skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's much easier to govern a small country than a big one.

Then what about making small countries? We could then federate the result. Let the small regions take care of what can be handled locally, and let the federation take care about the big stuff (army, foreign policy…).
You beat me by 3 min with the same comment.

I wonder why the German version is somewhat more professional than the majority of other versions.
According to some, the Google Play store is now grossing more money than Apple’s App Store. But on a per-downloader basis, it looks like the average iOS user is way more likely to spend money on any particular app than an Android user. So if you’re after users who spend money, it seems like a no brainer.

But I have no idea if this same dynamic applied to the PC/Mac days.
Once you've re-run history, you'll discover trade.
The right place to post requests like these on HN is in the "Freelancer? Seeking freelancer?" posting that's automatically generated at the beginning of each month. Here's June's post:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9639007

(There are also monthly "Who is hiring?" and "Who wants to be hired?" posts for hiring full-time employees.)
Vantage.js – a new take on interactive CLI for Node
AFAIK, the force of gravity propagates at light-speed, so every particle in the universe is not being acted upon by every other particle in the universe via gravity, because the distance between some particles is increasing faster than that due to the expansion of the universe.
Url changed from http://www.techzigg.com/2015/06/twitter-added-new-feature-to..., which copies this without linking to it.
Hi everyone. The author here. A couple of answers to much asked questions:

Why JSON? Mainly because it makes it natural to embed JSON objects into code that's otherwise purely functional. Also, as @detaro pointed out, it saved us the time to build our own parser.

Why not use an interpreter/compiler for an existing functional language? Building our own language allows us to control the reach of the code and prevent malicious stuff. Having our own compiler is also useful when threading and networking matters as much as it does to us, since there is simultaneous front end and back end processing.

The result is a very simple syntax for API aggregation where we take care of all the hard part in the background :)
A Macbook is essentially a Faraday cage so that should protect against this.

I guess another way of seeing it is that a Macbook is a large chunk of antenna which would be quite bad.

Don't know.
> (on the other hand, I was really bad at guessing the position of the ball in yesterday's football/soccer test

Sounds interesting, but I seemed to have both missed that and am not noticing anything like it. Got a link?
Sorry, that was a pretty ethnocentric assumption on my part. A case could be made that landmines are intrinsically negative as they are non-discriminating hazards that render large portions of land unsafe well after a conflict has ended. Bombs, missiles tanks etc, I am not so sure of. I would appraise them as neutral, with the potential to be negative or positive.
Exactly. What's missing?
The commits aren't bad as such, just noisy, typically. Github gives you a nice diff of the whole branch against master, so we normally don't pay attention to individual commits. We look at the change as a whole before merging it.

There is an indicator for the number of commits and you can view each one individually, but somehow it's so easy to forget.
I'm divided on this. On one hand, if everyone can use whois privacy, what's the point of whois? On the other, I guess bad guys can always put in fake names or create their own shell companies, so we might as well let everyone have it.
> Most sources I find online show a big discrepancy between expected app revenue from the iOS and Android worlds, so developing a for-profit app on Android first seems a little iffy to me.

This is somewhat self-fulfilling. There are very few developers of paid apps that put equal time and effort into developing both on iOS and Android and release paid apps on both platforms (instead of freemium on one)[0].

Of those that do, many simply make one or the other (usually the Android one) either a simple web view shim, or a naive port of the app design from the opposite platform, which usually looks as bad as you'd expect it would.

So in the end, it's not surprising that some companies report dramatically better sales on iOS than on Android. It's not very straightforward to compare them, because they're essentially shipping two different products, one on each platform.

[0] I'm only talking about paid apps for which app revenue (including in-app purchases) is the primary business model. In other words, Facebook and Twitter would not count here, since they make their money off of advertising.
I agree. I don't work with machine learning or neural nets, and thus don't have more than the most cursory laymans understanding of them. This article read really well and was quite informative of the problems this technology is facing.
Did anyone ever credibly suggest that developers should ignore the huge Windows market? About 12 years ago, Joel Spolsky was saying quite the opposite, that Windows was the only platform that mattered, given the failure of write once, run anywhere.
Av8n is s much better source for this material. slehar took pictures out of context from av8n and wikipedia, and slathered a layer of woo on top.
Next step is Video. Adding temporal dimension will emphasize extrapolating true 3d shapes of recognized objects.
Money per user seems an odd metric to optimize for in the software world where you can duplicate your product infinitely for free.

