skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> It's pretty sad that the owner of the $1200 flying machine is depicted as the perpetrator of a planned crime.

No, he's depicted, accurlate, as the perpetrator of a crime. That crime was running after the accident.

This guy gives responsible drone owners a real problem.

If I crash my drone into something, I expect to be responsible for it. My homeowner's insurance includes coverage for injuries caused by my drone; a fact I verified specifically because I am responsible.

This guy just took off and ran. That's weak; criminally weak.
At first I thought nothing happens when you press "play", but I see now that the player names "Player 1" "Player 2" are not default names, but rather placeholders some of which need to be changed before clicking "Play".
That's just not true.. There are numerous diseases which only affect the most poor and downtrodden citizens that are being worked on by thousands of 'first world' scientists.
China-led AIIB development bank holds signing ceremony
Well, programmers historically have tended to stereotypically prefer a dimmer milieu. Not to mention there are a number of simple physical injuries that can cause photophobia: <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photophobia#Causes >

Overillumination has been known for some time to cause various other deleterious health effects anyway, and flicker aside fluorescents just put out plain terrible light. It completely baffles me why so many establishments install it (well, workplaces; retailers like it because it makes you buy more apparently).
Calling 911 seems like an appropriate reaction when somebody gets knocked out by an object dropped on their head
Oh, there is a correlation between austerity and debt... just not the direction the pro-austerity people assume. Austerity not only doesn't work,it makes debts larger by reducing the underlying GDP.

Austerity is really just the latest trick used by bankers to shift their debts on to lower classes. If you want more details, I highly recommend Mark Blyth's explanation ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6vV8_uQmxs#t=674 )
I'm confused about how this is MIT yet to contribute I have to sign a Khan Academy CLA? That doesn't seem ... MIT-y
Open source decentralized communications
Microsoft said Bing is a multibillion business and pay for itself. http://marketingland.com/microsoft-bing-sustainable-standalo...
Couldn't Google just comply with the license and re-release their code under GPL with linking exception like the original standard library? Maybe pay a fine but at least Android survives.

They should have just paid the vig to Oracle and been done with it, instead they have a knock-down-drag-out and end up with a precedent that damages all software development everywhere. All involved are acting like a bunch of jerks.
Most physicists or, depending on who you talk to, nearly half of physicists, would appear to agree with you.

I'm convinced that the Copenhagen interpretation remains popular because by making observation itself an integral part of the theory, you allow us to postulate that there is something special about human brains. But 'mysterious observation' is the luminiferous aether of quantum mechanics.

photonic29: I would like to continue our discussion, but HN has some kind of stupid rule where I can't make more than five posts within a (I think?) 12 hour period. I don't know if this is a general rule that applies to everyone, or simply one of the innumerable passive-aggressive account handicaps our gracious mods will afflict us with if we catch them on a bad day.

At any rate, I can't post anymore for now, so our discussion about MWI and Copenhagen interpretation can't happen. Sorry.
I can authorize $400/month for such a service today and could easily sign a letter of intent if the prices were reasonable and you only billed me after successful registrations (after initial registration is fine too; sometimes they request additional information).

@mdolon I sent an email with some of my thoughts mapped out in greater detail. Thanks for asking.
Oh yeah. None of this is simple black and white. My main assertion is that systems are generally trying to maintain homeostasis. In order to change the system, it's sometimes necessary is disrupt/ignore the system; especially when other means of influencing the system are denied or ineffective.
Raising a hundred? million dollars to "acquire" accreditation via a small college is not within the realm of startups. Perhaps just tens of millions is needed? Even if you acquired a college, turning it into a de facto online for-profit institution would be an impossible sell to professors as an outsider. I think its far more likely that some existing (accredited) college will offer degrees online for pennies on the dollar with open enrollment - perhaps they could start with degrees in eg CS, where online grading is trivial. Disruptive innovations typically start at the bottom.
Software Occlusion Culling Update 2
> I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a pretty privileged sentiment.

