skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
If he were to announce to the passengers on the plane, "I could bring this plane down with my laptop hackery", people would be terrified and want him off the plane. They don't give a shit about intent, they just know the guy is talking about being able to bring down the plane they are on.
> The simple solution is to (ugh) write a wrapper script which runs Latex, and creates another output file if the labels are wrong. Only after the labels are right does the output file stop changing.

The other alternative is to treat the rerunning of latex until it reaches a fixed point as a single build step, instead of multiple ones.
Structures cost money and we trade our time for money (and call it work).

To some, the value of doing what you want is greater than the value of the physical structure. That could be because they consider time extremely valuable, they don't value a home as highly, or because they hate the work. It's usually some combination of the three.

A lot of voluntarily homeless just see "society" as the entire list of rules of what you're supposed to do (go to college, get a job, buy a house, settle down, have kids) and reject the whole of it. It could be that you've seen enough to think that the entire system is flawed, so you just bail on all of it. It could be that those ideals just don't jive with you personally and are completely unappealing. That's how I felt when I dropped out of college and moved to China for no good reason. (Homelessness came after that). I was on track to be an investment banker or something, but hated the idea a little more each day until I finally said, "f this, I'm out" and started vagabonding around Asia.

Maybe there is an element of mental illness, I don't know. I had lunch with a psychologist once and he tried saying, "Seriously, listen to me, you are mentally ill." I guess he thought I was crazy - maybe I am - but I never went in to see him. I had no interest in altering my mind with drugs. I like who I am, even when it is difficult to interoperate with the rest of society.

When I was homeless, security was worthless. I still think it's largely an illusion, but that's a different topic. Freedom to do what I loved was well worth not having a home for. Working happened to be the thing that I loved, and I especially loved tech. I worked 16 hour days - I just wanted to work on my thing not someone else's thing. If I had enough runway to afford a House I would have done that, but I didn't. So living in a Honda civic it was. It didn't really bother me, to be honest. A bed is a bed.

Now I am married and have a baby on the way. I still don't care about security, but they need it, so ok I'm kind of reformed in that way. Luckily we're now funded so i still do exactly what I want all day. I don't know what would happen if the company failed. It's just not an option.
Generate ‪#‎FREE‬ Landing Pages for Your ‪#‎Mobile‬ ‪#‎Apps‬
> However, the bad news is that all of these fixes are expensive and all of them take years

As a power electronics control engineer I strenuously disagree. The historical problems with massive renewable penetration aren't just solvable, they are well-solved already!

For example, grid-tied inverters and PFC rectifiers have been meeting IEEE-519 harmonics guidelines for many years already.

We even have virtual impedance methods which provide harmonic and reactive support for the grid available right now. The problem is that the utilities have actively blocked their implementation!

The grid accepted an almost total transformation from nonlinear RCD computer loads to PFC-corrected loads without difficulty at all, and there are far more switching power supplies on the line than there are active inverters. So I view the "problem" with unity power factor inverters as a red herring.

Anti-islanding has been in effect for many years already, which completely eliminates the "felled tree leaves live wires" problem. Again, another non-problem.

Consider very carefully what you get from the entrenched utilities, because they are coming to the table with a tremendous amount of preexisting bias.
It always baffles me to think how much abstractions that Einstein's mind could contain. His philosophical, political, and scientific views reflect his sheer ability to make abstractions from first principles. Also, what is more baffling is his sheer ability to sustain those thoughts in his minds for years. The whole progression of thoughts regarding special relativity/general relativity went on for more than a decade with few years of intense work in-between. Einstein exemplified the power of devising thought experiments in mind and then substantiating those thought experiments with reasoning, observation and math for years to come. Interestingly, he failed to persuade the world leaders to destroy nuclear weapons that were threat to human kind and were not that useful in the actual war events.Say something about our greatest mind finds hard to do. Btw, I love his humor.
Can you explain what collaborative benefits an open office plan brings when trying to concentrate on fixing code? Currently I work in a place with 66" high walls and I find that true collaboration happens regardless of the wall height, via instant messaging, email and walking into someone's cube. I've worked in places with low cube walls and I've absolutely hated it - I felt so uncomfortable I couldn't wait to leave by the end of the day. In the end, I feel low cube walls hurt privacy-minded people more than they help "collaborative" types.
Distributed solar on roofs, offshore wind, and combined cycle natural gas for peaking and base load until renewables complete their buildout.
To be clear: I'm getting that from a psychiatrist and a psychologist that I've seen. Of course they would have an economic incentive to over-diagnose.

Do you happen to know what one actually does in order to "pursue constant discipline and self-monitoring"? Mindfulness meditation is not really that effective, but I might have been doing it wrong. Running in the morning seems to have had some effect but I can't yet tell. The only things that have been effective have been applying external constraints by:

- Getting married to someone willing to yell at me for getting distracted.

