skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The US has a process for highly skilled workers as well, not an easy one but it exists.

I don't have the numbers but looking at the amount of illegal immigration into Europe, and looking at what "jobs" most of the semi-legal (refugees, asylum seekers etc.) who also outweigh the amount of high skill labor coming into Europe I won't say this is a US specific problem.

I would also suspect that Canada with it's point based system has the same issue as well. Their immigration system is just more publicized and was given a priority especially during the late 90's and early 2000's since they felt like they were losing the competitiveness with US based companies.

Heck I've been to Canada 3 times in the past 5-6 years and the amount of what i would assume is "illegal" immigration in some of the cities there seems to also be quite high, quite a high percentage of Asian and African decent workers that don't speak English or French and seem to be very wary of people in general.
Tom's Guide has a pretty decent article on this same event: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/kaspersky-hack-israel-nsa,news-2...
Unless interrupts and the Input portion of I/O are generated by an oracle (A machine of a computational class more powerful than UTMs) of some sort, a Turing Machine with I/O and interrupts is equivalent to a UTM. I remember the proof being trivial, ie some guys did it during my CS undergrad for a short (2-week) research introduction course, but I can't find a proper paper about it atm. Granted, if the brain was an oracle, this would be true, but you would have to presume that the brain was an oracle in order to prove that it is stronger than a UTM.

In regards to your last statement, the other way works as well. There are statements that can't be proved by any human brain, but can be proved by non-brain logical systems. For example: "The brain cannot consistently assert this statement". One can then create instances of types of problems that are equivalent (when put through some bijective transformation) to the beforementioned statement.
Ask HN: What side-project to do with $40K?
I have around $40K in a company account, but at the moment I'm full-time employed, and it's not very tax-efficient to take money out of the company (I would pay a lot of tax on it), plus I don't really need it. The company's activities are currently dormant.

Rather than it just sitting there in the company, I would love suggestions for a side-project or passive income stream I could work on to get a decent ROI on that starting capital.

Because I work full-time, it really would need to be relatively passive, rather than something that takes up more than 5 or so hours a week.

I'm willing to spend some initial time building out a product or application, though.

I have a feeling the most passive-type projects would involve selling XYZ at a markup, but I wonder if there are alternatives...
The e-bike without a chain
Thanks for commenting, and congratulations on the grant. Looking forward to the release.
This isn't hard to explain -- most people producing "general usage" don't know Latin and nearly never refer to even a singular index.
I would like more information on how they reached this conclusion. “Comatose servers are those that have not delivered information or computing services in six months or more” doesn't tell me enough.

Are these servers unsold resources? Are they hot spares? How many bytes of traffic and how many CPU cycles count as computing services? How much do they cost versus the cost of the whole datacenter including employees? Looking at other industries, is a 70% yield really that low?
> But no one is questioning the ability to build a computer that simulates the behavior of a rock; or most other physics-governed systems.

I'm willing to make that challenge: a complete simulation of rock sounds like a formidable problem to me, one I'm not at all certain is within state of the art.

Particularly if (as we're generally imagining when we're talking about simulating brains) we're asking the simulation to be able to stand in for its analog as part of a process-chain connected to a non-simulated situation.
Scroll up for the arithmetic of how company B can pay more money to the employees.
Reading Dijkstra's own argument convinced me that 1-indexing is better. Convention C (consistently non-strict) is the one that we normally use to describe ranges in English.
"You know that the Ariane 5 rocket crashed (and could have killed people!) because of an int overflow? What if people die because you decided the C standard allows you to optimize away other people's security checks?"

Sounds reasonable to me. As a security consultant, it's important for his work and his moral duty. Think of the children ;-)

That integer overflow is undefined in the standard also doesn't make it go away. Integers overflow everywhere. It simply means that the details of it are not part of the standard. The new behavior he's complaining about is not any more standards-conforming than the previous one.
Startup Stories: Reed Hastings
> I highly recommend Americans humble themselves and realize they're not the center of the Earth.

I highly recommend you get over your bigotry and stop stereotyping a whole country's worth of people.
The Internet is running in debug mode (2014)
What the Greek are arguing is that those strings attached are not going to make any difference macro-economically speaking, and that they are going to be extremely painful to an already suffering population. Those measures amount to nothing if you compare it with the cost of servicing the debt.

Basically, they are bankrupt. To "end the sorry drama", either you let them fall on their own (out of the euro, maybe out of the EU), or you bail them out.

I think it is in the interest of Europe (and surely of Greece), to bail them out. Even if it on the surface creates so-called moral hazards: nobody really wants to be in the situation of Greece to be bailed out.