There are software sales situations when that makes sense, bespoke enterprise software etc. but not phone apos as far as I can tell.
It depends on how magical the concept is.

If someone asks me for an ecommerce site, I'm fairly certain I can deliver it, my client has seen dozens of ecommerce sites so they are pretty certain I can deliver it.

Payment upfront is just a formality at this point.
Yeah, sorry, not turning off adblock!
http://www.av8n.com/physics/clifford-intro.htm is a much better source. It looks like OP read av8n and that translated it into some spiritual interpretation.
You can judge whether you need to reboot based on the CVEs being patched. Some things probably don't apply to your situation but the system tells you to reboot because it doesn't know. You can see them here: http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/

Hopefully rebooting for Kernel patches will go away by the next LTS, which should be well into the 4.x Kernel and therefore able to take advantage of the new rebootless shim updates.
Google image search says

Best guess for this image: cat bed furniture

https://goo.gl/vXwSaj
Well, I have an unbaked thought that says assigning numbers to people's contribution to the world is going to create the wrong kind of incentives.

The problem is that it's (probably) impossible to summarize someone's effects on other people into a number. We're seeing that even quantifying school performance ends up being counter-productive.

For me, the ideal is that instead of seeing how many people you've helped, or how much you've helped them, or any other quantified view of your work, you are just somehow able to see the story of how you helped them. Who did you help, in what situation? And it doesn't have to be something big like saving lives. Just, mundane, everyday stuff.
Bruce Schneier: China and Russia Almost Definitely Have the Snowden Docs
Prior discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9741878
My concern with WHOIS is less about privacy and more about how annoying it is to update 20 domains when I move.
But that's precisely the thing. In a stable population, births per year are inversely proportional to life expectancy. So whatever joy seeing a child born brings to people, there will necessarily be less of that per year aggregated over the whole society. A society where everyone lives longer is necessarily one with a smaller proportion of joyful idealistic children and a higher percentage of cynical jaded older people.
Yes, that's one possible solution, but feels like we're punishing ourselves for every merge for the sake of avoiding a reasonably-rare issue. We're reviewing PRs on github, so it's much more convenient to merge them on the spot.
I'm not sure where I read this but can't other domain registrars pull the veil on WHOIS privacy? Like Google is/has a domain registrar within the company, they have privileged access and can look behind the 'privacy'. A few years back the SEO community were up and arms about it for a week or so.

I know this is worried about public knowledge but we don't really have privacy, as far as I know, due to the privileged status of domain registrars.
I have many friends who are so wealthy they could easily live off their family's money for several generations. There are some who don't want to depend on their parents and actually make something of themselves. Of course there are others who go because their parents tell them to go. It seems to be looked down upon to just take your parents' money and do nothing with your life, or at least that's how it was from where I grew up (southern California).
GA is for comprehension, not computation. It is like a high level functional language, compared to Fortran. Compare how hard it is to compute complicated matrix arithmetic in haskell vs fortran, vs describing symmetries in same.
Well what IS the point of whois? I always thought it was a dumb idea created by someone "just because they could" in the early days of the web, sort of how people used scrolling text and blinking fonts "just because they could"

Oh speaking of Markmonitor I just send their DMCA emails to spam now (they can send me a proper notice via normal DMCA channel as is required if they so care) since every single one is for a dead pages or false notices, hell they even sent one the other day for a domain not in used in 7 years!
Now this I can agree with. It's basically impossible to truly compare the two platforms' all-around profitability. The 'right' answer for any particular enterprise is to do proper research and decide whether Android or iOS is a better market-fit for their product. All the same, it's hard to escape the reputations each platform has, and it's usually not sensible for an individual business to go against the grain just to level the playing field.
Yeah that's why you squash your 12 commits into a single commit that represents the deliverable.

This is my point I find the 12 commits to be unnecessary. I've never been burned by squashing. The only arguments I've heard against it are ideological(you're destroying history, etc.)
I'm not sure I understand how this will solve my problem to be honest, and unfortunately it's not something we would seek to hire a consultant for.
It probably did, but the scale was vastly different. Most metrics give iOS a 30-40% market share depending on how they count it, but there's no measure that give MacOS more than 15% at the most with around 5% being the most common 10 years ago.

The marketplace was also vastly different - when Apple was at its peak the market was physical, boxed copies had to be shipped to stores or via mail order. Now the respective stores give access to the entire market with one upload.