- Installing http://selfcontrolapp.com/ and putting it on before I go to bed.

- Putting my smartphone near a co-worker's desk when I get in in the morning.

- Making sure my monitor faces out towards the common area so someone could look over my shoulder.

- Keeping a lab notebook so that I can remember the state in my head if I do get distracted.

- During meetings, pushing people to be very clear on what problem we are trying to solve.

It works okay. I am a fairly productive engineer as long as I am on a team where I can succeed at that last bit. But I've never been able to get rid of the internal urge to check my email or HN or Twitter. Or worse, to look things up about, for example, the role that the Harlem Hellfighters and other WWI vets played in the Civil Rights movement of the 1920's and 30's. So whenever I have a weekend to myself to work on projects in my spare time, I don't get anything done and I haven't known how to even make progress toward fixing that.
Lasers as a tool for cleaning up orbital debris
I've recently entertained the heretical thought that cubicles, as much as everyone seems to love to hate them, represent a good compromise between private offices and open floor plans. Particularly when you talk about cubicles with "medium height" walls (around 53", from a little Googling), there's some acoustic and visual privacy from your neighbors, but there's still a good sense of openness.

Also, a cubicle provides many more places to store stuff: reference books, office supplies, all the papers your supposedly paperless office still finds a way to generate, and whatever you've personally done to make your workspace your workspace.

My cynical suspicion is that the biggest benefit open floorplans provide to employers is that they're much cheaper. Even if you buy everyone motorized sit/stand desks, floor mats and Herman Miller chairs, you're not only spending less per employee than you would on a cubicle (a standard setup with a generic chair, shelving and even a single file cabinet easily hits $2K), you're fitting more employees into the same space.
> That said, all of this business cat stuff is way over my head. I have no idea whether it's interesting or not.

Same here, someone please annotate this Sony Wikileaks leak on Genius.com or something! I'd really like to understand it. Genius.com would be perfect for such a thing.
Can confirm. In the last 8 years I specialized in 2 major things: all source analysis and specific tool engineering. This greatly simplified my life.
I've looked through the style sheets and from what I can tell the grid is actually just a bunch of check boxes and are selectors like

input:not(:checked) +*+ input:not(:checked) +*+ input:not(:checked) +
*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ input {
display: none;
}

the plus sign meaning adjacent to and the * meaning anything so + * + means 2 over + * + *+ meaning 3 etc
It's about noise and distractions. Programming takes concentration and in an open office layout all you see is people trying their best to not be distracted. Why not let good architecture solve that problem instead? Let the experts, architects, do their job and stop second-guessing them.
Certain older YouTube apps will no longer be supported after April 2015
>As we really have no idea what we, collectively, think of as a moral terminal goal, and less so how to formalize this, there is no reason to expect the first AIs to have goals that correspond to what we want.

The first part of this sentence is true and interesting, but it makes the second half not very scary. Essentially, since we don't know what if anything, we want morally, what is the danger in letting AI's do whatever? Don't you think if they did do something we objected to, we could respond at that point?

It's like law isn't it - lots of areas of humanity aren't governed by law at all. You can watch someone prepare themselves a godawful sandwich with things nobody would put on the same plate, or write a meandering book that is a horrific read, or wear crocks with a suit, and you can't sue them for any of this, there just aren't any laws at all on these subjects. But they're not really problems on a social level either - laws are created when things become a problem.

So, likewise, where is the huge social problem with AI's? Nowhere. So, why worry? surely it's not like any horrific AI can happen in 8 hours, so that the entire rest of humanity (much of which is completely segregated from any one network, etc) can't possibly respond. Today, AI has no autonomy or control over anything, whereas 7 billion people are organized in societies and oversee millions of dumb computer systems that do whatever people instruct - this is not going to suddenly turn around in a matter of hours, and since, as you state, we have no definitive terminal preferences, I don't see the danger in letting AI control things we don't care about.

I suppose this could be different if AI controlled a lot already, but it's just not the case.
Isn't Hawaii a special case because of its isolation?

If so many people install solar in Southern California or Arizona that the local utility has more power coming in during the day than it can use or store, it can sell the excess via the national grid to someplace that can use it.

As far as I've been able to determine from the internet, there is no connection between Hawaii power grids and the mainland. In fact, it looks like the grids of each island might be isolated from the others.
Is the purpose of open-plan offices ever to intimidate people into working? If so, I'd love to read a case study on it.

From everything I've read they are mostly built because of the lower costs, better flexibility, and associated collaboration benefits.
I'll put that one right next to my copy of "Nietzsche as an Aryan and a Scholar".

