skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The Tenderloin is shrinking. I was just through there yesterday. The 6th St corridor between 101 and Market, which is in SOMA but was effectively part of the Tenderloin, is being gentrified. The old "defenstration.org" building has been leveled and there is construction on the site, so 3 of the 4 corners at 6th and Howard have been rebuilt. The "bad area" of 6th St is now down to the 2-block stretch between Howard and Market, and there's construction in the first half-block south of Market.
Most of the little alleys in the area have become sites for new high-end apartment buildings. TechShop SF is in that area. The jaws are closing.

In the Tenderloin proper, a block has been chopped off on each side. On the west, gentrification has partially advanced to Polk St, with a "globally inspired rotisserie" across from Royal Liquors. The "Polk Gulch" area, once home to rent boys and trannies, is almost gone. On the south edge, at Market, since Twitter moved into the old fashion center (SF never had much of a fashion industry; the other fashion center building, in SOMA converted to Sega, then Zynga), the "mid market" dump of an area is rapidly being rebuilt. There are still SRO hotels on that part of Market, but two of the three strip clubs have closed.

In the heart of the Tenderloin, around Glide, buildings are being rebuilt. The SRO hotels owned by nonprofits remain, but they're being surrounded by rebuilt buildings and hipster restaurants. Some of the SRO hotels are getting upgrades.

It's going. Slowly, but it's going.
Board members can theoretically face personal liability if they fail to discharge their fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the shareholders.

And in some states I think claims can also be made against directors for unpaid wages -- I'm not sure how the jurisdictional issues play out for a Delaware corporation with employees elsewhere though.
> For the time being, I plan to do my best to avoid the stuff.

How do you actually go on about avoiding glyphosate? If you buy organic, your food crop may have been treated with e.g. rotenone, which is a notably nastier poison than anyone has claimed glyphosate to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone
I can't remember the source, but I feel like I've heard it a few times, that VC overall is a fairly poorly performing asset class considering the risk. Most VCs don't beat the market.
اصباغ وورق جدران – مؤسسة فهد المسيليم للمقاولات العامة للمباني
This seems a good provision to me.

If there's no personal liability, and the CEO is otherwise looking at bankruptcy, only ethics would force them to be honest with staff about being unable to make payroll. Employees would be out 1 pay at least, probably more, depending on how well the CEO can lie.
I guess people are hoping for the rare occasion where you will be either bought up or you can go IPO one day.
By one calculation, for every single American soldier killed fighting the Germans, 80 Soviet soldiers died doing the same.

http://www.eisenhowerinstitute.org/about/living_history/wwii...
To me, it seems that there are two sides to the GMO coin. On one, we have a technology and a science that can clearly benefit everyone, especially helping combat malnutrition and disease in developing countries. On the other, we have 3 or 4 major companies controlling the distribution, creation, and production of GMO's both physically and legally. If we want GMO's to be effective with their intended purpose, we have to figure out how to dethrone Monsanto and Syngenta. This whole system seems eerily analogous to Computer Software and Hardware monopolization in the early 70's. IIRC, we solved that monopolization with the Open Sourced movement...
The fees (management and performance) shouldn't be considered as "return on investment", but rather as "paycheck for work performed". The founded might as well invest $0 (e.g. if s/he has rich friends or a reputation that makes it easy for him/her to find seed capital), but still reap a lot of profits.
Around 768 bytes. The golden days of tight code and amazing minds pulling together cool code that set the framework for floating point on 'home' computers. A great reference point and piece of history.

edit: I see from the link in the comment posted by ddingus that there is also an errata with a fix for the bug in the original code. http://codebase64.org/doku.php?id=base:errata_for_rankin_s_6...
I think there's a mistake on the Fibonacci sequence tiling, this one: http://grahamshawcross.com/2012/10/12/wang-tiles-and-turing-...