The other major differentiator is the number of users likely to download an app in the first place. Stats are very hard to get, but the general feel is iPhone users are much more likely to install apps, with a lot of Android users just buying the cheapest phone.

There's a lot of money in both markets though, so picking one is really a matter of where your company can ship first.
So should off topic pontificating.
I doubt that reviewers for NIPS would reject a paper with a novel approach because it didn't perform at best in class level, provided it offered a way forward.

If it doesn't work at all, or isn't a new idea, that's different.
Ask HN: Ex-entrepreneurs, what career path did you pursue after your start up?
Over the past couple years, I've been running a company in a non-tech field that has been growing very rapidly, investing heavily in technology to operate much more efficiently than our competition. It has been great, and it something I truly love, however due to personal circumstances I may need to step away from the company for a few years and pursue something that can provide a higher level of stability, along with security, for my family.

Like many entrepreneurs, I've worn many, many hats over the past few years - product development, QA, finance, accounting, sales, marketing, etc. I love being able to contribute ideas and suggestions in each of these areas getting started, until we have found someone who is truly an expert in that business area to take the reins and ownership of that aspect of the team.

As I start exploring opportunities in the marketplace, I see many, many postings asking for functional expertise, but next to nothing asking for broad experience putting pieces together for a venture with many unknowns (figuring out and reducing the risk associated with those unknowns in the process).

So I am curious, those of you here who have previously ran or started a company, but returned to the labor market, what opportunities did you pursue? Where were you happiest after leaving your entrepreneurial venture? What was your background before taking the entrepreneurial leap, and did you return to that field after you left your company?
I think that's more of a concern when there is a principal-agent problem. Yes, if you pay me X $/widget but are unable to measure widget quality well, then I may try to maximize number of widgets produced at the expense of quality. (And it may make sense to use other incentive structures.) But if I'm trying to help people, it's much less likely that I'll stupidly maximize a metric (# of page views) by lowering quality. What have I to gain? (This of course because a problem as soon as you start tangibly rewarding me based on the metric, or if the metric influences my public reputation, etc.)
"It seems like a new old boys' club scratching each other's backs and gaming the system."
Agreed, they should definitely change that. Software freedom is the real goal here, not converting people from one economic system to another.
There is probably already some "thing" out there running in the AWS cloud that both cashes checks and pays it's bills and is still running after the demise of its owner.
Namecheap doesn't sell whois protection for certain domains like .io anyway, so this is less of an issue than it might seem...

However, it feels like the Internet is losing its way. It is impossible to point to what specifically is causing it, but I feel like people have gotten so used to ceding their identities, data, and privacy to massive organizations like Facebook (and those organizations engage in actions like tracking anyway) that culture in general just doesn't care. The Internet used to be and still is a decentralized system which can empower people, but as it continues to get more and more centralized and governments and organizations don't see broad resistance against invasions of privacy, the Internet becomes less and less something that empowers and more like something that can trap people. And that's not even considering the Idiocracy-style apps and games that are getting pumped out on a daily basis that people are literally wasting their lives away on.

I imagine this comes off as a bit snobbish or melodramatic, but the very audience that uses this site are the people creating this future. You can't get too angry at ICANN killing WHOIS privacy if you work for a company that disregards privacy, too.

note: I use all of these services. I just wish there was more I dunno....rage...from the technology creators about whatever it is that we are creating, which we all seem to know isn't okay but we do anyway. It just amazes me that posts like this or documentaries about Aaron Schwartz can coexist on the frontpage with stories about the latest derivative tech company. This is very much an inudstry with two minds.
I think it's important when you're trying to advertise your product. If there is a marginal cost for each set of eyeballs you can attract, then you'll probably want to start with the richest set of eyeballs.
Like jblow, you are under the mistaken impression that I am downplaying the importance of the geometric interpretation.
GP is being hyperbolic.

He's saying that, "Just because you can't guess the trend in the data (eg. the track of a soccer ball in yesterday's match) doesn't mean that something is wrong with the data; you often need to double-check both your hypothesis and your data. And in this case your hypothesis was probably at fault due to inherent bias rather than inaccuracies in the data."
I didn't mention it here. I did in the blog post, which can be a bit longer than a HN comment.
oh! Well, I like reading many little diffs more than I like reading a few big diffs, but the distinction is purely aesthetic. A team should try to agree on an aesthetic, but otherwise, ::shrug::.
No, I don't think it is running out of food. The Politian want us to believe there are to many ppl, and not enough food.the amount of produce that is thrown away in the USA, just because it is not perfect, could go to food banks.They say it is to expensive,so they plough it over and creat more green house gas. What a wonderful WORLD we live in!
> All the same, it's hard to escape the reputations each platform has, and it's usually not sensible for an individual business to go against the grain just to level the playing field.

