skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Whereas, since you can adjust the hypothetical distribution of dark matter to be whatever you need it to be to fit the data, you cannot falsify dark matter this way, since proving that no possible distribution of dark matter could fit the evidence is pretty much impossible.

Still, to me there seems to be some level of equal implausibility in saying "our theory of gravity is wrong" and in saying "our theory of matter is wrong".
Do you have such data that I can have a look at
Well I'm sorry that I offended you with my words, but I didn't have the opportunity to destroy your marriage by spending $1000 of my own money, Brendan.
Are you saying something other than "you, the programmer, must declare spi to be volatile, or else the compiler might lay a bear trap for you?".

Based on your comment it seems clear that you understand that... but given that you understand that I don't get the point you're trying to make (except perhaps that writing low-level hardware code in C often means actively stopping the compiler from screwing you over).

(for non-C programmers: "volatile" can be approximated by "hey compiler, this variable can change unexpectedly even if you didn't do anything to change it, so don't use any optimizations that assume you're the only one changing it).
It would be easier to stomach if the announcements read more like what you said and less like "we are so excited to share the wonderful news that we got bought out and don't have to serve you anymore."
Thank you so much!

I just noticed the Erlang port yesterday; it was a most pleasant surprise.
There might not be dark matter, but we need a better explanation than MOND
Those are great thoughts. Another good general topic to ask people:

* Have you been to Paris before? (Are there things I should do or see while I'm here?)

A lot of people love to be helpful and give advice, so if you ask for advice or suggestions they're likely to appreciate the opportunity (including the opportunity to show that they're knowledgeable).

You can also ask people for more travel-related questions like how to get around, how to get to a specific place, etc. They'll usually be quite comfortable being asked this, regard it as a normal and appropriate thing to be asked by a stranger, and, again, want to help out by discussing it.
Well, I live in California, so burst pipes is not an issue.

The generator runs on the same type of gas as both our cars and my motorcycle. Our neighbors are very close, everyone has two cars or more (there's a ton of cars on this street), and the generator is big enough to deliver 1...2 kW to four residences. We could pool the gas with the neighbors.

It would not run 24/7, we would run it for 1 or 2 hours each evening - and charge the 18650 cells for flashlights while it's running. I think we could get at least a couple weeks out of it, just burning the gas in all those tanks (assuming an average of 50% gas level for all vehicles).

I think the bigger problems would be just finding enough AC cord extenders for everyone, and having enough water for this duration (not sure what would happen to the utilities in such an event). Also, perhaps, another issue would be guarding a valuable resource (the generator) during a time of civil chaos.

Anyway, I haven't purchased the generator specifically for this scenario. I just happen to have one around, and then once I had it, thinking about stuff like the Carrington event was sort of natural.

P.S.: I'm not a prepper, not even close. I guess it's just a strange kind of fun, on some level, to think about such contingencies.
You could accuse him of being a shill if he repeatedly appeared on the BBC solely to advance the policies of the British government. Assange didn't merely appear on RT, he hosted a weekly show on RT entitled "The World Tomorrow with Julian Assange" which featured a who's-who of US critics. That's a bit more than an occasional appearance on BBC.
I never implied, nor do I endorse the fact, that this results in a trickle down effect. If you would like to dispute the actual economics of my first sentence I have roughly 700 years of history and research to back my claim.

However your quibble with my phrasing of "holier" and the fact that you needed to point out that there aren't binaries in life kind of shows your true intentions in disagreeing, don't you? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you start moralizing and implying that your opinion is preferable on moral grounds, well... I'm gonna call you out.

>>> "Working for the U.S. Digital Service showed me that, indeed, there were far better ways for me to spend my time if I really wanted to make a difference in people’s lives."
How Minecraft prepares kids for jobs that don't exist yet
How would my mail server know that the sender is a low volume source?

It's trivial to randomly cycle through the domains you're sending to in order to deliver at a low rate to any single domain.