Shouldn't there be a diagonal up/right light/dark green line between 5 and 8? I.e. tiles (6,3), (6,4), (7,2), (7,3), numbering from 1 (x,y) style?
One thing to consider is that this is the story when you join an existing VC firm as a partner.

In a way, a lot of these funds are entrepreneurial ventures as well. It's not too hard, for 1-2 people who knows plenty of wealthy individuals, to raise a $25-50M fund. You'd be amazed at how much money is available in the world (pension funds, wealthy families, endowments, etc etc)

So, the math tends to be a 2-20 (management fee / carry).

Let's say this fund returns $100m over a period of 5 years:

Fund size: $50M.
Y1-5: Management fee (used for salaries + general expenses), 2%: $1M per annum (- expenses, e.g. secretary, travel, etc). To be divided between two partners. For a small fund, this is probably $200-300k per annum, per partner. Not bad, but not amazing either, given you just spent 1-2 years raising all that money.

When the fund is liquidated, the fund managers receive 20% of the capital gain. They first return the $50m initial capital, and then get 20% of the $50m they made, i.e. $10M (split between both partners).

Partners usually also invest some of their own money. It's rare to see funds where the principals don't have capital invested (this aligns incentives)

Edit: same math applies to private equity funds, where deals tend to be less risky than in VC. (for the fund, not the acquired company)
SNA was awful. SDN Isn't awful (yet)
Fund invests in stuff, takes additional 2% management fees every year.

My understanding is that the 2% management fee only applies to funds invested. If they raise $1B, but it takes 5 years to make all the investments, they only get the full 2% in years 5+.
Over the years, some pretty good routines have been developed.

http://codebase64.org/doku.php?id=base:6502_6510_maths

Tons of great little tricks in there. 6502 math coding is kind of fun in this way.

A look at old games, such as "Elite" ( http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/) show many trade offs being used to make simple wireframe 3D plausible at some few frames per second.
"And this is not even the worst that can happen. I have withdrawn (let them expire) offers from people that after receiving my first offer tried to strongarm ridiculous bonuses. The reason I have withdrawn the offer is that it made me clear that the person does not understand their worth to us"

I thought negotiations are iterative. Start from an anchor value, then the other party suggests a higher number with reasoning why this would be a fairer value, and continue until an agreement or batna is reached.

If the response was "screw you, I want 1 million" I would understand you aggrievances but typically resenting employees attempts at negotiation gives out the impression that you want only complacent underdogs as employees.
I walk south down Larkin every day and turn left (heading East) down Post. Without fail, there is a 50-100 person line of young people every morning outside the door of this place:

http://www.mrholmesbakehouse.com/

So yes, as another commenter mentioned, there can be quite a contrast present.
Sie sind ein Angel.
> Central repositories are a dangerous thing. A great win for modularity? I'm not so sure - the bigger the repository the less replaceable it is at the end of the day.

As long as the repository has a well-defined API then that can be replaced just as easily as any other single piece, right?

> I'm not really sure why skarnet makes this argument anyway, since (x)inetd or its replacements also work as a "central repository" of sockets for socket activated services.

Same for me on that one.

> He's not talking about parallel boot, he is talking about what advantages socket activation (supposedly) brings to the table while parallel booting. :)

Is this really all that different? My understanding was that the point of socket activation was that you'd no longer need to explicitly order when services would start.
Isomorphic React Apps at Paypal
Great explanation. Notice how the VC fees eat heavily into the LPs profits. $500M in profit netted only $200M after fees - leaving only a 20% return after ten years. The S&P500 would've easily beaten that rate. A VC firm needs to have a skyhigh IRR before their LPs get their money's worth.
It's usually committed capital.

http://www.quora.com/Are-management-fees-based-on-committed-...
“Guantánamo Diary” by Mohamedou Ould Slahi: The global war on terror's witness
Ah yes, science says it's safe and who wants to be a climate change denier? Case closed!

