skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would not discount Penrose with the ease the GP does. These themes are quite philosophical, therefore all sides are making some big assumptions. I would read Penrose, Dennett, Chalmers, Tononi, Searle, Putnam and many others. In philosophy the trick is to disagree with everyone.
Since the brain is not just a Turing machine, it would be astonishing if it was limited to the capabilities of a Turning machine. The brain is capable of emulating a Turning machine, but that is just one of its capabilities.

The things a Turing machine lacks are interupts and I/O. If you hook sensors up to a Turing machine and make the tape change depending on the state of those sensors, you don't have a Turing machine any more, in the sense that it is no longer bound by any of Turing's computability theorems.

This insistence that the limits of the most limited model of computing (Turing machines) must be applicable to any machine that computes anything--including things that are not describe by any of the formal mathematical proofs on the limits of computability because they violate the most basic assumptions upon which those proofs depend--is one of the most curious aspects this debate.

So not even computers are just Turing machines, because they too have I/O. Turing's theorems are useful and important when considering certain practical questions of computability within the limited circumstances of a computation whose inputs are entirely specified at the start and which can't be interrupted by new information coming from the outside, but they just don't apply to cases where there are cells whose values aren't known until reality provides them via some sensor mechanism.

As such, it would be a little weird if we (and computers) can't compute things a Turing machine can't, given we have capabilities that a Turing machine doesn't have. There are even examples of such things. One due to Church (IIRC) that shows how we can solve certain instances of the halting problem that a Turing machine can't.
Just realize that to transfer 1TB of data at typical ISP speeds will take many days.
Depending on the hardware you're buying, and your margins, dedicated servers were/are highly profitable. More margin = bad business practices can survive longer.
The article confusingly conflates several very different things:

1. Reverse engineering popular antivirus software so the agencies can see what data it sends home.

2. Monitoring the emails of cybersecurity companies.

The first of those is totally fine. It's the agencies' whole mission. The question is not whether they're allowed to reverse engineer software, but who/what they start spying on using the things they learn. If they're spying on Al Qaeda, I don't care if they're using antivirus vulnerabilities, OS zero-days, or a wiretap at the ISP. Seems OK. The choice of technology doesn't seem relevant. And if they're spying on teenagers sending naughty pics to each other, it's equally as not OK no matter which of those technologies is being used.

The second set of behavior is far more worrying though. Our government shouldn't be spying on the internal communications of law abiding companies.
Of course. But it's still reasonable to ask how you'd write a compiler that implements such features in a free-standing way, without depending on either the built-in tools of the language you're writing an interpreter in or a black box run-time environment/VM that does all the tricky stuff for you by magic. With a relatively low-level language like C, you don't have any choice but to confront such issues head-on, while many tutorials manage to side-step them using higher-level languages. Of course it's easier to write almost anything in a suitable higher-level language, but for educational purposes that isn't really the point IMHO.
Improve Your Workflow in JavaScript with Browserify
Why is programming way easier in Ocaml than in C?

I've written vast amounts of Ocaml and C/C++, certainly over 100K LoCs in each. Programming in ML dialects is so much easier than C/C++, it's not funny. I'd estimate it takes me about 10 times longer to implement the same functionality in C/C++ than in an ML dialect. The three key features enabling this difference are the following.

* Garbage collection, removes all memory bugs, avoids tons of ugly and distracting (de)allocation commands and keeps your head free to think about more important stuff.

* Pattern matching, enables you to code up complex decision making code (and most functinality needs this) in a readable and maintainable way.

* higher-order functions allow you to parameterise code with behaviour in a neat way.

(There is one caveat, which is code for extremely high performance, I'd probably write that in C/C++, but this is not an issue concerning a learner.)

As to useless car analogies, I think implementing lambda in C is like saying: Today I'm going to learn how to build a car. First, let's do this while riding a uni-cycle ... oh... um...
Safe Computing in an Unsafe World: Die Zeit Interview
I'm the author of the article, feel free to ask any questions.
What does this mean for vendors like VMWare that want VMs to be the unit of deployment that developers interface with?

Seems to me that VMWare's VM management technology is still needed, but the clock is now running on how long it will be before their part of the stack is irrelevant, as all the smarts move into the container-management layer.
A decent explanation here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/22/8826117/microsoft-forced-t...
Agreed. Plus encouraging developers to use higher-performance platforms and frameworks in order to meet load requirements with fewer servers.
For anyone setting up a similar system, our product https://fivetran.com automates the most annoying part of this: getting the data into Redshift! We support MySQL, Postgres, Salesforce, and lots of other data sources.
> Don't manage complexity. Extract simplicity.