There are more aspects to the issue:

- monetary: the whole world is running on the printing press. The Americans are doing it, big time. Isn't California bankrupt too? Why should Europe not do it? Just restructure the debt, print the money, create a huge investment program and start funding projects in Greece - and other parts in Europe. We will get some inflation long-term, but who cares? Why should Europe be applying a harsh monetary policy while the US is rigging the markets, just because they can?

- humanitarian: do we really want to have a fallen first-world country in the middle of Europe, with third-world poverty levels? What does that say about our "community"? Can't we help one of our partners, once it has become clear that they can not get out the hole by themselves?

- reciprocity: parts of Europe have been bailed out in the past (Marshall Plan). Why can't we do it now, when the economy is doing much better, comparatively? You can argue that that was a different situation, and a looong time ago. But crisis happen (luckily) once every so many decades. Now we have a big crisis: let's show that the European project is there in case of trouble too.

- geopolitical: do we really want the Russian or the Chinese help one of our European partners? Do we really want to tell the world: we do not care about Greece, even if we can help them, while the Russians or the Chinese, with much looser ties to Greece and with a comparatively weaker economy, are willing (thinking on geopolitical interests, of course) to help them? How long will the European project survive if we are not there to help each other whenever a crisis arises?

Greece has to make reforms. Greece has made reforms. More reforms are not going to amount to much of anything. Let's bail them out.
Yes, this is for windows specific workloads. Not the ability to virtualize the Linux ABI in Windows. That's what VMs are for.
>The brain performs computation, it is by definition a computer.

Citation needed.

Actually that's the standard motto of any era -- the brain was like god (soul), then like gears in the early mechanical era, and so on to the computer analogy.
Me and my friend like to bet on games of Miniclip 8 Ball Pool, because of that we don't mind spending money on the best cues to gain an advantage. It's really funny seeing how the game starts treating you differently once it identifies you as a "whale". I was just thinking the other day about how that data would be so valuable if it was able to be obtained before a player outed themselves as such. One problem I imagine a data-sharing platform like this would have though is games lying. A game publisher has more to gain from taking data and giving nothing back than following the rules of the platform. How do you ensure publishers are being honest with you?
Agreed. I am very intrigued by Penrose but not convinced. In Scott Aaronson's online lectures for Quantum Computing since Democritus he is pretty dismissive of Penrose, but in the book he asks why a renowned Oxford scholar would insist on such a position, and that's a good question! In these arguments people are too willing to clamp shut their opinion and shut down wonder.
It is not unused. Idle CPU/RAM/etc will be in low power mode and not consuming nearly as much power as doing actual work.

It is not a free lunch!

People like BOINC like to say otherwise. They are wrong.
For the love of god, do not deploy your webapp on gluster. Such regret.
Best Podcasts for ECommerce Marketers
You use zero and one-based counting for different things. Mixing them up is where fencepost errors come from.

Say you're counting the length of a fence, so you are numbering the posts. Of course it's preferable to number the posts starting at zero, because after having numbered N posts, you know the length of the fence is N.

On the other hand, if you are counting the posts themselves, you would want to say "one!" after the first post, as you have just counted one post. In this case, the number you assign the post is the number of posts counted after encountering it. Otherwise you end up having to +1 at the end.

Which is all to say: I've always felt that the disagreement between whether to start at one or zero is due to people not making clear what it is they're counting.

If you're numbering the points between spans (as you tend to be when giving names to dates, memory locations, and fence posts), always start at zero. If you're giving numbers to the spans themselves, it's often convenient to use a physically-based number such as the location of the center of the span (when writing graphics applications I will often refer to the pixel in the upper-left corner as 0.5,0.5, rounding down to get its address).
I've always been charmed by EWD's handwriting: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd08xx/EWD831.PDF
Because Ubuntu applies their own patches to it and has to run tests before considering it "stable", presumably?
That's solved by using Object Versioning in S3. That makes it easy to recover from accidental deletion. You can still permanently remove an object by deleting it's versions, but that's a separate operation and not one you'd likely do by accident. Proper permissioning can stop it even being possible.

Beyond that you're probably thinking about black-swan scenarios like AWS going out of business or a hacker breaching your system and deleting everything [1]. In that case you need to be completely separated from AWS (and careful about maintaining the separation) so also using Glacier won't help anyway.

[1] This happened, and put Code Spaces out of business: http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/06/aws-console-breach-l...
Hi , I just loved simpleMDE. I would like to build an Electron ( http://electron.atom.io/ ) powered cross platform desktop application on top of it.
>But no one is questioning the ability to build a computer that simulates the behavior of a rock; or most other physics-governed systems.

Actually it sounds especially difficult.

A crude approximation (simulation) at best.