> Further, allowing the occasional doesn't-look-like-spam-but-is-actually-spam message (if such a thing exists), isn't the end of the world.

It is when you allow the occasional such message from each of tens of millions of compromised machines worldwide.

Recently we had to block inbound mail from most of Ukraine because hundreds of thousands of IP addresses belonging to Ukrainian ISPs were used to spam us. I started manually blocking /24's, but couldn't keep up, so we moved to blocking /16's, and even that was going too slowly to avoid affecting our systems.

Another time recently we had to block a particularly notorious Asian ISP that basically don't care that the millions of addresses in their net bocks all gets hijacked for spamming purposes (or quite possibly they do care as a result of being paid to look the other way).

This is business as usual when you operate anything but the smallest mail servers where you might get lucky and not get detected by spammers.

We still receive spam sent from malware addressed at domains of clients we haven't hosted for half a decade, that's been picked up from peoples mail clients....

This is why a lot of people decide it's easier to just blanket block all dynamic IPs. It costs a lot of money to stay on top of spam, and a lot more if you decide to try to avoid collateral damage.

> The real spam problem that needed to be addressed was mailboxes being completely flooded with unsolicited messages. So flooded that it becomes impossible to read or even find the legitimate messages.

The practices you complain about are the reason why the spam problem is now contained sufficiently for e-mail to still be usable.
Yes, and yes, I use SSL and a password to authenticate the clients. I'm curious where this is going. :)
Yes but solar doesn't last as long as nuclear plants. The current nuclear generation, like the AP-1000, are certified for 60 years with an option to extend for another 60.

Solar has the advantage of trivial decommissioning, but a huge disadvantage in requiring things like storage, overproduction, long distance transmission, and smart grids, all of which raise its effective cost if you're not putting it on top of a fossil or nuclear-based power grid.
Like others said: dust simply isn't dark. At least not in the way implied in the term 'dark matter'.
It's assuming that they're all infected by some malware. Of course not all of them are, but realistically there are also thousands of providers, not 20.
District Court Judge in Oracle V. Google Learned Java (2012)
So, say, if someone comes to you with a clean demonstration of how and why something is happening in the world, people verify it and it proves correct, and (s)he says the idea was revealed while smoking pot in a mystical hotel in north canada, or france for that matter, you'd say no one should take the theory seriously? Good job!
Find people with the problem you're solving, and point them to your project. Quora is great for this. Obviously don't just look for the sell (or the star, in this case), but if people are asking about source control, git, etc. they'd probably benefit from knowing about cli-github. (neat project btw, looks like a nice compliment to https://github.com/github/hub).
We have much more experience with matter, because we can interact with it on a variety of scales in a lab. Gravity is much harder to interact with, and thus much harder to explore. That's why it is quite a bit more likely that our understanding of gravity is incorrect.
I'm no physicist but I've asked myself this question. It's a bit like string theory. String theory is a mathematical answer that solves some (all?) of the inconsistencies between quantum theory and gravity but has some implications that have no experimental evidence (eg extra dimensions).

Dark matter always struck me as a kludge to explain the universe fit our model. There are many theories on it but no observed or experimental effects of dark matter to date.

We say that there are four fundamental forces in the universe: weak nuclear, strong nuclear, electromagnetism and gravity. The first three are pretty adequately explained by quantum mechanics (AFAICT). The last of course isn't but is described pretty darn well by relativity.

Thing is, what's always struck me as odd is the other forces, I believe, can both attract and repel. There is no observation or experimental evidence of "antigravity".

It has always made me wonder if we're not making an error by trying to fit gravity into the Standard Model. Perhaps it's not a force like the others are and simply the result of the nature of space-time.

Anyway, like I said: complete layman here. What I'm saying might be completely nonsensical to anyone with half a clue about physics.

