skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Same reason you'd use the similar rules for BRAC: By forcing politicians to take an up-or-down vote on measures of national importance you get the best chance at a vote on the merits of the bill in question, without parochial concerns creeping in.

You'd never expect members of Congress from Florida to vote in favor of a bill that takes away a military base at Jacksonville, for instance, no matter how much excess capacity is resident at the base. For instance Naval Station Mayport has not had a carrier homeported there for years ever since the USS John F. Kennedy (CV-67) was decommissioned. So all of the infrastructure at the base dedicated to carrier-centric concerns could be shuttered and possibly save the taxpayers some money, but doing so would forestall the option of adding a carrier later, and would probably reduce the number of personnel assigned to the base.

Alternately you could assign a nuclear carrier to the base to make use of the infrastructure present, but you'd need to make further upgrades to handle nuclear carriers, and assigning a carrier to Mayport would necessarily mean removing it from Norfolk.

Guess which state's delegation has successfully prevented the use of funds to expand Mayport's carrier capabilities? Hint: They are north of North Carolina and south of Maryland.

Now a bill like a free trade bill is practically the definition of a bill easily tainted with parochial concerns. That's the reason there was a similar outcry over NAFTA while it was being drafted, when "experts" at the time were stridently predicting the impending implosion of the American economy, with wording that would have made Steinbeck sound like a happy-go-lucky author.

It's telling when the zeal over free trade turns even progressive icons like Bernie Sanders into racists that resort to turning Vietnamese (as one example) into a sub-class of humanity compared to Americans. It's also telling when the worst accusation that can be laid against the proposal to date is that "it's still being negotiated in secret!!!1", as if that wasn't also the method used to negotiate most major international agreements.

The final proposal may turn out to be bad, and in that case I'll be the first to recommend vetoing the proposal as a whole. But simplified trade authority approval procedures are precisely the right thing to do, as otherwise you end up with "ratification" bills that ratify something completely different than what had been agreed, usually with a Ted Stevens-style "Bridge to Nowhere" attached right on top.
A couple summary quotes:

"[W]hen [Dr. Kent] Berridge, a dedicated young scientist who was more David than Goliath, stumbled upon evidence in 1986 that dopamine did not produce pleasure, but in fact desire, he kept quiet. It wasn't until the early 1990s, after rigorous research, that he felt bold enough to go public with his new thesis. The reward system, he then asserted, has two distinct elements: wanting and liking (or desire and pleasure). While dopamine makes us want, the liking part comes from opioids and also endocannabinoids (a version of marijuana produced in the brain), which paint a 'gloss of pleasure', as Berridge puts it, on good experiences. For years, his thesis was contested, and only now is it gaining mainstream acceptance.

. . . .

"'It's easy to turn on intense wanting,' he says, when we eventually sit down. 'Massive, robust systems do it. They can come on with the pleasure, they can come on without the pleasure, they don't care. It's tricky to turn on the pleasure.' He hadn't expected his findings to turn out this way, but it made sense. 'This may explain', he later tells his audience, 'why life's intense pleasures are less frequent and less sustained than intense desires.'"

== On mindfulness meditation: ==

"It's not that meditation makes the wanting go away. 'What it is doing', Berridge says, 'is giving the more cognitive mind a way of distancing itself from the urgency of those wants. It's a practised mental gymnastic. A want occurs, but because you're so practised, you can recognise that want, appraise it, feel it all around, focus on that, and the feeling of urgency as a feeling, without engaging in it.'"