Nothing like a full rock, with its full interactions with its full environment (that might need simulating the whole universe), and with oversimplifying most of its properties (molecular interactions, heat dynamics, etc).

Now make it a "wet rock" and we're even further away (and I wont even dare ask for mold on it or anything, much less living micro-organisms)...
The paper makes it clear they're not counting servers waiting to be provisioned. But they're not so clear on how the tool makes the distinction, or how they know to exclude hot spares.
Is cognitive dissonance computable?
Firstly, I never said my opinion was humble.

Secondly, a good argument is not a proof. We have such a limited understanding of our own emotion and cognition that it is impossible to say that we have proven anything about how compatible emotion is with computation. Hands are continually waved over the existence of qualia and the argument, like you presented yourself, is that we have no way of proving that qualia won't exist for an artificial intelligence that has been programmed for emotional compatibility. I believe that is a fallacy, and it is side-stepping the root of the argument about qualia, and the real root of what self-realization and consciousness is. By saying, look I can make this machine do everything you do and act as if it feels like you do, you are not proving that you have encapsulated all that is cognition. You are only proving that you can mimic cognition. It could be retorted "Well how do you know this machine doesn't really feel like you feel?" I don't know that. But we really aren't learning anything about consciousness by ignoring the question with such a fallacy.

I believe AI has a very important role in rapidly evolving our way of life as we continue in this technological evolutionary cycle. However, I think it does nothing to teach us about ourselves and how our minds actually work. It is nothing more than mimicry. And nothing can be proven based on how an AI bot operates for the materialist or the idealist, so it is aimless to think that AI is how we will understand our own cognition.
Note the word "enlightenment" in the title. Everything on the list is about functional programming languages because the author believes that, once you are enlightened, of course you're going to use functional programming languages.

If you find that condescending and/or narrow-minded, you're not alone. There are more things in programming language theory than are dreamt of in their philosophy (to steal a line from Shakespeare).
Person currently earns $80k. Training costs $20k.
Rival company will be willing to pay $90k salary after training to poach the developer, which means the current employer may end up forced to counter offer with $91k salary after paying for the training. 91k + $20k in training fees = $111k

Competitor does not pay $111k because competitor does not pay for training. Which was the entire point of the exchanges above

You could of course question why a company would train their employee at all if the market rate for an already trained member of staff was about $90k. Because retaining an existing member of staff at an $80k salary after paying $20k for their training happens to pay for itself after 2 years. Its quite sad I feel I have to post the calculation to avoid further downvotes, but its:
(($80k * 2) + 20k)/2 = $90k

I honestly thought this was high school stuff....
Different languages have different plurals. Both are accepted because of the history of using latin suffixes (i.e. indices) and because it is the correct way to pluralize regular noun (i.e. indexes). This is the same reason "iris" has three accepted plurals: iris (genitive, from common use and genus name), irises (english plural), and irides (latin plural).
I was confused. The wiki article says at the top "Not to be confused with Binary tree." Then in the first paragraph:

"The B-tree is a generalization of a binary search tree in that a node can have more than two children (Comer 1979, p. 123). Unlike self-balancing binary search trees, the B-tree is optimized for systems that read and write large blocks of data."

Long ago in one of my CS classes, I wrote binary tree, 2-3, 2-3-4, red black, and AVL tree algorithms. So I guess I learned about binary vs self-balancing. I did not know about b-trees. I made the mistake of thinking that b-tree meant binary tree.
The effective cost for Tesla is around $300. There was a paper in Nature Climate Change about it.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n4/full/nclimate25...
I have this book at home, have read it and although it covers a lot in a short volume, I didn't get out of it as much as I did out of C Programming: A Modern Approach by KN King.
Once I bought King's book, C made a lot more sense, the book was fun to read and follow. K&R's book was, to me, less "how & why" but more "how". Pointers, in particular, is what I enjoyed more in King's book. That chapter alone made buying the book worth its money.
Rather encouraging to see mainstream media describe hacking accurately: "...insights about how various systems worked — and in some cases could be made to do things their creators never intended. This is the essence of hacking. It is not inherently good or evil. It can be either, or in some cases a combination of both, depending on the motives of the hackers."
But (if I understood correctly), the article was about lazy functional, even if that was not stated in the title.

Whether or not I read the article correctly, tome's comment was brilliant. It very succinctly exposed the pragmatic issue at stake.
The arithmetic is wrong, unless it's just not fully explained.

"there is nothing stopping another employer from offering $90k in salary after training is complete"

Sure there is, and many people have pointed out the flaws in this comment. If $90k is the market rate, then there is nothing stopping the company that provided the training from paying that too, and there would be no more advantage to offering $90k. In addition, as others have pointed out, there will still be some ramp up time and training at any new company.