I can't second this enough. This is why it's so important to throw away your prototype code, sometimes, instead of trying to fix it. It's also the big value-add of TDD: Well written tests make that extracted simplicity explicit.
So this is how titles look like nowadays at Techcrunch?
Of course landfills decompose, that's an absurd assertion. If they're treated not to decompose, then they were put in the wrong place obviously.

Clearly some things in the landfill don't decompose, but like others have pointed out, they will someday become profitable to mine if they're full of so much concentrated stuff.
I for one. There are fewer advertisements, most messages are just plain text and easily searchable, and I can receive and organize the data on my own terms. I still have mailing list posts I saved that are around 12 years old; every forum post I made over 10 years ago is gone from the face of the internet.
Physical Networks
The lack of side-effects and equational reasoning in functional languages let you get a lot of details out of your way.

Actually ... You (kind-of/sort-of) need side effects when implementing a language with higher-order functions. You at least need it for generating fresh variables to avoid free name capture. Yes, I know you can do this with a monad, but this is not going to help a beginner. It's much easier to maintain a global counter that you increment every time you want a fresh variable name.
Also Exploratorium, Chabot Space & Science Center.

Unfortunately I think there are currently no public tours of SLAC or LBL (or NERSC).
What? Why would the material be distributed thinly? It's not like they rake it all over the desert. It's extremely concentrated.
I did not mean to imply a motive to building a brand new, mostly empty city. Just that it's incredibly foreign, yet fascinating, and I can't imagine another country doing anything like that.
This is not quite true. There is SPJ's famous "The implementation
of functional programming languages" [1]. Then there is lots of
material on various abstract machines, like the SECD machine, the
CAM, the many variants of the Krivine machine, the G-machine and
plenty of others whose name I forget.

All that said, I kind-of agree with you. It would be nice to have some
easy to grasp explanations of how to compile higher-order functions
to actual machines, x86, ARM, MIPS ... This material can be found
e.g. in Appel's book [2], but I don't think it's available
freely (and legally) on the web. I think this is in parts because
the compilation process is not so easy: you need to understand the compilation of normal languages, in particular stack layout, and then add more pointers. You also need to think about how to do memory management if a closure lives longer than its creating context. This is quite rich material, and not even usually covered in undergraduate compilers courses.

The situation with concurrency is much worse, but that only
reflects the fact that this is far from a solved problem on many
levels. To cite a recent paper [3]:
"Despite decades of research, we do not have [in 2015] a satisfactory concurrency semantics for any general-purpose programming language that aims to support concurrent systems code [...] Disturbingly, 40+ years after the first relaxed-memory hardware was introduced (the IBM 370/158MP), the field still does not have a credible proposal for the concurrency semantics of any general-purpose high-level language that includes high-performance shared-memory concurrency primitives. This is a major open problem for programming language semantics."

And memory models are but one issue to deal with in
concurrency.

[1] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...

[2] A. Appel, Modern Compiler Implementation in ...

[3] M. Batty et al, The Problem of Programming Language Concurrency Semantics.
Just-Metadata – Tool That Gathers and Analyzes Metadata about IP Addresses
WebAssembly, a New Binary Format for the Web
Paper doesn't decompose at all once its covered with soil. Landfills last for centuries. Archaeologists love digging them up. Read up on it.
> The marriage as a whole.

How precisely do you think the things I'm saying harm the marriage as a whole? I'm still not seeing your point. I'm not talking here about causes of marriage failure. I'm talking about the graph structure of society's sexual relationships.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't have monogamous marriages. I'm asking if changing society's expectations to the point where both monogamy and all variations of non-monogamy were perceived to be equally legitimate (with a likely corresponding increase in the number of non-monogamous relationships) could have an impact on the demand for sex trafficking. I don't think making this change would eliminate sex trafficking, but I think it could plausibly help the situation.
how is not playing AAA games atypical?
Same history in Spain. About 300.000 families living in 2013 on the grandfather pension as only source of income apparently.

http://www.teinteresa.es/espana/abuelos-mantienen-hogares-vi...
No. Without any indication that the value in that column is unique the query engine must read the entire table in order to insure that it has found every row that meets the search criteria.
Just working through maths problems with my 6 year old son on a daily basis now, and it's oh-so-hard not to face palm in front of him. So many things that seems incredibly obvious are hard learned lessons. One of the fascinating things of helping him practice is that it's helping me recognise the sheer number of simple little shortcuts I apply to even something as basic as addition (and incredibly hard to hold back and give him the chance to practice the basics before I show him the "cheats").
Apples to oranges. Can't compare the seagate junk to a quality WD or Hitachi that's far more likely to still be spinning _today._
Its easy for the folks who live in cities to imagine everywhere else is just wasted ground, the middle of nowhere. Come out here sometime and learn. Every place is owned, farmed, grazed, used by somebody. There's no such thing as nowhere.
Its great when you actually need to get shit done (see San Francisco), but rather terrible in the case you don't (see multiple empty million unit cities in China). In the very best case, this sort of spending is merely wasteful. I'm reminded of the crazy incentives in the Soviet Union.