== On controlling our desire/pleasure systems: ==

"The strength of dopamine/wanting in an addict's brain is so fierce that it is hard to conquer. ... Walter Mischel's famous marshmallow tests told children that they could forgo one marshmallow for the promise of two if they waited a while. Mischel tracked the children in later life and found a link between self-control and success. The controlled kids had resisted the marshmallow by simply making a decision and moving on without further discussion. They turned away from it, or tugged their pigtails to distract themselves from allowing it to arouse their senses. The children who deliberated, or lingered over the marshmallow, were more likely to cave in. 'It looks as though the best way of resisting is not to open the question[.]'"
FYI hydrographic printing isn't new... nor is the computational part to be honest. I assume both of these techniques have been used together before, but what we are seeing here is both: very well done, and: using off-the-shelf components.

Bonus the-future-is-now moment: "3D vision systems" are "off-the-shelf components".
The NSA named one of its top-secret programs Skynet
I'm curious about HN readers so I made a poll: where you do see yourself in Tao's hierarchy?

http://goo.gl/forms/KuXqj0wgZu

Edit: for those who are interested in the results, here's a one-click link https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1_RkOUYEoC4m9mYQZKexp2uSuj63...
Considering the author is 16, I think it's a great write up/exercise.
I love kamados, but if one is really concerned with temperature control I don't see how one could beat a water bath for cooking with a separate smoking step.

Also, while interesting, that hyperboloid profile has significant disadvantages compared to the more traditional ovoid used by the BGE and clones: more difficult to manufacture, internal stresses, smaller cooking area, more weight, etc. Good engineering practice would need to account for those. I don't expect a news article to address any of this, but I would be interested to hear what was considered in class.
The reason prices are determined this subjectively is because information is incomplete.

That is every market ever. No entity makes decisions based on perfect information - but plenty have a process that is auditable and lays out the assumptions.

If information was better then there would already be useful standards.

I think whatever standard or process we did come up with would be more refined/accurate with more information - but I that doesn't preclude having something that can be audited.

I'm not saying that the process would spit out the "right" valuation, because that is impossible to tell prior to a liquidation event. What I am saying is that the process for determining valuations needs to be 100% more transparent. Like it or not there is a process - maybe it's all in one principle's head, but it's there.

We as founders need to know what that is.
You can build a really cheap smoker out of a ceramic flower pot. I built one after I saw Alton Brown talking about it.

Mine is almost exactly like this one, except that I replaced the top pot with a ceramic lid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAydLWYGoJA

I've been thinking about building a PID controller for it (I already have the equipment from a project I did for an embedded systems lab in college), but I'm worried I'll end up eating way too much barbecue.
Patents for Time Machine
'Photofucket' devs arrested for selling their pic-stealing app
> Police aren't funded by taxpayer dollars so they can be curious about what's going on around town

Actually, yes they are. That's what "patrols" are for in the first place. We expect police to be familiar with the communities in which they serve.

You act as if police should police from an ivory tower somewhere, only coming out of their barracks when a 911 dispatcher authorizes them to. But that's actually more dystopian than the behavior you criticize here though (seriously, read about the "proles" in 1984 to see the similarities).
This is an assumption, but if you go to work for a big tech company (Fb, Twitter, or any of the like), the code base is most likely to still be in Objective-C. So for practicality, it would be wise to catch up with Obj-C.
Go read about stocks/etfs/etc. This topic is very underrated, but it's so important!
Getting to know more about this topic changed the way I read the news and see the world/politics.
Also money.
Should probably be marked in the headline that this is from 2009.
Keep asking questions like this one.

:-)
I'm not sure I understand how image grammars (whatever that is exactly) suddenly pop up as a solution after such a long introduction. I could not find any evidence or literature about them in relation to learning.

The author is stating a hypothesis but no way to test it. I'm not sure what point he's trying to make.
There are several other options. The extension can be written as a pure C extension, with CFFI for the bindings, and code in Python to present the public API. Or write the extension in Cython, which has backends for both CPython and PyPy's cpyext (I have no experience with this option).
Number() also converts to NaN if it's not a number though I would still avoid the + operator here because it is code smell (looks like you forgot your variable to concat).

