies a very different level of investment.

One strategy might be a slightly different altcoin system (many, many altcoins have been invented) that tries to share the cost evenly, so no one economic actor has a special position. Another thing you could do is pass real money instead of BTCs.

But I think the protocol core is here to stay.
great example of this is watching the way lots of people act on http://boilerroom.tv

.. not really dancing for the music or the moment, but playing to the camera feed and taking selfies with the artist in the background.
A while back (2013?), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation offered financing for a "next generation" condom.

I can't find the link on the Gates Foundation site now (dead links on Google) but this is some press around it and mentions the 11 finalists:

http://theweek.com/articles/455793/meet-11-condoms-future-se...

So I guess better condoms are in the works already?
Introducing the IE Diagnostics Adapter for third party developer tools
Use it and you will find out.
"These make up a significant portion of transactions."

That's a bullshit statement. Prove it, or shut up.
A look at the Blender Institute's sixth open film project
This http://stackstatus.net/post/115305251014/outage-postmortem-m... :)
OP needs to check out https://purse.io

Use case for consumers: discounts on Amazon.

Use case for earners (mostly unbanked): earn Amazon gift cards as payment and convert to fiat through bitcoin.

Blog showcasing counterargument: https://medium.com/@PurseIO/10-use-cases-for-bitcoin-c6b7182...
> SDI made sense. We still have SDI. Now we call its "Strategic Missile Defense" and its our biggest counter against rogue nation nuke launches and other attacks. It also has Putin scared as he can't match it and is demanding we don't continue to build new sites in Eastern Europe out of desperation.

That sounds suspiciously like and end-run around MAD, which until close to 100% complete and accurate, seems like it serves to reduce the effectiveness of MAD as a method to prevent nuclear war.
Silver bullets are actually only to kill vampires. The expression most people are looking for is "magic bullet".
Yep.

As I said - it's a whole lot better than nothing. The "insecure" thing is mainly to remind myself that it isn't the be-all and end-all.
Go works on all ARM processors that use ARMv5 or newer. Today it would be pretty hard to find an ARMv4 CPU.
Chopping up the interruptions and making them shorter does not reduce the context change and mental swapping load.

This is the basic HCI problem everyone is ignoring about watches. It doesn't make the problem better -- it may even make it worse.

The key to managing your notifications better is... wait for it... not looking at your phone constantly.
> SDI made sense. We still have SDI. Now we call its "Strategic Missile Defense" and its our biggest counter against rogue nation nuke launches and other attacks. It also has Putin scared as he can't match it and is demanding we don't continue to build new sites in Eastern Europe out of desperation.

You just basically said that SDI is destabilizing because it will take away MAD. I fail to see how supporting that is rational or sane.
Microsoft Office Lens comes to iPhone and Android
That's a very generous title. I would have chosen:

"Vanguard defends poor security hygiene"
Computer generated chess problems for everyone
There are several (most famous is Verizon), but they tend to target larger companies.
I've always wondered why you can't dip a penis into liquid latex or a similar compound. Perfect fit, won't slip off (presumably?), probably harder to break. Getting it off without lots of screaming might be tricky...
Just love the pictures.
Are there companion solutions for the problem sets available anywhere?
I would also add that the reason that nobody has developed a better condom is that there is no profit in doing so.

At a minimum you are looking at a couple of million in research, more if you want to go crazy with material science. Then you have the cost of testing, approval etc. After that you have marketing. It's a great project that will save many lives but the cost/risk analysis alone would put off any for profit organization.

The fact that the Gates Foundation is having to get involved is a sign that the market simply isn't going to solve this one.

(Government research probably won't deliver it either, at least in the US, due to the politics around contraception)
This is online.net labs, it just has a new name.
Very true. In particular a too small condom can be very painful ...
I suppose it's technically correct, even though it's a little goofy. The first part is from the neuter form of the Greek adjective ὅλος (holos), meaning "whole". The neuter form (used as a noun here I assume) would be "holon" and the plural of that, "hola". So holacracy would be "rule by wholes". Better than rule by a-holes, I suppose...
This is rather vague - do you want your network secured, do you want someone to phish you to convince your boss to invest in additional training, do you need a webapp pentest, would you like help with a secure software development process?

(My employer - Fox-IT.com - can help with most of those, but smaller shops have only a single, focused, team.)
> Government regulations have stifled innovation, thereby making existing products less safe, less comfortable, and less used than they would be otherwise.