Here in Germany rabbits are dying a gruesome death by overeating genetically modified rape. Supposedy the bitter taste that told them to "stop" was removed and now they eat until the die.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13522441.html (Article in German)

So the food is of course "safe" as in you can eat it without any direct harm; examining complex biological interactions however is far beyond the scope of lobbyists and companies that want to bring products to the market.

So now we already have fruits that look "fresh" even if they are already a bit old, tomatoes that are just huge bags of water without any taste (eating someone's homegrown variants are a huge revelation), stuff genererally optimized for size, looks, and a superficial taste. To me that is not progress at all.
And, solar panels are becoming more efficient every year, so it does not make sense to me to embed them in a bike path that will last decades.

The most efficicient in terms of both finance and environment, to use solar panels is probably to replace them as soon as they have paid for themselves.
I did :)

"atleast in my case"
I don't think the issue with Monsanto is how they're paid, I think it's what modifications they make. If a company makes golden rice, insect resistant crops, or adds nitro-fixing genes, I have no issue with the being rewarded for their effort. The real problem with Monsanto is that the business is based on turning or farmland into a barren wasteland that can only grow their crops.

Roundup is carcingenic to human[1], killing the monarch butterfly[2], and the monoculture practices it encourages is causing massive soil erosion in our nation's farm belt. [3] Without grasses or other groundcover, erosion is certain.

[1] http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/roundup-ingredient-proba...

[2] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/201...

[3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2006/03/slow-insidious-s...
Not sure, but I don't think this is correct. I believe this to apply on the entire fund.

If you put together a $50m fund, and haven't invested anything (you're working on sourcing deals) then you still need cash to turn on the lights. That's essentially what the management fee is for. You shouldn't be making money on your management fee.

This gets 'abused' quite a bit when it comes to larger multi billion $/€ funds, but for smaller funds, this should definitely be the case. Also the reason why for larger funds management fees sometimes get pushed down to 1.5-1%

Another thing that sometimes happens as well is that the fund partners get paid their carry when they liquidate an investment in year 3-5, before the entire fund is liquidated.
> it looked very promising

Thanks!

> Reading from a port twice seems to trigger a clock cycle (did I get that right?)

You did! It is by design that reading from the same port twice will trigger a clock cycle :-) There are several reasons why we did it this way. First, having to always explicitly declare a new clock cycle (rather than having it inferred) is kind of ugly, because your code is full of "fence;" instructions. The second reason is that we thought this would actually prevent bugs ^^ (the third is for symmetry with writes I think)

The thing with Cx is that, unlike VHDL/Verilog, reading a port can mean more than accessing a single signal, and similarly writing to a port can be more than writing a single signal. For example "sync" ports have an additional "valid" signal that is set to true for one cycle when data is written to the port. This is very handy, allowing synchronization between tasks (read becomes blocking) and is useful as a control signal (the "valid" signal serves as the write enable on a RAM for example). We also have a "sync ready" that adds an additional "ready" signal computed asynchronously and again useful for back-pressure control in pipelines, FIFOs, etc.
> MongoDB + Haskell.

Something I hate with passion and something I love with passion. This makes me cringe…
I think nearly every JS engine now optimizes `for (...;i < arr.length;...)` -- I'm nearly 100% sure V8 does and fairly certain Firefox's and ModernIE's do as well.

In fact, even `for` is likely an over-optimization. In nearly all JS code you can get away with just using `forEach` (or its friends).
There's another way to skin this cat. Assume you are not "CEO material", hire someone who turns out to be a complete fuckup to do it for you because of your self doubt.

I saw this happen to a company that basically invented the concept of hosted phone/communication services for business, back in the mid 90s. Their competitors are worth billions now. The third rate/bully/crook CEO the founder hired destroyed, literally, billions in opportunity.

(In retrospect the whole company was rotten to the core, so I enjoyed watching their competitor ring the NYSE bell, but if the founder had taken on the task of understanding his own business, this outcome would probably have been avoided).
Twitter Not Using Ads on Vine and Periscope
Yes, macros can make code very hard to read, if designed badly. Of course, so can functions, variable names, and program flow.