How does any of the prior statement sound "privileged"? Or was that just a hamfisted attempt at using a dog whistle?
It's not clear that he ran. Given that he clearly did not have control over the aircraft, it might have been well out of view.
Finding out where on the body is half the fun! ;-)
Well these are embedded processors and Apple can be more tight about who they disclose information. Intel on the contrary has to work with so many other third parties which need this information.
Usually when you lose sight of a $1200 piece of technology, you go find it, and then attempt to recover it.
Agreed, I'm saying that if this was a case purely around API copyright-ability and not all the other hairy bits around it, it would have made for a nicer case to set precedence.
This sounds like a (bad) case interview question. Which are, of course, more about the approach and rigor of thinking than a "correct" numerical answer.

Quickly, my approach would be something like:

1. Let's agree on a definition of "door". For the sake of estimation, let's assume these are human-sized hinged openings. E.g., cabinet doors, garage doors, doggie doors, and other definitions don't count. Since this is a total swag, let's ignore things like double-hung doors. This still leaves open the idea of things like transportation (bus doors, car doors, train doors, elevator doors, etc.) that we could estimate by a similar method, but let's ignore that, too.

2. To get to a total number of doors, let's estimate the average number of unique doors an individual could interact with. We could probably draw a graph that resembles a reverse exponential curve: e.g., there are a large number of people who interact with zero or one doors per day (e.g., people in rural areas of developing countries) and a very small number of people who interact with a lot of doors.

3. To get to an average number of doors, we can thinking about residences and work locations. We can probably ignore other door locations, as a retail location you would go, for example, is someone else's work location. So thinking about my own experiences:

3A. I have 22 doors at home, which I share with my wife. So 11 attributable to me. (Aside: count the number of doors in your house, apartment, etc.: it's higher than you probably think. Even a studio apartment might have 4+.)

3B. Work is harder because no doors are "mine" (no office). I could go through and think about what percentage of a door is "mine", but I don't think it would be more than 0.5. Let's round up to 1. It might be more like 2-3 for some people at the end of the curve.

4. Let's say I'm at, effectively, the far right on the curve with 12 doors. (After all, if we compare to global wealth distributions, a salary of $50k puts you in the top 1% worldwide.) The interesting thing about exponential curves is that the median is going to be in the first quintile, but the mean is going to be around the 50% mark. So we can assume the global average is 6 doors / person. (Note: this is the step you would nitpick, because it's a giant assumption. Not to mention that my 50% comment isn't accurate: totally depends on the shape of the curve. :) )

5. With a global population of about 7 billion people, the total number of doors is 42 billion.

Now we can argue about my assumptions and definition of "door".
Yes, like someone else said, that's not necessarily true or obvious. There's a DMV in every major city in the country, there are veteran services, immigration offices, department of defense, department of human resources, housing and urban development, and all the other alphabet agencies in almost every major city. There are hospitals, universities, and research labs in every major city. There are police departments, sheriff's departments, SWAT teams, FBI teams, and ATF teams in every major city. And in this day and age, remote work is a thing -- technology in general is a thing.

I don't see any reason I need to give up anything (other than maybe a huge salary) to work on these problems. The true roadblock for me, I believe, is just a lack of knowledge and education on those particular issues.
Sounds like a classic Georgist tax.
We tried to tax underoccupancy in state provided accommodation, ie, if you lived in state housing, with empty rooms, you'd have a reduced benefits payout.
It was an absolute nightmare response.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupancy_penalty
Learn about the origin and general practices of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and you should get at least a little bit of enlightenment.

And without studying the case, just on the general principles of what copyright is supposed to do, applying it to APIs is at least a debatable point. And probably should be hashed out by the Congress and the Executive.
> But Lisp FFI declarations that compile down to the same ABI do not infringe...

Doesn't this get into hair splitting? Somewhere in that Lisp code there's the symbolic name, as defined in the C code, for the function/entry point, and the C type-names for the parameters. Those are copyright protected. This is how I would expect Oracle to argue that changing language syntax does not excuse you from licensing their "copyright protected API."
I agree with this. The author should've mentioned enlive (you got a similar library that supports om) which allows html to be html, which should make designers happy.
Historically, almost everything in computing is a copy of a copy of a copy, usually ultimately leading to some pseudocode in an academic journal somewhere. If everyone along the line asserted their copyright, the whole field would collapse.
template rendering

validation

routing

modular business logic e.g. - calculate total interest paid over the life of the loan provided the client pays x per month etc etc
He's also a former Google SRE and has a good, relevant background. Is that politics or going with someone you personally trust to deliver results when you have a high-profile disaster in the news?