I know the LHC has looked and is looking for any evidence at the edges of the Standard Model of some violation that will hint at something that might explain all this. I also know minds far brighter than mine have spent a lot of time thinking about this.

I'm still left wondering if dark matter/energy isn't simply another "string theory".
Maybe KMP should have recycled Jerry Pournelle's account for a certain bright 19-year-old, instead... ;)

http://www.stormtiger.org/bob/humor/pournell/story.html

"Personally, I'd just turn off his account. It's not like it's the first time, and he not only flaunts his use of our machines but stabs us in the back with grumblings about why he doesn't like this or that program of ours when he gets a chance. (Am thinking particularly of an article he wrote which condemned Lisp for reasons amounting to little more than his ignorance, but which cited Teach-Lisp in a not-friendly light... The man has learned nothing from his presence on MC and sets a bad example of what people might potentially accomplish there. I'd rather recycle his account for some bright 12-yr-old...)" -KMP
It’s been a Blast Automaton
Firstly let us conclude that you accept that you're assumption that the NSA is well-intentioned was proven wrong.

Secondly I want to tackle your straw man arguments.
I think almost no one is doubting, that (in general) all governments spy and Russia is more transparent or less invasive than the U.S.

Besides that I want to tackle your thought, that no one should have been surprised by Snowden revelations. Surely some details should have surprised people.
Of course everybody knew that secret services are spying and compromise infrastructures in the Internet. The surprising part in my opinion is the _extent_ and we have more or less detailed evidence.
We are not talking the fact that a secret agency is spying, hacking, disrupting or not, but about the quality (and quantity) in which ways and by which means the agency is working. Not only that, we are also talking about factual goals of such agencies and weather this whole thing makes sense regarding the cost and benefits.

In my opinion you relativizing the actions of the NSA, by saying: "Hey everyone is doing the same!". Just because all secret services are spying (doing the same in an abstract way) doesn't mean there are few agencies which are actually exceptional in gathering intelligence. I'm talking about quality and quantity again.

The NSA is one of the most powerful secret services. That's a fact. It has probably the biggest budget, the most employees and the most resources in contrast to the vast majority of other secret services.

So it's not about margins, whether cell phone metadata should be held by the provider or the government. This is just a distraction from more important questions like what's the point of such organization and do we really need it to spent billions of dollars for... For what actually?

Last but not least: Is this really your argument, that the publishing of Snowden-docs, which enlightened the people (which should be the real souvereign), damaged US interests?
What's your point? That the people should have been remained dumb about the actions of their agencies, which are actually legitimated by their power?
Sorry, but these claims just demonstrate that you have not operated a large volume mail servers.

Yes, most of us do need to automatically block such sources because content analysis does not do a good job, and experience demonstrates that the vast majority of such messages are still spam.

> You're just relying on the provider to solve your spam problem.

Yes, we are. And you should be extremely happy they put in the effort they do, or your e-mail would be completely useless.
I love how after 6 months working for someone he is happily blogging about it and he isn't ashamed about it even in the slightest. If I saw he'd worked for someone for 6 months only then I'd want to hear a good reason why he left. Otherwise I will just assume he was fired, or knew he was struggling against his peers and decided to move on by himself. You have to read his About page to realise that is probably not likely to be the case in this instance, but still.
But how do you reliably identify one anonymous entity? Like I said, putting a rate limit is going to turn away legitimate bettors (if too strict) and not make much of a dent in the attacker's profits (if not strict enough). Doing an "implausibly lucky" check is going to piss off legitimately lucky winners who might have given you more money (if the limit is too conservative), and/or not hurt the attacker much. Any per-account limits can be circumvented by the attacker making more.

Maybe they took some measures like this that they didn't tell us about. With that much money at stake, maybe "do something, anything" does make sense -- my point was there's no way for them to ultimately prevail until they understood/addressed the root issue, and knee-jerk responses could backfire.
That is an over-exaggeration to the point of complete absurdity. Pretty much only people who spend way too much time following news of police shootings, and only pay attention to the initial exaggerated reports, would even consider that to be reasonable.