But Lisp with macros is very different from C++ with operator overloading. With C++ operator overloading, you only know if a given line has something you don't understand (that is, an overloaded operator) by looking at every other file in your project. With Lisp macros, you know that you're dealing with something new because you don't recognize the first token in the s-expression. You might not know it's a _macro_ rather than just a _function_, but you know it's something you need to investigate.

Basically, in Rumsfeld's terminology, an overloaded operator is an unknown unknown, but a Lisp macro is a known unknown. A macro's behavior may be confusing, but its existence isn't. And that's a very big difference.
Regarding this irrationality, my pet theory is that the arena of "food" is an attractor for superstition.

Maybe it has something to do with the mysterious process by which you are built from the stuff you eat.

From fad diets, to religious diet restrictions, to diet-based "studies have shown" trends (antioxidants!), to made up allergies. It's no accident that most established religions have dietary rules. (Yes, I know some of these allergies are real. And some of the diets have merit.)

Diet attracts all kinds of attention, and only a small part of it is based in reality. It's like a projector screen where other anxieties play out.
Sony Vegas Pro 12 Crack and Keygen Incl Serial Free Download
You never know, I might live in a glass house.

That it is observably impractical was the point I was trying to make.
Facial Performance Sensing Head-Mounted Display (Oculus)
I do wonder where the people previously living there go. Our homeless population statistics barely budge year to year, but the gentrification is palpable everywhere. Maybe the stats just aren't that good? But if they're leaving, where to? Do they somehow end up rehabilitated?
The team that beat us was doing more

Q: What is the capital of (BUZZ) Lithuania?

A: Vilnius.
So make trading while insolvent a crime as it is in the UK - having a CEO who's panicking about becoming personally bankrupt is the last thing you want in a crisis.
Oh, I see. You mean forking the older version.

Sort of, I suppose. A recent example I've been monitoring where this hasn't worked very well is Rhodecode. It was originally GPL'ed and then got locked up into proprietary software (through lies and subterfuge, I must add). The Mercurial folks took the last clearly GPL'ed version and forked it into Kallithea. But Kallithea is not Rhodecode, and Rhodecode has in the meantime added a bunch of development and features that are as restrictive as possible.

I wouldn't take this to mean that Rhodecode is still available under the least restrictive license. The authors have really taken Rhodecode away from us, and we can scamper about with a fork, but there has definitely been some damage done.
Unfortunately you can't guarantee results with advertising.

Right, which is why you should never commit 90%+ of your available cash to an advertising campaign, but should instead spend a smaller amount and wait to see if you get results before you spend more.
The frying pan/fire metaphor implies choosing between equally awful options, but the factory work is substantially better than the alternatives.

Of course, to rich westerners like you and me they are both unfathomably awful, but to the people concerned going from living on the streets to a modest bed indoors can be a huge life changing event.
Here's a free C++ wang tile implementation I wrote: https://github.com/crawl/crawl/blob/master/crawl-ref/source/...

It includes a stochastic solver for non-trivial tile sets.
I came (back) to JS after doing a lot of Python and I think that may have helped understanding `this` in JS.

Note that the behaviour of `this` defaulting to `window` (or `global`) is only the legacy behaviour. You should be using strict mode (there's really no justification not to -- except for extremely rare edge cases, e.g. having to delete global variables without having a reliable reference to the global object other than `this`).

In strict mode, `this` would be undefined. As expected, if you consider `x.y()` syntactic sugar for `x.y.call(x)` (and therefore `z()` syntactic sugar for `z.call(undefined)`).