Number automatically accepts exponent notation and auto-converts to hex (ignoring octal). parseInt() auto-converts hex and octal unless a radix is specified, but it also ignores the remaining non-number characters at the end of the string.

There isn't a single method that does whatever you want.
SciPy and Pandas use Cython, so if that can ever be made runnable semi-directly in PyPy, those two are dealt with. Only NumPy uses the CPython API directly but this is being worked on as NumPyPy (see http://morepypy.blogspot.de/2015/02/linalg-support-in-pypynu...).
Impossible Dream: Computing e to 116,000 Places with a Personal Computer (1981) [pdf]
The submission on floating point routines for the 6592 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9516042) reminders me of this article by Wozniak.

Also avalaible from https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1981-06 (faster site, but you need to download the full Byte magazine)
> It humbles you and evokes that feeling of self-insignificance like when you look at aerial view of cities through an airplane window.

What does it matter how small you are compared to a city, the world, or the Universe? How is that supposed to be humbling? It's more inspiring than "humbling" to know that there is a vast world which I am not knowledgeable about. Being as big as a city, the world or the Universe wouldn't fill me with self-importance; it would fill me with "what's the point".
How can you be completely against something that, by your own admission, you are unfamiliar with? Would you have been "completely against" North Korea and the U.N. signing an armistice in 1953 while it was still being negotiated?
That's a much better way to phrase that, thanks.
The more I think about this "problem" too, the more it goes back to the question of why do these sites need my information, and subsequently what way can they verify my identity?

We need a better web of trust where another service can verify the identity of me as a user. Already with the likes of Chrome, much of my logins are already auto-filled meaning the browser is already happy with my identity, why can't part of this be used for signups. We have second-factor authentication, again why can't we leverage this to verify I am the real person. Between the browser, a third party service and the receiving service we can securely verify an identity without the need for passwords, email addresses and real names.
Or it could just be a bad article, contributing more noise than signal, doing little on HN other than begging for us to make unwarranted assumptions about each other.
I would love it they'd tune down the game mechanics, upgrade prompts and 'viral factors'.

I'm already paying for it, yet there is no way to turn of the notifications and very hard to opt out of Facebook integration.

It's still an awesome product, but I hope they don't lose the magic.
The transition from the first stage to the second is well known to be rather traumatic, with the dreaded “proof-type questions” being the bane of many a maths undergraduate.

I was fortunate that my K-12 math curriculum included proofs and derivations. We learned about sets in first grade. This was a suburban public school using textbooks from a mainstream publisher, in the 70s. Likewise college physics. As a result, there was no transition, and my college math grades went up when the courses were primarily about proofs.

It seems like a couple of things have happened since then, good and bad. What constitutes "math" has been reformulated to give kids a better chance of learning it. In my generation, we did proofs, but it was OK if 90% of the students failed to learn math at all. Math has multiple roles in society, as do science and computer programming, and preparing kids for professional careers in those subjects is not the only reason to teach them.

On the other hand, "math" has also been reformulated to manipulate standardized test scores.
The cheaper kamado-style/big green egg clones are pretty good these days. I recently picked up a Kamado Kooker with stand for ~$300 vs. >$1000 for the similar size Big Green Egg and stand, and have been quite happy with it.
I’m using an RSS reader that doesn’t show the URL. And there are many more urgent things in the world besides bitcoin. So I’m going to go with “kinda” and “no” respectively.
Ask HN: What has changed for developers in the last 20 years
I'd love you know your thoughts on what's changed for developers in the last 20 years.
1. We moved from client apps to web apps to mobile apps.
2. Client server apps were for work and now there's a lot more "consumers" using apps
3. Hence, design and simplicity have become important.
4. We went from waterfall to agile programming.
5. There's a huge proliferation of "stacks" and "fragmentation" of languages for specialized tasks.