If that was a reasonable fear, then there would be tens of thousands of police shootings every single day. Every single cop would have to shoot somebody a couple of times a week, versus in reality where most will never fire a gun in anger in their entire career, and will probably be off for weeks after a shooting even if it was squeaky clean.

In reality, driving a car to work is many times more dangerous than pretty much anything else you could ever do, yet most of the US does it every day without a second thought. Maybe try applying some rational skepticism to the news?
Would you participate in an Engineer Exchange program?
This is only a problem when one wants to sell up. If there is some sort of economic crisis that precipitates a collapse in the housing market it's very likely anything else the super rich could've parked their money in instead would also be FUBAR too.
What's your stream? :) I'm trying to "get into" JavaScript again after abandoning its brokenness. I'm looking to see people's workflow and you seem like a knowledgeable person.
Look at the first graph in the "My own analysis" section here: http://johnhartnett.org/2015/03/29/the-coming-long-dark-wint... and laugh.
Can anyone estimate the total number of doors in the world? How?
I wonder what happened to the canon rounds that missed their target (that must have been most of them). There must be an entire region that must have gotten used to raining 128-millimeter bullets.
i'll take that point :) and thanks! :)
What does it mean to exist? A thing exists specifically when it affects something else. What is measurement? It's a reciprocal affecting.

So does a thing which is not affecting anything else and not being measured exist? No! QED
I graduated physics, but I'm almost a layman when it comes to general relativity. Still, I wonder if another possible explanation for stuff that don't match theory could be the basic assumption about our current cosmology. That the space is flat where there's no matter. Since there's a relation between the geometry of the space and the matter within, would it be unreasonable to believe that space itself could be curved independently of the matter we can observed? Maybe for other reasons, yet unknown?
I was looking at Octopress which is built on Jekyl and using Github to host the content. I ran into lots of issues and it was just too much overheard. I ended up looking around with looks of hosting providers for wordpress and settled on wpengine. Couldn't be happier
I am confused. I just loaded up the site and a video of a guy playing metal on an electric guitar started livestreaming. Unless he connected his guitar to his computer and code is being written, I don't see how this is live coding... It's the LinuxFromScratch stream: https://www.livecoding.tv/jegas/
I try to do just 10-15min each morning, though more often than not I don't even achieve that. I think the act of just forcing yourself to sit still and not do anything puts a lot in perspective, and if it's just 10 minutes you can't use the excuse that you don't have time. I've tried a few apps, the only one that I've found to really help is Headspace, has good no-nonsense advice.
Had it not been for MAD, we'd be on about WWIV right now.
In high energy physics people compute scattering amplitudes, the goal is to estimate how many events of a particular kind a detector in a collider experiment will see at various energies. The predominant tool for doing that is to calculate contributions from so called Feynman diagrams, each diagram is a graphical representation of some fairly complicated integral, the integrant is some rational function of the particle momenta. The nominator has to be simplified by manipulating spinor identities and in the case of for example QCD one has to work out color factors. Just a few years before people were computing 1000s of those diagrams by hand for Quantum electro dynamics, often while cross checking each others results. For non-abelian Yang-Mills Theory (t'Hooft Veltman had published their landmark paper in 1972) this is more or less infeasible beyond first order.

The number of diagrams that have to be evaluated quickly explodes beyond the first order and in the case of QCD already at two loops would require herculean efforts to do by hand. In fact Schoonschip was one of the first computer algebra systems and developed for just this reason.

Beyond that areas like Supersymmetry and certain parts of General Relativity would be very painful to work in, if everything had to be done by hand.
I had to add that naively, languages won't do that, because of course there's no trick to it otherwise. Even Javascript can do it, it just won't be any faster. It's a simple example to fit a simple paragraph of text. One could imagine other possible optimizations to harness the fact that it's faster to do work on what you have than to pull more stuff in from RAM, like perhaps a string type that transparently compresses itself with a fixed dictionary (or optional dictionary) or something depending on runtime performance heuristics.