(This is not to excuse other cases where donors, fundraisers, etc. get dubiously-appropriate jobs. That certainly happens but it's not the only option)
Wake me up when they can bootstrap a compiler for graphical programming using graphical programming itself. Until such time... not that nervous.
Is anybody even remotely surprised? even slightly? Any country with sufficient power will spy on any and all people, countries and entities it can. If they don't either something bad will happen (and the public will be demanding to know why someone didn't do anything about it) or they will be out-maneuvered by countries that do.
Information is power and all types of information add to a map of what's going on and with who. Companies/Corporations are modern day dukes, robber barons and tyrants, and people with power and influence have always been spied upon.
How to Transfer SMS from iPhone to Android
Google didn't want to pay licensing fees to Oracle so they wrote their own implementation of the entire Java language. Not only did they write their own implementation of the standard library, they wrote their own compiler and virtual machine. Does that make sense? I can see how my original statement was unclear.
FWIW, you can use Twitch without installing Flash in certain cases. If you happen to be using OS X and Safari, you can add "/hls" to any URL to have it play without Flash. If you're not averse to installing software, you could look into Livestreamer [1] that plays the stream in VLC. The advantage in both cases being improved fidelity and reduced battery consumption.

[1] - https://livestreamer.readthedocs.org/en/latest/install.html
>as a market participant I largely do not care about the implementation of any given market makers risk configs

Why? It could severely hurt market liquidity (which everyone claims is so important) if there is a mistake that sparks a panic.

> was not as good at lowering the cost of risk as opposed to getting fast

Can you reword this a bit? I don't understand what you are saying.

> I think that any artificial slowing of the market is likely to have really bad unintentional issues.

Can you give some examples?

> One approach that appeals to me is to remove the sub-penny rule that is artificially propping up spreads.

This would be a decent thing to do, it would take some money out of market making, reducing the returns fueling the latency arms race a bit. Lower returns would also give less justification for some of the risks that are taken today.

A transaction tax would help in a similar way, but work more broadly against other high volume, low latency, low value traders. Index-to-underlyings arbitragers (maybe not the best example; sub-penny would decimate (hurr) them as well), etc.
>Does measurement have to include an agent? Could measurement mean interaction with other atoms?

Indeed it can. Roughly put, if information about the state left the undetermined system, a measurement has been made. One of the most frustrating interpretations of literature such as this is the idea that there is something spooky, special, and reality-making about a conscious mind. Lots to think about there philosophically, but the physics happens at lower levels of abstraction.
So don't raise an error, instead publish a warning.
Nicely done -- they admit that they don't have a copyright where appropriate, and ask for attribution, without requiring it.
And then if you see it caused an injury and/or damage, you take responsibility and cooperate.
Labellio – easy deep-learning platform for computer vision
What was inaccurate in the given depiction?
Yes they did , but they owned the APIs.
Yes! But as inputs for the estimate we would need the purpose, and, closely related to it, the definition of door in that context. Do the doors of my Lego car count? What about doors in the painting on my wall, or the one on the microwave?
I'm rather in favour if a government as employer of last resort. One option is to then resell that labour, at a loss in cases, to qualified businesses.

We're already subsidizing labour, but without consideration to net social benefit. That at least should change.
There's no mention of a concussion? The drone is 2 lbs. I don't know why he ran? Maybe the last thing he needed was a lawsuit, and eventual Judgement, or worse being overcharged by the DA? It all doesn't matter; she is o.k., and it looks like recreational drones will eventually be limited to ounces. We can go back to working about the faint smell of cigarette smoke?
Buffer and Transparency: salaries, equity, revenue, fundraising, etc.
True but unfortunately it is not always easy to tell how distracting an environment will be until you are actually working in it.