What other trends do you see?
The events that occurred all were in one night at 3AM.
Post rigorous, heading towards rigor mortis. ;-) This doesn't mean I'm a professional caliber mathematician -- I'm not, and a lot of my math education was in studying physics. It just represents which stages I've passed through, if those stages are valid

It would be interesting to know if there are corresponding hierarchies in subjects such as science, computer programming, or even music.
"Google: Rise of the Machines" @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1QB9DW_0kM
Personally, I would really like to see more Python extensions written using the ctypes foreign function library. This has two advantages:

* Supported on more than just CPython. I.e. you can use them on PyPy as well.

* The extensions are far easier to install, since one doesn't need both a full C compiler as well as all development headers for the library installed on the server where you install the extension.
I was under the impression from his book and his videos[0] that Franklin's didn't use the crutch as "policy" unless it was necessary...but I've never been lucky enough to get down there to Austin yet so I can't say for sure.

[0] https://youtu.be/pGZ39yYxeBk?t=5m7s
> Well, if the majority asks for it, fucking way. Besides, with all the big tobacco sponsored research in the 50's to 70's, one could be led believe that "scientifically" smoke is good for you too.
> It's neither empirical nor scientific to believe that scientists don't lie, and facts can't be distorted to sell stuff to huge markets. It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy, after all scientists working in the field have an inherent bias to consider the stuff that gives them a paycheck as "safe". "Thalidomide? Sure, it's great, release it already".

This is the same "you can't trust scientists" rhetoric from climate change deniers.

Please show me peer reviewed evidence that GMO are dangers & we can talk. Until then, I'm simply point to the MOUNTAIN of peer review evidence saying they don't.
Apple Watch Review by The Verge
It's unclear that that's true (that performance would be worse), but regardless, there are many other, better ways to run C code from within Python (CFFI being the easiest and nicest currently)
setting thresholds on method / class sizes seems quite arbitrary and potentially harmful. Splitting a method into n different ones, none of which is called more than once is setting up the code for opportunistic reuse and obscures it's true function. It's especially wrong if the code that was split is mutating / non pure functional.

see http://number-none.com/blow/john_carmack_on_inlined_code.htm...
I heard the exact same thing said about Youtube a few years ago. Can you name a software company that has had 100+ million users and failed?
How is this different from style="width: 490px"?
This is the main reason for me. I have to be able to quickly search data that's stored in a couple different tables.

Using an index means the read queries become a little more complex (they have to exactly match the index expression).
Fair enough. Maybe some examples would help me understand.

I do get that registration can be a pain. But what I'd want wouldn't be a skeleton key, but rather a personal master key. Logins using Facebook and Google have become common.

But, being a privacy geek, I don't have accounts. And I definitely don't do cellphone authentication, because that is nontrivial to anonymize. However, I would want two-factor authentication. That's the tough problem, I think.
I would try any one of these:

* Volunteer

* Take up an outdoor hobby

* Learn a new spoken language

* Read a seminal work in a vastly different field from computer science (say, "The Interpretation of Dreams" by Freud)

[Edited for formatting]
Conway's opposition was to computer-generated proofs (not computer-verified proofs), because the software of the time wasn't high quality (for accuracy), and because they were so complicated that people couldn't get confidence that they were debugged.

Basically, humans can't comprehend what the computers are doing, even when they are right, and we aren't always building them well enough to be trustworthy without checking their work.

However, Zeilberger and Shalosh B Ekhad have done some highly reputable work, albeit in a narrow area. (Zeilberger designs algorithms in combinatorics, which then computer-generate proofs for specific questions)

http://www.nytimes.com/learning/teachers/featured_articles/2...
Tech Time Warp: Douglas Adams Glimpsed Tech’s Future in This 1990 BBC Film
7 Simple yet Effective Tips on Mobile App Testing Worth Considering
http://www.math.harvard.edu/~mazur/preprints/when_is_one.pdf

"When is one thing equal to some other thing", by Mazur
Awesome. I'm joining Cisco for the summer, so I think this would help me get a head start since they do code review. Thank you!
Well before there were GMO, there was the fertilizer bloom at the mouth of the Mississippi that is a clear disaster: http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/living-oc....
Last time I looked, and I did really look, the big picture was OpenVZ and Linux-vServer made it clear they were moving to work through cgroups and namespaces, same as LXC, and will essentially offer little delineation except edge-case features (freeze/thaw/migration/extra security stuff that breaks random programs or requires PhD's in syscall analysis/whatever). These features are questionable in many cases, and if they require custom kernels, they'll never take off as mainstream tooling, even if the projects survive.