Of course anything I say is possible in an existing language, with enough work, enough assembler, and enough compromises, but it's not what languages are based around.
We know that light bends near a
gravitational field with a big
gradient before it is "measured".

Sounds like that light existed
and generated and responded to a
gravitational field after it was
emitted and before it was detected
or measured.
A prenup is insufficient unless you're also in a legal environment where a spouse can not financially make both of you jointly and severally liable for a debt, for example.

It doesn't help you if the other party doesn't get any of your stuff in a divorce if you're still saddled with debts they took on while you were married.

There may be places where this is possible, but I doubt it'd be worth it once you factor in the cost of sufficiently safeguarding yourself, unless there are massive amounts of money involved.
Your project is certainly interesting, the comments regarding ease of use were just meant as a hint for how you could attract even more users.

Consider a hypothetical web application (no setup) where you write the same Ruby code and get a live preview (no need to explain windows users what a command line is) - this would take lots of work and money, but would probably be more popular.

Look also from the perspective of a person who is looking for a card design tool, is not emotionally attached to your project, and does not prefer Ruby over other languages. For these people, you compete against solutions like Tikz or Processing or some Python script, which are also capable of defining the content and layout of the cards separately. That's why I thought it might be a good idea to mention some amazing advantage of your tool in its short description.

If you want to create a community around your project, how about opening a gallery with examples, like the one the Tikz project has (http://www.texample.net/tikz/examples/all/)?
I don't think that works because when you reveal you have a capability, your adversary works quickly to patch/block it, especially if you are quite vocal about it. International corruption wouldn't end by 2017, because the tapped phones would be secured long before then.
I believe the problem is simple enough to solve assuming I have the requirements correct. Essentially you need these types:

map<int, map<int, int>> equalityIndices;
map<int, pair<mutex, condition_variable> pendingWaits;
mutex writeLock;

When a call to wait occurs you do:

writeLock.lock();

mutex *m;
condition_variable *cv;

if(pendingWaits.count(index1)) {
m = &pendingWaits[index1].first;
cv = &pendingWaits[index1].second;
}
else {
m = &pendingWaits[index2].first;
cv = &pendingWaits[index2].second;
}

equalityIndices[index1][index2]++;
equalityIndices[index2][index1]++;

writeLock.unlock();

unique_lock lk(*m);

do {
cv->wait(lk);
} while(array[index1] != array[index2]);

writeLock.lock();

if(--equalityIndices[index1][index2] == 0) {
equalityIndices[index1].erase(index2);
if(equalityIndices[index1].empty()) {
equalityIndices.erase(index1);
pendingWaits.erase(index1);
}
}

if(--equalityIndices[index2][index1] == 0) {
equalityIndices[index2].erase(index1);
if(equalityIndices[index2].empty()) {
equalityIndices.erase(index2);
pendingWaits.erase(index2);
}
}

writeLock.unlock();

Then in the update value function you do

array[index] = value;

if(equalityIndices.count(index)) {
pendingWaits[index].second.notify_all();
try {
for(const auto itr : equalityIndices.at(index))
if(array[index] == array[*itr])
pendingWaits[*itr].second.notify_all();
}
catch(out_of_range e) {
(void)e;
}
}

This gives you a typical write overhead of O(log k) where k is your number of unique index equality monitors.

The wait until equal method will have a few O(log k) overheads.
So are fossil fuels, and pretty much everything else on earth, including life itself. Carbon-based fossil fuels are simply very old plants which have stored and concentrated solar energy.

The only non-solar non-fusion energy I can think of is that which comes from the earth's core, geothermic. And even that is believed to be powered by nuclear fission.