But seriously, this whole identifying as "Jew" like it were a Dr. Pepper commercial is getting tiresome. When are we going to be happy just being "Human"? Of what I read, Old Dr. E would have liked that title better. And I am 100% certain while he supported the creation of the new Israel in the early days, we wouldn't have been at all happy about what has become of things now.
"Deliverable" is one of words that provokes a "nope" reaction from me. I am not a resource that produces deliverables. I am a human being.
Ah, I can see I sort of assumed that, given that I was born, raised in and have retired to an area a hair's breath from the US Tornado Alley, as we were recently reminded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado. We're deadly serious about Civil Defense, and at least the main news/talk station has what's needed, is for example always on the air live with useful info when there's a Tornado Warning.

On the other hand, even if all the things you list aren't in place, if you have the basic infrastructure including massive penetration of receivers you can jury rig the rest given a little time and luck.
Open plan offices are another bad idea dishonestly sold to tech workers. They aren't more "collaborative". The low-level anxiety and misanthropy that they foster is being informally called "open plan syndrome" by psychiatrists in the Bay Area. People collaborate less in open-plan offices and, while some think their purpose is to intimidate people into working, people actually fuck around way more.

I actually don't think the purpose of open-plan offices is intimidation, nor that they are cheap. It's marketing. "Startup" is now a brand. At high levels, it's an excuse for bad behavior. ("We can't afford the severance cost or publicity of a layoff, so we'll fire 10 percent for phony 'performance' reasons. They knew this was a risk when they joined a startup.") For the rest, it's a useful ruse that allows companies that are even more cutthroat (just as young gangsters are typically more violent than older criminals who recognize that bloodshed is bad for business) to somehow present themselves as Not Corporate. And let's be honest: open-plan offices look sleek, busy, and vibrant. They're photogenic. They're also awful places to work, just as Times Square is (to New Yorkers, anyway) an undesirable place to live.

Open-plan offices also raise interesting questions about legality and discrimination. There's a solid argument that they discriminate unfairly against older workers, people with disabilities, and women. I certainly wouldn't go into anywhere typical tech office if I were pregnant; I can handle the open-plan stress with enough meds, but can the baby? The nagging but chronic stress of being visible from behind can't be good for the fetus. So what should the legal status of open-plan offices be? Obviously, they shouldn't be banned outright. Trading floors need them, and companies under 20 people should be allowed to use whatever office space makes sense for them. Ultimately, though, while I think open-plan work environments should be legal, I think the burden of proof out to lie with the employer, and "we're a tech company" is not sufficient. I also think that companies using open-plan offices should be taxed to pay for a public disability fund in order to compensate for the health costs that companies can currently get away with externalizing.
Strangely, Iceland has become a sort of bizarre Mecca over the past several years for several strains of leftism.
Speaking of straw men, please note that I didn't say anything about people starving.

By all means, give money to shelters etc. But why not also give money to homeless people? The two are not mutually exclusive. You are repeating the usual mean-spirited argument that we shouldn't give homeless people money because they might spend it on things we don't approve of. But so what? It's their life, not ours. Charity with strings attached isn't charity.

I find it a useful exercise to imagine applying the same logic in dealing with comfortably well-off middle class people. If such a person has an alcohol problem, the usual reaction amongst reasonably enlightened people is to try to find that person help. We don't try to cut off all of their sources of income on the grounds that they'll just spend it all on booze. Now, perhaps some of them will spend all of their income on booze, but since we aren't so much in the habit of completely dehumanizing them, we recognize that this is still their choice to make.

The bottom line here is that drug and alcohol habits don't cost infinite amounts of money. You can perfectly well spend some of your money on drugs and the rest on food, etc. Unless you have some kind of moral objection to people using drugs, why should you care if a homeless person is spending some of their money that way? It's judgmental and mean to refuse them money because you suspect that they might be going to do this.
"Bad intentions" aren't even necessary -- out of control AGI will probably look more like "oops, I hit >rm -rf /".

AFAIK, nearly every piece of software ever deployed has had bugs that humans have had to subsequently patch. AGI must not, even though it would probably be much easier to build it if it did.
I found make was also too much coupled to some programming practices (implicit extension-based rules) and not lazy enough, hence the dual design of tup. Tup felt a little too restrictive even though the smaller scope is a relief. Truth lies in the middle, I'm sure make will have a prodigal son sooner or later.
Of additional interest would be the other DARPA programs participating in the open catalog, of which MEMEX is but one.

http://www.darpa.mil/opencatalog/

There are many interesting 'pieces of the puzzle' here that you can glue together to make something awesome.