Under the hood, invoking a function translates to a call of the functions `[[Call]]` method, which takes an explicit `this` just like `Function.prototype.call` does.
In theory you are right, but in practice most of the GMOs are created by big corporations and they patent the stuff.
Strange nobody mentioned Nassim Taleb and his work on that matter: The Precautionary Principle - www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Quoting the first paragraph of the paper:

The precautionary principle (PP) states that if an action
or policy has a suspected risk of causing severe harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety. Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it. PP is
intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries profound implications and in the presence of risks of "black swans", unforeseen and unforeseable events of extreme consequence.
The point wasn't whether or not the $200m ad spend was well advised or well managed. It was included in this scenario as a stand-in for any number of ways that a company could burn through a lot of cash without achieving a sustainable, defensible product / market fit, let alone solid traction.

If you're focusing on what the fictional company did with the money, as opposed to the very real terms under which it acquired the money, you may want to re-read the piece.
The Formation of a Blast Wave by a Very Intense Explosion (1950) [pdf]
Does the fund only makes returns on liquidity events?
Is the startup going to follow in the footsteps of Enthought ?
Not at all. We speak of farmers of third world countries, where many barely can read and write and are not schooled in economics or corporation trickery.
The BSM will give you all the things that you know intuitively about options. Gamma is high ATM front month, Vega is higher with time, theta accelerates as you near expiry, and so on.

In everyday terms, BSM vols are also what's used to talk about what the price IS. So even if you're using a fancy model, to talk to someone else about it you pull out the BSM vol and tell him that way.

What will help you hedge better is finding a way for your surface to fit what actually happens when the market moves. It isn't an exact thing; many traders ask for a little more or a little less floating skew from their quant guy.
> Partners usually also invest some of their own money. It's rare to see funds where the principals don't have capital invested (it tends to align incentives)

Yes, though in my opinion, this is one of the dirty secret of the VC world. The GP contribution, after taking into account their fees, is essentially negative.

Let's take a more generous example where the GP contributes 5% of the fund. After 10 years of 2% fees, the GP has put in 5% and taken out 20%, so their net contribution is essentially -15%.
It should also be added that most of this work is being done publicly and is open to new contributors. You can check Voevodsky's github page[1], and most of the other HoTT collaborators are active members as well. The HoTT book itself is also being collaboratively written there.

[1] https://github.com/vladimirias
This is a pretty nice introduction, and makes me want to return to my side project where I used to play with these approximations but for SIMD math: https://github.com/boulos/syrah/blob/master/src/include/syra... .

I hope in a later post he mentions Sollya (http://sollya.gforge.inria.fr), I found it invaluable for playing around with different precision vs speed.
Code Review at Originate
Download Windows Activator
San Francisco cops’ racist, sexist, homophobic texts prompt inquiry
Exit strategy – cleverly masked pitfall
Does anyone make games directly in OpenGL? I mean, it means developing your in-house engine. And all I can hear is that "never make your engine" advice, "you'll never be able to come up with the finished game" and etc... This is quite a common sentiment among experienced game developers.
Thanks for the additional details. I suppose the usefulness of this depends a lot on how many positions you're looking to fill, and at what level of skill. It sounds like you're using it to fill multiple entry-level positions, where it makes more sense. I suppose the people there know that there are multiple positions, so don't feel quite so much like they have to compete with everybody else to get hired. And if it's relatively entry-level, then maybe most of the candidates don't have full-time jobs already to be disrupted at, and would appreciate help if they didn't get hired?

I admit that I tend to think of things initially in terms of myself and what I would be looking for, more of a single position for someone with experience and marketable skills, and currently holding a full-time job. There's probably some room for improvement in the process for that too, but I don't think the open house idea would be a good fit.
That was exactly the point - the personal liability isn't to the investors, it's to the state, which tends to take a very dim view of unpaid wages. In California, I believe treble damages are standard, so missing a $50,000 payroll can cost you $200,000 in addition to court fees and legal costs.

INALB I'm pretty sure this is what the OP was getting at.
My error. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thanks. I found this in the paper too. Like you said, high
concavity and significant self-occlusion are two cases that are more likely to fail.