If your point is that the first company can't expect to under pay their employees after providing training, well, that's obvious and nobody suggested it.
Nice ad, not.

It is interesting to look at server utilization, Google had a very publicized plan for power driven computing (basically you switched on more machines as you needed them, turned them off when they were idle). Which kind of works and kind of doesn't when you consider the complete picture of computational dynamics. Of the many resources requires (memory, compute, storage, and networking) only compute is easily "turned off" and "turned on" again. Next best is memory with many non-server memory systems allowing for a low power standby mode, disks and networks are both pretty much a massive latency hit when powered down.

And oddly latency is the fidelity of internet interaction. We think of things with low latency and rapid response as "good" and things which have high latency and slow response as "bad". Just as an amplifier with poor frequency response is 'muddy' and one that has high frequency response 'crisp'. At scale your idle machine are essentially latency capacitors waiting for that sudden burst of packets that happens during the commercial breaks.

It is an area that is ripe for improvement but it needs some pretty deep thinking to go along with that.
The only thing worse than getting a computer virus is having to run anti-virus software.
GTA V made more money that most successful movies. Gaming is not an obscure niche, and AAAs are the blockbuster movies of the genre.
No, my argument is that we don't understand it, therefore we can't assume that our simulation is anything close to the same process.
> How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole?

I think focusing on one possible problem with marriages which I view to be a subset of a larger issue may take focus from other, equally important aspects. Not so much in that it harms a specific marriage, but that it may be a less useful way to look at marriage in general if our goal is promote happy and long lasting unions.

> I'm not saying that we shouldn't have monogamous marriages.

I didn't think you were saying that. I'm more conversing than arguing a point. We seem to be mostly in agreement, I just think an approach less focused on a single aspect would be more beneficial overall.
I have an example of a similar journey I followed.

The Lua language has a 1-based indexing scheme. Furthermore, the only thing that differentiates a hash-map from an ordered array is the existence of only keys in the range [1, ∞) (and they must be entirely contiguous starting from 1 until the last present key).

The interface for arrays and hash-map data types is uniform, called a 'table', which has your standard `mapper[key] = value` syntax (and also, equivalently, `mapper.key = value` for well-formatted string-literal keys).

This results in the very surprising and confounding fact that if a naive programmer doesn't realize that Lua has this system, they will very likely end up starting from 0 and build an unordered hash map rather than an ordered array - complete with all the resulting performance penalties and unordered traversals.

For a long time this struck me as being absolutely absurd and very damning. After working with Lua for a while, though, there began to be a certain elegance to it that I could admire. There is a SO post that goes in to some of the benefits[0][1].

I still much prefer 0-based indexing though.

0: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2785704/why-do-lua-arrays...

1: Irony intended.
Little bit more about luigi would be handy .. I believe same can be achieved using Pentaho Kettle as that has a complete workflow structure and its Opensource as well .. however any more examples or use cases of luigi?
Amtrak workers routinely work over 40 hours a day
I keep hearing that unfortunately. Distributed POSIX filesystems are hard, although in my opinion NFSv4 has come a long way (which is why Amazon is using it for its new Elastic Filesystem offering).
Interesting but I think misses the real point.

The rewards of coding are not the highest society has to offer.

I think of the Ellen Pao affair and the idea that VC partners are supposed to be "Meritocratically" chosen. Well, if you look at say, Mark Andressen, there is no doubt he is able and worked hard, but he was also in the right place at the right time.

Thus there is an element of luck and privilege to success and if you are humble you will recognize this, but if you are in a culture that believes it is meritocratic, you might convince yourself you are many more standards north of the mean than you really are.
Computer says no: Amazon uses AI to combat fake reviews
I read somewhere, and I can't find it now, that amazon had an internal name for 1-click ordering. It was something akin to the money printer.

You may be an anomaly, but I think the evidence is quite clear that lowering purchasing friction results in a lot more purchases.
Post-Quantum Encryption No Longer a Laughing Matter
l0pht is a successor to Cult of the Dead Cow, which goes back to the 1980s.[1] Their "Tao of Buffer Overflow"[2] is still a good read.

The two big problems in computer security used to be Microsoft and C. Amit Yoran said that publicly when he was Homeland Security's head of computer security. That made him unpopular, and he resigned in 2004. Yoran was then replaced by a Cisco lobbyist who kept his mouth shut. (Yoran did OK; he's now the CEO of RSA.)

[1] http://www.cultdeadcow.com/
[2] http://www.cultdeadcow.com/cDc_files/cDc-351/
Looking forward to seeing how technology renders this law ineffective.
Depending on your definition of "safe" the answer may very well be "none of them".

Antiviruses are bad, and it's not because they do their job bad. It's because the whole concept doesn't work.