If anyone cares about what success means in our case, it's the transition of technology to other agencies and companies (not necessarily military!). We want the research funded here to live beyond the program instead of dying when the program ends (truly satisfying from a Software Engineering perspective, where many R&D deliverables are either too specialized or never see the light of day)
Speedy recovery. :)
I wasn't trying to make a prediction and that wasn't what I was saying or the gist of my argument. The important part is the trend.

you are welcome to believe it can't end badly, I don't. In fact looking at millions of years of evolution I see nothing whatsoever that would make humans sacred from being outcompeted.
This article appears to suggest that the "comfortable" lifestyle being sought by the workers here is one of needless decadence and undeserved luxury, when even $15.00 an hour may still be marginally above the standard of living depending on the region, particularly for a student, or single parent.

I have to disagree with the premise that education, skill and expertise are strong qualifiers for level of income. Companies want to pay you as little for your time as possible, in order to extract as much value out of you as possible. You can bet your bottom dollar that EMTs and dentists and whomever you might consider deserving of comfort would be making minimum wage if their employers could get away with it. They can't, not because employers recognize that those jobs are somehow implicitly more worthy, but because the labor pool would refuse to work for those wages, and because those jobs can't effectively be automated or outsourced yet.

If fast food companies can afford to pay burger flippers $15.00 an hour and still make a profit, then perhaps the author should consider whether or not more estimable jobs, by comparison, are still valued too little.
> It seems easier to 'opt-out' of distractions (by putting on headphones)

Very few people can actually 'opt-out' of distractions by any means except removing themselves from the vicinity of other people.

> If you have a culture where people can be sitting next to you but can signal they shouldn't be interrupted, or there is ample quiet space for private work to be done, you can have the best of both worlds.

I find that culture exceedingly rare and highly dependent on the nature of the work you are doing. A webdev on a Macbook Air on the company Wifi can easily pick up and go somewhere else. A dev tied to a hard line or physical resources (books, special hardware, etc.) can't. The latter also forces impromptu meetings at people's desks, since the discussion generally revolves around something that can't be picked up and taken to a breakout space. Assuming breakout spaces exist; my previous employer was creating open plans with only a handful of overbooked conference rooms.
Yeah I thought about that when I was writing the reply. I don't really consider that a generalized use case. Is it more generalized? Yes. Computing itself, however, can be argued to be a specialized task. My computer today doesn't do "computing" it lets me read news stories, it lets me talk on skype, it lets me send mail, it lets me have philosophical discussions on hackernews. The personal computer is so clearly a generalized machine whereas those time sharing rigs back in the 60s were clearly not. They were specialized tools for programmers.
I second the motion that this is dumb. But weakness of airplane security is not unknown. Numerous presentations had been done at BlackHat and DefCon over the last few years, and people generally received good responses. But does anyone know if these presenters ever contacted the airline authority before they went on stage?
Agreed. I like the concept of Activity Based Working. http://space.ucsf.edu/activity-based-workplace
"Open offices lets me be around my colleagues and inspires me to focus on my work and get access to help promptly when I need it. "

Actually any co-location scheme allows this, walls or no walls. It's a matter of culture, not of vertical dividers.

But I concur, it's a bit over the top to say that "everyone" hates open offices since clearly some people don't. Personally, to me it feels like a quarter suffers, of which there is a vocal minority, half don't give a damn and quarter thinks it's ok.

Personally I think open office is the worst to happen to the modern workplace. I like being around my team but I don't enjoy being consciously aware of the doings of the four other teams who share the space I'm in.

Team rooms. Those are golden. Better yet, rooms of 2-3 persons.
Thank you for reminding me of Graal. One of the most interesting projects I have ever seen, and I have just gotten a lot of free time to explore it.
YouTube's New Material Design on the Web
Well, since Jews believe that the quality of being a Jew is inherited from the mother (for the more Orthodox amongst them), regardless of one's degree of adherence to the religion, then identifying as a Jew seems kosher (pun intended).
European nations didn't invade america or later part of Africa, to create new nations. That's why it's called colonianism : they wanted to extend their own territories.

Zionism is a process for a people to find a land where it would be autonomous ( under the principle that every people should have the right to be master of its own destiny). In that regard, the desire for palestinians to create a palestinian state, or for the kurds to create a kurdish state is the exact same principle. I guess you wouldn't call that colonialism.
This is so true. I meet a lot of homeless people through addiction recovery programs I'm part of, and there are as many reasons to be homeless as there are homeless people. If you want to improve your understanding of homelessness without actually being homeless, try sitting down and having a conversation with a homeless person. I'm sure you can find some wherever you live. Many of them are just so unbelievably lonely that you're really doing a lot by letting the tell you about their lives.
They are one and the same. Oracle's JVM is the OpenJDK's JVM, slightly modified (they mostly add monitoring capabilities that were part of the JRockit JVM), and Oracle's JDK (which contains the JVM) is OpenJDK with some minor additions.
15 Tips for an Outstanding First Day of a New IT Job