skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is becoming increasingly true for all major Australian cities.

There is no new housing stock being built within 30 min drive distance from major work hubs. This in turn induces fierce competition for housing within that zone, with purchase for people with a normal income pretty much out of the question. This forces moving to outer suburbs, which can mean anything from 45min-1.5 hour drives each way or an equal amount on public transport.

The government willfully ignores this problem as more people on roads means more tolls, more tax from petrol, more tax from cars and their maintenance expenses, more income from greedy builders building sub-standard houses in the suburban sprawl -- and more of the population wasting their precious time in the needless daily grind rather then spending time with their families and doing things that would make them happier. The last bit enables scummy politicians and bureaucrats to get away with outright stealing and abuse of public funds as people simply have no energy or time to question them.

For example:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-in-four-home-builds-do...

How could school funding be stolen like this? Because parents have no time or energy to question and scrutinize their local schools administration.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/one-in-four-home-builds-do...

Why are housing builds "dodgy"? Because there is no regulation and builders get away with murder. Also means you the consumer ends up spending more to fix it.
Show HN: Me API – turn yourself into an open API
I found myself trying to place paths in front of the algorithm, trying to delay it from reaching its end goal.

With a bit of tweaking, I imagine this could be turned into a little game.
Yay for acknowledgements! Yay for recursive enthusiasm!
What speaks against putting a system in place that makes it impossible to comply with a gag order? Maybe even technically impossible, e.g. backed by a hardware fuse that you'd need to break to comply with a search but by doing so making it impossible for you to sign another canary?

Or, say, you cooperate with someone overseas in a safe country that requires you to visit him every quarter to make the canary together?
So, as I write this comment, this has 9 points and was posted 49 minutes ago. It doesn't appear on the front page. Or second page.

Meanwhile, on the front page is "Dune Quotes", with 8 points posted an hour ago; and "The Fallen of World War II", with 8 points and two hours ago.

It's almost like the "objective" algorithmic has a bias against discussing gender!
Because the human psyche can very happily transform itself into a bottomless money pit when so inclined, and has been known to do exactly that, on many occasions, with alarming frequency.

If a rational measure of objective sanity doesn't satisfy a human being, will that person concur that their depression has been alleviated? Will they self-identify as mentally healthy? If an individual doesn't declare themselves healthy, was the money for the treatment well spent? How does a disagreement between a healthcare professional and an unwilling patient truly resolve itself?
"Look at the X-Hose getting knocked-off by PocketHose. There should be some protection for those who have created something novel.
You can argue that some people would create innovations without the patent system, which is true; but there are many more who would not bother without the prospect of patent protection. One more benefit of the patent system is that, in exchange for a patent, the applicant must fully disclose how to make and use the invention. Instead of sitting in some notebook or Word file, the information is shared. The maintenance fee system (where a patent owner must pay a fee at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years to keep its patent in force) weeds out many patents, as the owner decides that it is no longer worth the money to keep it alive."

Insightful, I'm hesitant to agree that people will be dissuaded by having to compete, and will therefore not innovate. I think people should produce what they please and others should choose to purchase whichever product they seem superior. Without any coercion.
Ask HN: LatAm Mobile Payments
Hi HN

I am looking for people with knowledge in mobile payments / wallets / mobile money in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia and the rest of LatAm. Please reach out to me at ngetha <AT> gmail.com
> It's distribution that copyright should cover.

Until the TPP takes effect around 2019.
If you know someone with an alcohol problem, encourage them to seek help.
So all those projects can be viewed as sellable assets. For example, what does anybody think android is worth on the open market? Wallet?
Contentless garbage that reads like a reluctant school student reaching for word count. A paragraph literally analyzing the amount of times Page said the word "excited".
Not really. Crowdfunding on kickstarter isn't "raising money." It's presales. It's revenue.

They've raised 15mil, and had 2 really successful kickstarter projects.
Thanks, what confuses me though is why you must retain n/2 hosts, and not be able to recover at least in many cases from a loss down to a single host. I understand that a known majority insures that a write will always persist/propagate even after a network segmentation and later re-join. But what if the network isn't segmented but the servers are simply down, or there wouldn't be a conflict regardless because the relevant clients couldn't have written to the segmented network anyway? When they rejoin they would all know they are behind the one that remained online (as one does with version clocks), so they could just get all missing events and be consistent again.

The majority requirement would, seems to me, reduce reliability over the ability to failover down to a single server.

Does anyone know of a list or test suite of all failures that a consistency algorithm is resistant too, then at least I could understand the reasoning. I get the impression that there are a lot of failure modes that are handled at some cost, but are not relevant to my use cases.
Since I'm stuck late coding tonight, a little art talk is fun. :)

Representation and content are not so easily separated. (Marcel Duchamp is all over this.) And to the extent that this division exists, they can combine in a cumulative way; great representation with great content.