The article implied this in tone, but in facts reported within did not make a slam dunk case. Latex is probably significantly safer in terms of blocking STD transmission, and it's also heavily understudied whether or not the sizing differences matter. I wouldn't say it's obvious government regulation is really the devil here.
That's not just "reading material" ... it's a frigging 1000-page book! :-D
Hoe maandenlijks dan 8 kilo afvallen met het 7x7 Afslank Receptenboek
5 DIY hardware platforms for physiological computing
What the... This is a simple distinction.

Computer fraud means using a computer to do something you're not authorized to do. He was not authorized to use wget, he used it, thus he committed fraud.

He was authorized to access that "turf," but not with wget. Why? Specifically for the reason he did it: it's a risk.

Whatever your opinion on whistleblower protections, this is not a risky judgment.
the article follows one of the funded parties
I'm a big fan of both Sidney and Scott and the great work they did building Helloblock, one of the better Bitcoin API providers. It's a shame that they couldn't find a market for their product.

What's a bigger shame is that they've both written articles disparaging Bitcoin technology now that they've decided to move on to other challenges.

We have a brand new data storage technology that allows for equal access read and write privileges on data that is permanent and shared equally across all nodes. It acts as a decentralized single point-of-truth. There has never been anything like this.

A simple ledger that operates as a type of currency is most basic thing that can be built.

Blockchain tech will disrupt almost every part of our industry. We won't need centralized identity providers like Facebook. We can start to treat digital media as property and build up a viable economic system. We can actually account for people's data use and the value of their contributions instead of this blind air gap between advertising and operation costs. We can create and transfer digital assets that represent all sorts of things.

Writers, photographers, musicians and anyone else who makes the content that fuels the advertising engines of Silicon Valley are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with how they publish work on the Internet. Putting something on a web page isn't publishing. Posting something on Facebook or Twitter isn't publishing. The act of publishing needs to be public and it needs to be permanent. Can you reliably quote from a blog or a tweet? No, you can't, because the content could change. You can reliably quote from the second printing of a physical text because it would be almost impossible for someone to go through and change every copy.

All of this on a unified platform that isn't controlled by anyone meaning there's no danger of a private entity limiting access to APIs and destroying the hard work of developers, which Twitter has been doing for years.

I really hate to call them out because they've been very nice and incredibly helpful over the last year, but guys, come on, there's no need to burn bridges. Just because you can't see the possibilities doesn't mean that they aren't there.
The clustered beneath the pi-tail of the NASA/MIT D8 design is bad for maintainability, isn't it?

All we learnt from early commercial jetliner like the De Havilland Comet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Comet), where two pairs of turbojet engines were buried into the wings, is that such configuration increased the structural weight and complexity of the wings. Armour had to be placed around the engine cells to contain debris from any serious engine failures; also, placing the engines inside the wing required a more complicated wing structure.
I believe most of those are social groups, yes. That hardly implies I believe they all work the same way, just that they have some characteristics in common, as social groups.

Most of those "collections of people" lead to certain behaviors, simply from the fact that people self-evaluate and even construct their identity based on their membership and hierarchic position in them.

When you can have a feeling of belonging or not belong, social incentives to reject those not belonging, feelings of pride in your actions as a group, etc, you have a social group, be it a tribe, a company or a family.

Self-categorization theory explains how these groups are formed, and why they are a social group, and not just a random collection of people.
This seems extremely useful. My school did not have a consolidated math class like this, although computer science and software engineering students were required to take various courses in math, particularly discrete and combinatorial math and linear algebra.

I do know that there were many students who double majored in Math / Computer Science although there was a restriction on minoring in mathematics as a CS student because of the large number of prerequisites. Still, it seems useful to combine proofs, induction, graph theory and related domains into one course. I did opt for taking a large number of math classes and some fairly high-level electives, and I have to say the most interesting area I came across was the use of generating functions for solving recurrence relations and the study of the Catalan numbers. For those of you unfamiliar with the Catalan numbers, it is the sequence of the number of binary trees that can be created with a certain number of elements. Another area they come up in (among a large number of problems) is creating paths by Manhattan distance.

The Catalan numbers also count the number of expressions with matching pairs of parentheses.
Yeah, it reminded me uncomfortably of Trotsky as well - not in how it works, but rather how it is supposed to work if you just ignore critical details.

C&C isn't just a 20th century management methodology. It's been around since the beginnings of civilization. It's hardwired into our parenting, education, and government models. A small, committed team can try organizational structures that run counter to everything we've been taught for our entire lives - but does it scale?

More than Trotsky, this makes me think of Bakunin, Kropotkin, and other anarcho-syndicalists. This sort of "classical anarchism" also focuses on the problems and failures of the C&C hierarchy, but attempts to deal with it by rejecting the hierarchy altogether, beyond local control - if you can't punch your boss in the nose anymore, there's too much structure. Society is then organized into direct democracy around the means of production - farms, factories, businesses that elect their leaders locally and can remove them from power at any time.