EG, from SSC [1]

> A tire factory had been assigned a tire-making machine that could make 100,000 tires a year, but the government had gotten confused and assigned them a production quota of 150,000 tires a year. The factory leaders were stuck, because if they tried to correct the government they would look like they were challenging their superiors and get in trouble, but if they failed to meet the impossible quota, they would all get demoted and their careers would come to an end. They learned that the tire-making-machine-making company had recently invented a new model that really could make 150,000 tires a year. In the spirit of Chen Sheng, they decided that since the penalty for missing their quota was something terrible and the penalty for sabotage was also something terrible, they might as well take their chances and destroy their own machinery in the hopes the government sent them the new improved machine as a replacement. To their delight, the government believed their story about an “accident” and allotted them a new tire-making machine. However, the tire-making-machine-making company had decided to cancel production of their new model. You see, the new model, although more powerful, weighed less than the old machine, and the government was measuring their production by kilogram of machine. So it was easier for them to just continue making the old less powerful machine. The tire factory was allocated another machine that could only make 100,000 tires a year and was back in the same quandary they’d started with.

[1] http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/24/book-review-red-plenty/
Instead of making me click "more restaurants" can you have it load more as I scroll? Also, the loading seemed to take a long time for each press of the "more restaurants" button.

There was an error in my console, lp is not defined, some variable in your JavaScript.

Get Directions tried to open up an AppleMaps link. Is this a iPhone only website? Or do you want laptop/desktop users to install AppleMaps?

That's my 2 cents
These are great times! Companies learnt that alone/closed/private doesn't drive innovation... You can see in the latest news many standards been made by the companies together... Working with docker for dev-environment has been fantastic (for me), really fast and easy to start/stop/modify different setups.
Perfectly safe systems like planes, missiles, space missions etc. are 99% done in imperative languages such as C and Ada.

Not Haskell and not even Lisp.

The last thing you want from a perfectly safe system is some lazyness smartness in the compiler hitting at the wrong time and affecting execution time, memory use etc, or things like GC pauses.
It certainly spectacularly fails to provide any advice on the practical problem of engineering AI [1]. The same is true of many non-constructive mathematical proofs, though - and I can't say I find such proofs any less insightful for that.

[1] Though, at least in my opinion, the cognitive science and AI research people have made great progress here - by studying real brains and the formalisms underlying computation.
> The term "overweight" does not differentiate between muscle and fat, plain and simple. You're wrong.

You're wrong. The typical diagnostic method for overweight and obesity (BMI) does not differentiate between muscle and fat, because mechanisms that do are too expensive/complex for the use, but the term, in fact, does.

At their most basic, the words “overweight” and “obesity” are ways to describe having too much body fat. [0]

Overweight and obesity are defined as abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that may impair health. [1]

[0] http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesit...

[1] http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/
Some might suggest that Google support has been run by AI's for years already, given just how awful some of the responses are...
Want to Get Rich? Become a Water Lawyer in California
This makes it sound like current insiders who previously ran Windows 8 but did a clean install from technical preview iso will be required to reinstall with Windows 8 and then upgrade again in order to stay genuine?

That can't possibly be right, can it?
I think relays are a lot slower in general. They are more binary as well, being either ON or OFF, where a transistor is actually amplifying a signal based on its input (so it's possible to have a transistor output a range of voltages, between the current of its main source and pullup resistor being used to drag the off state to 0). Not sure how that affects in total, but I think using transistors lets you vary the voltage needed to drive the system without switching out all the transistors.
Trust me, he hasn't.
Yet, the relevant three actually (who cares about the 99.99%?) do have an idea, if you've been following the case. 99.9999% of journalists do not, and never had, a copy of the data. Poitras and Greenwald actually know what they are doing.

Yes, I do know who Bruce is. Do you? Did you actually read the piece[0] we are talking about?

Schneier himself seems to believe that the journalists are likely hacked, but that state actors have had this info long before Snowden:

""" Which brings me to the second potential source of these documents to foreign intelligence agencies: the US and UK governments themselves. I believe that both China and Russia had access to all the files that Snowden took well before Snowden took them because they've penetrated the NSA networks where those files reside. After all, the NSA has been a prime target for decades. """

and

""" The point I make in the article is that those nations didn't have to wait for Snowden. More specifically, GCHQ claims that "we have now seen our agents and assets being targeted." One, agents and assets are not discussed in the Snowden documents. Two, it's two years after Snowden handed those documents to reporters. Whatever is happening, it's unlikely to be related to Snowden. """.