My field, calligraphy, is keenly aware of the "content problem". (My humble works[1]) Are the great Chinese calligraphers "missing the point" of the poems in their works when the resulting script is illegible to most?

Especially in the west, it seems people take writing and letters so much for granted that they assume the only appropriate function is for them to be easily interpreted. (Before abstract art, people held similar ideas that the purpose of painting was to easily convey what the artist had seen.) Perhaps in a similar vein, you're saying that the only appropriate use of algorithms in a piece of art is for them to be communicated clearly and faithfully?

We are in agreement that algorithms have great value in terms of content. And I'm excited that the art world is growing aware of the "value" of algorithms. It's been my impression that the art world was stuck too long on the physical forms of computing technology (the cases, the monitors, the phones, the wires, the blinking lights), so it's exciting to see how artists will interpret the beauty of algorithms themselves.

Okay, now back to coding.

EDIT:

Some beautiful Chinese calligraphy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_calligraphy#/media/Fil...

[1] http://instagram.com/wanderingstan/
It would be cool if it ran all the algorithms and showed you how many steps it took and the final path length for each one.

Also, a "random maze" button would be nice.
I plead guilty your honour, the one-liner syntax for loops is pretty frowned upon among pythonistas too. :-)
I don't think most ML people are actively hostile to HTM, just indifferent until they show some results. For example, Yann Lecun in his Reddit AMA: http://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/25lnbt/ama_...
This article says: 90% of Google's ad revenue comes from ads, and that's a serious problem. Another serious problem is that Google is trying hard to diversify.
Consider the source. ha
I was surprised that it 6 years to drink yourself to death. I agree it was very sudden and that something must have happened to trigger that. I feel like it could have been a genetic predisposition. Our bodies have lots of internal alarms and triggers. Perhaps something went off that triggered this downward spiral. A combination of environmental stresses coinciding with internal clocks. We'll never know. This is definitely a sad story. I appreciate the authors honesty about it. I'm very touched.
Or block of their bank transactions.
Here's what happened:

The company has a machine that prints money. And what do creative engineers do when you give them unlimited amounts of money?

Really cool stuff, like self driving cars and making sure everyone has blazing fast Internet. Turns out if that stuff is successful Google makes even more money.

The only problem is wall street isn't good at delayed gratification. They want to make money now. So milk the cash cow as hard as you can until it falls over dead, then we'll find another cow. It's rational if you lack foresight and vision.

It's almost as if optimizing for immediate shareholder return isn't always the best thing to do. So Larry and Sergei will ignore the pundits (such as this one) who still don't understand why Google is what it is in the first place, and soon our cars will drive us around instead of us driving them.

It's a beautiful thing, really. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Clearly sleep has to do a lot with earth rotation & day/night pattern.

Physiologically, IIRC, sleep cleans brain up from certain metabolites, which happens in REM state. If we eventually manage to induce REM artificially, I assume you wouldn't want to experience REM in awake mode, during your job.
Like the North Koreans were behind the Sony hack, right? This smacks of convenient scare mongering ahead of the Patriot Act renewal.
>I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

I'm taking this quote with me to Silicon Valley next week when I start my internship.
I'd really prefer some latitude offered for stories which:

1. are generally significant, particularly

2. about a company closely followed by the HN community, and where

3. no obvious english-language alternative exists.

Sometimes it's through just such postings that the English language coverage is initiated.
They should start by making sure Android only comes with 1 email client.
I for one think this has been an excellent article.
..."an artificial neural network for machine vision (whatever that is)"...

It's hard to take seriously an article that so unabashedly flaunts its own ignorance. Especially when the answer to this rhetorical question could be found with a five second Google search.

There are legitimate arguments to be had about Google's current strategy. But this piece is not part of them! He doesn't even really seem to assess any of the allegedly ill advised Google projects he lists...instead he makes fun of the names.
What the heck happened to Apple should be the real question.
Spin up VPS instances across multiple cities, countries and continents.

Hook them up with Docker and connect them with Swarm.

Label them with an IP/city/country/continent combination.

Use Docker Swarm's affinity labelling to start instances in a particular city when needed. Additionally record the last IPs used and use Swarm to not deploy to those servers.
While we're playing games of semantics, we might as well have fun.

"A message we are unable to deliver is NOT 0xa89adf8d9a9c9a96899a9bdf9edfb19e8b9690919e93dfac9a9c8a8d968b86dfb39a8b8b9a8ddf8d9a8e8a9a8c8b969198..."
So two events occurred. One event, Larry Page taking over 4 years ago. The other event, a stagnating stock with lower revenue. These two events overlap therefore causality.