By LXC I was referring to IBM's work in general (kernel work mostly) not just to the LXC userspace which has its issues but works mostly most of the time and is defacto standard, due to being first out the gate. Docker for all it's marketing budget can't change history, even with scores of people on its team.
Well if it's a service then it isn't really different than most SSO providers out there. Yes it's technically different but the UX is virtually the same (and even easier with an SSO). You sign up once manually, then have to make several easy steps usually revolving just authorizing the 3rd party application to use your account.

Now i understand why many sites don't want to use SSO's, they lose control over their user base and get much less information from a registration via SSO than they would via their own registration form, and always the SSO providers (e.g. Twitter and LinkedIn) can always say you know what we don't want to provide that service any more, and in many cases you can be left with no ability to recover a large part of your user base.

That said I haven't seen many sites that Chrome cannot populate virtually their entire sign up page from memory, and like most stuff in Chrome it's also (can be) shared between devices as long as you are signed into one. Heck not that i would advise it but Chrome can even store your credit card number "securely" although that option i believe does not replicate between devices (never used it myself, not crazy:)).

Yes sign up processes can be annoying, especially when they obviously unnecessary, but from experiences the sites that put everything behind a signup wall rarely have much content to offer in the first place, since sites that actually want to monetize their user based tend to have very easy signups in order to reduce drop out rate. Heck just look at payday loaners, their sign up is as short as possible to get some info about you for a credit check and that's it, they don't want people to drop off before they get a loan and every step increases the chance that they'll figure out that taking one at 123514% APR isn't the best solution for their financial shortcomings.
I wonder if they really used mesquite as their wood or if that was some artistic license on the author's part. If so it would be an interesting choice. Mesquite burns hot, produces a lot of smoke and can very easily impart a harsh bitter flavor. It's a tough wood to get right.
" I routinely edit the same Python files in Vim, Nano, Sublime Text, Atom, and PyCharm, and even jumping between all those editors, they have never "damaged" the formatting and created syntax errors in my code."

Do you routinely change OS?
The Stuff You Should Know podcast is a great way to get introduced to all sorts of topics. Josh and Chuck are super funny guys, and usually know what they're talking about.
"So one could view them as just being mathematical
pathologies found by computer science geeks with too much time on
their hands."

How is this a real paper ?
It seems that you only label stuff as valuable if it solves problems you have

The idea that things that are popular are "solving a problem" is a really bad trend in my opinion. "A problem" is something that has generally identifiable boundaries and detrimental implications if not solved - for example not being able to send someone money is a problem, and one big enough that it warranted the creation of paypal and the like.

I doubt highly that the millions of snapchat users at some point said "If only there were a service that deleted my pictures 10 seconds after I took them."

The major differentiation in my mind between a service that "solves a problem" and another "bullshit service" is whether people are willing to pay for it.

That's not to say you can't get rich off of bullshit, the E! network among others is proof of that, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking these things actually make the world better.
The submission on floating point routines for the 6592 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9516042) reminders me of this article by Wozniak.

Also avalaible from https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine-1981-06 (faster site, but you need to download the full Byte magazine)
Weapons Effect
Show HN: Prelaunch sign up app – angular, node, mongodb, Mailgun
I disagree. Breaking down a function into several one time functions that all sit at the same mental model of abstraction make code much easier to reason about.