Quite the opposite. If it's true that Android users' reputation for being less willing to pay is undeserved (or overstated), then that means that the market is probably undersaturated. That means it would be to their advantage to target Android users.

In general, business stand to make more money where they can identify the markets that are being overlooked by others, not by competing in the same markets that others are already targeting.
Presumably until the closing curly brace.
> We're doing humans wrong.

I don't follow. If you asked a human what the linked image looked like, they'd likely say a face, but if you then asked them what it actually was, they're all going to change their answer to a rock, even specifically a rock on Mars (if given a colour version of this image).

It's true that humans see patterns that aren't there, but does that detract from our ability to recognise objects?
Symbiotic. Growth requires trade as well.
Actually, "plain" regular expressions/FSAs can parse HTML up to any arbitrary finite nesting depth (i.e. all those you will ever encounter in practice). The trade-off is that they need exponentially more states to do so than an equivalent CFG/pushdown automata.

For example the a^n b^n example can be recognised up to n<=3 by the RE ^(|ab|aabb|aaabbb)$.
Autodesk 3DS Max 2015 Product Key and Crack Free Download
They do to companies though.
It's possible that we just have different styles of working.

Still, to clarify: Not all, but some of the situations I have in mind are situation where the changes in component A cannot possibly work without the changes in component B.

So an alternative workflow could rather be: Stash all your changes made so far, then do the changes in component B, commit, and then reapply the stashed changes in component A. That's something I've tried in the past, and it can work. However, it has downsides as well. In particular, having the in-progress changes in component A around actually helps by providing the context to guide the changes in component B. So you avoid situations where, after you've continued working on component A, you realize that there's still something missing to component B after all (which may be something as silly as an incorrect const-qualifier).

It's also possible that our preferences depend on the kind of projects we're working on. What I've described is something that has turned out to work well for me on a large C++ code base, where being able to compile the work-in-progress state for both components simultaneously is very useful to catch the kind of problems like incorrect const-qualifiers I've mentioned before.

I could imagine that on a different type of project your way works just as well. For example, in a project where unit testing is applicable and development policy, so that you'd write separate tests for your changes to component B anyway, being able to co-test the work-in-progress state across components is not as important because you're already testing via unit tests.
Clojure's core.logic would be another good example.
Toward nanorobots that swim through blood to deliver drugs [video]
Leaked: Thumbtack's Reconsideration Request to Google
Thank you for this article; very thought provoking.

My nitpick:

> When each student was given a heavy book of MNIST database, hundreds of pages filled with endless hand-written digit series, 60000 total, written in different styles, bold or italic, distinctly or sketchy.
> ...
> So, are you going to say that was not the case?

I understand the point the author is making. Human brains are really good at taking limited examples and correctly extrapolating them to new cases. That is, of course, the goal of intelligence. Machine Learning has gotten better at this generalization, but has a long way to go. And ConvNets as they exist today will not achieve that, no matter how much training you perform on them.

This specific example is inaccurate though. Let us aggressively simplify and low-ball by saying that humans see at 24fps. Humans of course don't see in discrete frames, but this simplification doesn't detract from my argument and makes quantifying easier. So, if you give a human a single page of numbers, and they look at it for an hour, they have now seen >86k examples. That's 86k examples with twitching saccades, and from both eyes. That's in just an hour of looking at numbers.

Prior to being given that page of numbers, most children will have been alive for 4-5 years. That's 3 billion examples from a wide variety of subjects (we ignore sleeping cycles, because we're already low-balling this fps figure, and because the brain is still learning and visualizing during sleep).

And humans are born with a pre-built visual cortex. Edge detection, gradient detection, etc. are all already built for us. CNNs learn that from scratch.

The author's real point is still valid, though, don't get me wrong. I'm just nitpicking.
See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9747102
Not a US citizen, I just looked up "BAC DWAI": blood alcohol content, driving while alcohol impaired:
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/colorado.php
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/drink-table.php

You were either not treated according to law, there's something you're forgetting to say, or the above info is incorrect:
* no "alcohol lock" for a first time "BAC DWAI"
* no license suspension for a first time "BAC DWAI".
Dazzling Dancing – Disney's ABCD 2