Anarcho-syndicalism was put into practice in the Spanish Civil War, when the workers simply stopped answering to their bosses and instead ran things for themselves. And it got crushed. If there was one thing the fascists and communists (both strong C&C structures) could agree on, it was that the anarchists were the enemy. And when your little farm commune got visited by a thousand soldiers with tanks and artillery, you got wiped out, no matter how pure the ideology.

I can imagine a similar problem with Holocratic businesses - traditional businesses might well be uncomfortable dealing with such an organization, when they can't trust the authority of the leadership of the Holocratic structure. And if you try to keep a Holocratic structure internally while maintaining traditional outward-facing executive leadership, you're sooner or later going to have a problem of "because the CTO said so". The question of who has the power to fire in a Holocratic organization? You'll get your answer soon enough.

And there's the rub, isn't it? If you have an organization large enough to transition from anarcho-syndicalism to a deeper C&C structure, but try to do software-enhanced anarcho-syndicalism (which is kinda what Holocracy is), then you're going to have a hidden, obscured C&C structure riding along inside your Holocratic cloud. And real, final power will be with C&C, which in turn derives its authority from the owners/board, which in turn derive authority from common law and social convention. But with everyone knowing that there's a metaphorical gun to their heads, Holocratic decisions will be made with the unspoken acknowledgement that someone can/will get fired over bad decisions. So much for transparency.

Of course, this is all theoretical.
This was shown in a Ted talk by Martin Hanczyc http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_hanczyc_the_line_between_lif...

It shows that there is no fine line between life and non life and life is more like a spectrum with complex life on one side and a simple life-less item like a rock on the other side.
This (derivative) article has some cool animated GIFs that show the effect in action: http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2015/04/dancing-droplets/
Modularise CSS the React way
I have a (signed and with some nice cloudflare stickers, thank you very much) copy of your previous GNU Make book. How much better is this one?

(Disclaimer; Mr GC is totally not paying me to ask this)
The context of the thread is a report with my name on it.

My professional opinion is my own. The developer's opinion is also relevant (to people who don't buy into nonsensical conspiracy theories), so I mentioned it.
Online Labs[0] turned into Scaleway.

There's a blog post about it at [1]

--

[0] http://labs.online.net/
[1] https://blog.scaleway.com/2015/04/02/from-online-labs-to-sca...
This is a broad generalization that it's used for illegal purposes.

My (very legal) business accepts Bitcoin. I don't have many customers using that form of payment, but chances are I may not have them if I didn't accept it.

I don't really care what form of payment you want to use.
Nothing in your link actually speaks to the points under discussion.
I agree that in theory, that separation is sound. But in practice, it seems no one uses it like that, and we find ourselves constantly fighting against that purity. e.g. adding extra divs just so I can center one bit of text the way I want to.
Pretty sure it was clear.

Government is lazy and callus about updating regulations regarding to development and testing of prophylactics. Innovative and better alternatives were taken off the market due to said regulations.

The commentary was spot on. The point of the original comment was to provide bullets without lengthy justification and citation and it was upvoted.

Then this "lazy" bullet was added and all the sudden the author needs to back up his assertion with detailed arguments? The pro-government bias here is insane.

As I said, don't be critical of government on HN unless you don't care about the group think popularity karma contest going on here.
Not really. Bitcoin's value has gone up by thousands of percent the past few years. That's volatility.

Volatility isn't just up and down. It can be just up.

Now generally I'd agree you don't want massive volatility, but that's a function of its age. A market of 50 thousand users is easy to manipulate by one rich guy. A market by of 1m users is still easy but harder. A large 100m user market is really hard to manipulate. This means volatility should keep dropping as bitcoin grows.

Second, a market where most users are speculators is more volatile than one where most are users. As bitcoin becomes larger it'll only do so on the back of genuine consumer adoption. That, too, causes volatility to drop.

Does practice confirm the theory? Yes. Every single year bitcoin volatility has dropped since inception. It's always trending down. All the talk about volatility isn't so interesting to me as it's a function of its youth.
Okamoto (based in Japan) makes some good ones that can legally be sold in the US. http://www.okamotousa.com/
You appear to be confusing strength with brutality. The military dictatorship was not strong. That’s why it collapsed. In general, dictatorships tend to be weak and unstable in comparison to more democratic forms of government.
And thanks to their decentralized nature tulip bulbs still exist and people still pay for them. You cannot stop tulip bulbs.
[Interview] Are You Good Enough to Present at TED?
I've looked at this system as an alternative to ADT. Can you go into any more detail regarding your likes, dislikes, and what "sometimes too well" means?