Sure it does seem like Google is doing just about everything but I don't think that means they're aimless. I do think they're not doing well with focusing on the user experience of many of their products but they're still innovating in multiple places; this article just seems really forced.
This is not a problem. If you don't like what Google invests in, just don't buy their stock.
They're not going to copy your names, declarations, or header files, so ...
fwiw, Apple watch does actually remind you to stand up and walk around once an hour if you haven't. I've actually found it a nice reminder. I can tell when i get the buzz that yeah i've been sitting too long I should get up and walk around.
Basically, my only question is, "how the fuck is this article still up"
Seriously, this community can be a cruel mistress sometimes.
A few obvious points.

- Google has gotten older, slower, and much bigger. They're a lot closer to Microsoft, than a start-up. As a tech company, if you live long enough it's the nature of the game, and no company gets to avoid it. You can count the number of tech giants that had a second wind as good as their first, on one hand.

- Google is accumulating far more cash than they can reasonably spend. Anti-trust concerns dramatically limit what they can buy with their $65 billion in cash. They should try to spend as much of it productively as they can. Their investments in fiber and wireless access, will both pay off, in that they can both easily be sold down the line if or when their goals are met. Nest, Boston Dynamics, robotics, AI, self-driving cars, Android etc. are all perfectly worthy investments that could produce outsized results over time (and if they don't, it simply does not matter; what's the alternative, return $3b to shareholders, a pointless sub 1% of their market cap - shareholders want risk and efforts made toward growth instead, as witnessed by their non-cheap 26 pe ratio).

As a software / advertising company, at $66 billion in sales, there is no scenario under which you're going to keep up 40% or 50% growth. Again, there is no scenario under which that can ever happen no matter what Google does. You can also make a very, very short list of companies above $70 billion in sales that were able to consistently generate 30% growth (much less for more than a few years).

In short, nothing (negative) happened to Google. Their outcome is among the best that could have ever occurred. Their slowing growth is unavoidable, and they were never going to own social or all of the smart phone industry (insert other lucrative business here that Google should have dominated per journalists or analysts); that's such a irrational premise that it's not even worth discussing indepth.
The publishers aren't the problem, and the authors aren't the problem. We the readers are the problem. Seriously. Let me explain.

I have to admit, when I saw "LeCun, Hinton, in Nature" I thought "That must be an important article, I need to read it". I haven't read every single paper by LeCun or Hinton. The Nature name affected me. That's why it's rational to publish there.

There's still no effective alternative to the journal system to identify what papers are important to read. There have been attempts, Google Scholar and Citeseer for example.

A voting system like HackerNews wouldn't work, because Geoff Hinton's vote should count for a lot more than my vote. Pagerank solved that problem for web pages (a link from Yahoo indicates more value than a link from my blog). How can scientific publication move to such a system?
cheap satellite can be used to bring internet to places they tried even balloons!

cheap ISP could make people in remote places in the USA use the internet more.

saving you one hour in a google driven car will expose you to google search while you are bored with your daily commute landscape.

...they own the market. they are now investing in expanding the market cap.

why this is being upvoted here is beyond me. i can see this being upvoted on sites like icanhn-favorite-bottom-line-dividends.com ... but here?
I grew up both close enough and far enough that I always hated LA—hated going there, hated the traffic, the city busy-ness, the randomness and amorphousness that was both easy and difficult to describe.

I hated it so much so that I began to love it. It reminded me of a person: human, flawed, honest, complex, paradoxical, somehow both ignorant and wise at the same time—and fundamentally alive and beautiful and generally happy in spite of it all. Some would say it lacks perspective, but I do think it has one. And it has such a personality, and knows itself. I've lived in cities without much of a personality, and I think knowing LA has helped me see that clearly. I miss it, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on.
Baby's First Reaction: A “Hello, World” Example for React
Hasn't Larry actually shut down and consolidated? The brands article lists also existed before Paige was CEO. Seems like an underhanded article?
but my point is, what if instagram sold a pint before they got the DMCA?
I had a long response written out but my browser barfed. Short answer is "yes". Longer answer is "it depends" on the size of the budget/deal, the business function that the manager fulfills, and the size of your organization as a whole:

* Business function: If you're customer facing, most [project|practice|field|support]managers should be sticking their nose into day-to-day projects, especially when a bad message needs to be delivered (e.g. the product we sold you will fall short of your expectations). This is not only because the customer will be incensed, but because there may also be commercial repercussions (e.g. SLA penalties) that you may not be aware of in umbrella master [service|support|license] agreements.