Oh, and when you mention [ex]CIA employees, are you including the head of the CIA[1] or not? Cause, you know, that guy failed miserably at information security.

[0] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/06/the_secrecy_o...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petraeus_scandal
History of the First Crypto War
Ferraris Don’t Grow on Trees
Functional is not about lazyness.

So you don't have to mix effects with laziness, you can mix effects and other functional constructs (pure functions, immutable values, closures, map, fold, homoiconicity and macros, etc) and you still get a huge benefit.

So the theme of the article "mostly functional can't work" is wrong.
"The term B-Tree actually stands for “balanced tree.”"

B-tree means "binary tree" and are not inherently balanced. There are plenty of specific types of self balancing tree algorithms, but I believe the default implementation of b-trees by definition are not self-balanced.

Edit: this comment is incorrect. There is a difference between b-trees and binary trees.
I like Paul Thurrott's explanation and not only because of the unambiguous headline:

https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/4257/guys-seriou...
"I think Google should have been engaged more deeply for this piece and had their side of the story represented"

Google was asked to comment, but refused. The article states:

"A Google spokesperson declined my offer to sit down and watch the footage, and refused to comment on the record regarding allegations that company security guards had been intimidating the homeless."
>So why does the author stop short of telling us what he thinks are the fair terms here?

Even if a publishing contract does not have a provision for non-disclosure and confidentiality, it's standard business etiquette not to publicly discuss the actual financial terms. It's the same type of professional etiquette when a programmer says, "I jumped from Microsoft to Google for more money." The "more" is left to the readers' imagination and it would be rude of us to ask for specifics.

Unfortunately, since his essay dances around any concrete numbers, the point about "fairness" might seem like a build up to punchline that never comes.
Sorry to go off topic, but why would you want to simultaneously backup to S3 and Glacier? Unless you're using S3 with Reduced Redundancy then you're not going to lose any files, so Glacier seems pointless. Also, working with S3 is way easier than working with Glacier, so if you're using S3 already I would just stick with that.
I'd be surprised if it made a difference, but the definition of a dead or comatose server would seem to include failover cluster members.
I think the context and outcome matter. Watts made his statement literally on the public square, during discussion after a political rally and the context of his remarks was the draft (in a highly controversial war) and racial inequality. It doesn't get more 'statement of political dissent' than that. What happened to him was unquestionably outrageous and a gross violation of his civil liberties - he was reported by an agent of the Army Counterintelligence Corps who was present(!!) and then charged and convicted.

How well does this case compare? Some asshats on a fringe forum mouthed off about murdering a judge because they didn't like the judge's verdict. I'd bet that then some other, similarly judgement-impaired indivdual reported them to the authorities. What follows is predictable - said authorities, ever paranoid of being accused of having failed to 'connect the dots', put the gears in motion resulting in silly subpoenas, some dickish behaviour by a federal prosecutor and a publication's inability to talk about the investigation for two weeks. Potentially, some imprudent ranters might get to chat with an FBI agent of which nothing will come.

I'm not trying to argue this is somehow an awesome outcome or that it doesn't, once again, highlight some worrisome problems with the power of prosecutors and its potential for abuse. But I just don't see the outrageous abuse of civil liberties, chilling effect, etc the tone of all of popehat's writing on the topic implies.

I don't think it's unreasonable to recognize the problem law enforcement, investigators, procecutors face in such situations - while zillions of internet hyperventilators fill message boards with their threatening but ultimately harmless nonsense, so do the microscopic minority who actually turn out to be violent. Is this incentive to over-react exacerbated by imbalances in prosecutorial power, other systemic issues? Sure. Does this case represent some outrageous assault on civil liberties? Is it entirely trivial to identify 'true' threats on internet message boards by applying a well-reasoned list of bulleted criteria? I'm not convinced of either of those things, at least, not yet.
your argument is equivalent to "we dont understand it, therefore it must be super-natural".
the things we can do with union and intersection types,
disjointness, abstraction over tuple and function types,
etc, are just beautifully elegant and powerful. Don't let
the fact that you love Scala blind you to other ideas.

I don't think it's a blind love, but all those things will ship in one of the next versions of Scala, too.

Given there are some things I can't just suffer anymore, like unreadable Generics (<>), required ; and "Type ident" syntax, maybe Ceylon just isn't for me. :-)
I was going to ask the OP not to be stupid with titles. But... ;P
NextVR’s US Open VR Broadcast Shows Great Promise