* Deal/budget size: Typically, the larger a manager's deal or budget, the more headcount they have. And the more headcount on a project|team|division, the more intermediate managers there will be to layer the manager in question. Hence, if the deal size is rather large, in most cases managers will not get involved on a day-to-day basis, but should be available for escalations (presuming an account management role for larger deal sizes). If the deal size is usually smaller, more than likely the manager will be more involved (e.g. as a project manager).

* Org size: BDC - not usually. Startup - usually yes.
I've been on break/fix and on the Sales Engineer side and know both - there's never a single side to these things.

Sales Engineers in particular don't want to sell something dishonestly - it opens the company up to risk and it hurts their credibility, particularly if you sell multiple products.

There are a few reasons I can think of:

1. The technical people that run the current implementation didn't put their requirements into the sales process.

2. Some of those features really don't matter to the business and were fodder.

3. The requirements were listed, but not accurately or with enough depth.

4. The Sales team didn't have enough knowledge (or training) to know the difference - or inaccurate documentation.

5. It was roadmapped close enough to implementation and including delays to go ahead anyway.

6. The competitor claims to have this feature but theirs is broken also, so it's a race to who can sell broken stuff faster - because nobody can truly do it.

The people and the companies that support this exist certainly - just not for very long.
It's an empty tuple.

stuff = ()

print(type(stuff))

<class 'tuple'>
Lucy - you got some splaining to do!!!!
Terrible analysis.

> Over the past four years, Google’s annual revenue growth has plummeted from 30% to 10% while expenses have ballooned from 69% to 75% of sales. And 90% of its $66 billion in sales still come from online advertising. That dependence on ad revenue is becoming a real problem.

Of course Google needs to diversify. But Page and Brin don't know what business(es) it will diversify into because no one knows. That's as difficult to predict as the direction of technology itself. Google is pursuing the unique advantages it has at this moment: (1) an ability to attract top engineering talent and (2) a big ol' pile of cash. Unlike Apple, Google is actually plowing that cash into forward-thinking R&D beyond the next iteration of their existing product (no disrespect to Apple, I mean that more as a lament than a criticism).

Early results from the self-driving car and Project Loon have been very promising, to say the least. Android is one of the most popular operating systems in the world, and puts a Google search bar one tap away from hundreds of millions of people. Chrome OS laptops are among Amazon's best selling models, and they too drive search traffic. Microsoft has been emulating Google's online productivity app strategy for a few years now.

Seriously, what is the problem here? Since when does Amazon get a pass for diversifying and playing the long game, but not Google?
I have actually found myself thinking a lot about logs lately and how I can end up using them for a lot of problems, and are sometimes very simple to implement. But I always wondered if I was actually using the right tool for the job...

I had no idea they had such far-reaching implications and so many jobs where this is the right tool.

Neat!
Infill also mean's Perth's roads are far busier than before. My dad commuted from Bateman to Fremantle for 30 years; the same morning journey easily takes twice as long as it used to.
He also criticized those long-term moonshot projects for not showing immediate tangible results.
>Honestly, I'm having a hard time believing he couldn't have been committed. He obviously wasn't in his right mind (and thus no it wasn't "his own damn fault".)

It said it in the write up - violence or threat of violence to others/self - is the qualifier for being committed against one's will.

Here's the kicker, 9.9 out of 10 times, if committed against one's will (for any reason), the post-discharge relapse is quicker than two shakes of a lamb's tail as he releases his pent up resentment into another bottle.....
The best domain registrar is Google
I'm talking about reducing the size and depth of central government by implementing a system of change that will likely not make things worse, by creating a position that allows for greater competition and a more free market.

As to chemical dumping, this is precisely what the court system is for, punishing those that infringe on another's rights and/or lie, cheat, steal to do so. In the chemical dumping case, the appropriate action might be to liquidate said company and have all funds distributed to those affected. That might be an appropriate response to that type of action.

Liberty should extend so far as not to infringe on another's rights. I already pay close to 50% of my income in taxes... 38% of my paycheck is gone (between payroll taxes, social security, mandated healthcare coverage, etc), a significant amount of the rest are tethered to utilities, and essential services... more still on sales taxes.. that doesn't even cover the taxes that go into tariffs and other fees along the way.

No libertarian likes the loopholes that corporations are allotted in terms of liberty over individual citizens. Libertarians tend to be very left leaning on some issues, and very right leaning on others... the goal is for a minimal amount of government interference... my own pragmatic view is to come up with solutions that move us towards more freedom in ways that have a chance of being more broadly approved, working and not costing more overall.
Analog systems are equally deterministic. In fact, a digital circuit is just an analog circuit where the interpretation of the voltages is quantized.
their updated faq says the following

'Hola built a peer to peer overlay network for HTTP, which securely routes the sites you choose through other Hola users' devices and not through expensive servers'.

so it is a p2p system...