One of the worst environments I've worked in was when I had a private office but there were 3 very extroverted and juvenile employees stationed right outside my door.
Yes, this is exactly the reason for undefined behavior. It is often overlooked in the "well, the compiler should just throw an error instead of invoking undefined behavior" debate: the compiler doesn't just "choose to invoke" undefined behavior: it relies on it to do program analysis.

For example, your example could legally be rewritten to:

int x;
f();
x = 1;
if (g()) { h(x); }

The only difference is if f() were false, and someone would then access x and see 1; but that's undefined behavior, so you can ignore it. In fact, assuming x is not accessible outside this block:

f();
if (g()) { h(1); }

These optimizations happen all over the place, it's not the compiler invoking or causing undefined behavior, but assuming that it won't ever happen.

EDIT: Note the further optimization that looms: if f() can be proven pure (no side effects), then it can be removed. This makes little sense for a function with no arguments (in which case it would just be a constant). If, however, f(y, ...) is some expensive but pure function, it can just be removed completely.
Even having a 95% market share in would not interest US antitrust regulators. US antitrust law exists to protect the consumer. Someone has to abuse the consumer before anyone cares.
Wikipedia claims: "Less well known is that Heaviside's equations and Maxwell's are not exactly the same, and in fact it is easier to modify the latter to make them compatible with quantum physics.[25]"
Fair enough. On the other hand, if you're in temperate weather, it's not clear what a generator really buys you that some propane/butane stoves and lanterns, maybe some camping solar chargers, and some big blocks of ice don't buy you. Obviously, there are specific issues--perhaps associated with medical equipment for example--that require AC and in that case a generator and some stored fuel would certainly be advised.

I don't really keep those things as part of disaster preparedness but I camp enough that I own a lot of it and if the forecast calls for it, I make sure I know where I can grab it.

>during a time of civil chaos

I've been through extended (multi-day) power outages and things never reached the civil chaos point :-) I expect in the US, things would have to get pretty extreme to reach that. [EDIT: I should say outside of certain urban settings where blackouts have certainly led to significant unrest.]
yeah, fighting that nazi's was all about furthering the military industrial complex.

That whole pearl harbor thing wasn't really the japanese attacking, it was obviously lockheed.
Because Oracle has ownership of the Java's APIs in this case? Sun really has nothing to do with any of this.
Probably means conflicting descriptions from witnesses. If he was seated and then left in a hurry it would also be easy for people to be confused about whether the tattoo was on his arm or leg.
Right, part of their problem is that they're demanding the wrong thing. Instead of demanding a high degree of stability from one vendor, they should be demanding open standards and real interoperability, so their eggs aren't all in one obsolete basket.
It is probably a good idea to be at least slightly rude when responding to rayiner's posts. He is HN's most prolific concern troll and he consistently drags down discussion with endless irrelevant bullshit every time he posts. On the other hand, he does provide a useful function in that you can consistently arrive at a more-or-less correct opinion by first understanding his post, and then taking the opposite opinion. Interestingly, this means there is a part of rayiner's brain that is uncannily skilled at rooting out the truth - it's just a shame that the more executive portions of his brain are wired to consistently think the exact opposite position of whatever the actual clever bit comes up with :-)
Shiller P/E Ratio
If a tree falls in the woods...
With respect - I don't know why people always say this when government misbehavior comes to light. Other than to demonstrate that they were more jaded than everyone else.

Yes -- everybody knows that the government does bad things. Having evidence is different. I'm sure the French government knew they were being spied on to some degree, but with this evidence they can now react officially. Allied countries will be less likely to engage in mutual intelligence sharing, knowing that their domestic industries can suffer. Non-aligned countries might walk away entirely. And the US government will have more difficulty internally when these powers are brought up for legislative review.

Also, we know the government does bad things. However, they don't do every conceivable bad thing - they wouldn't have time or resources. Knowing which bad things they are doing is also helpful.
Is it not possible that it could have been observed no other way? Is observation driving the behaviour or behaviour driving the observation(or an external factor driving both)?
http://solarfuelshub.org/
Android uses code from Apache Harmony for many basic Java classes. If any code was copied from Java 6, it would have happened in the Harmony project.

Android's use of Java also ends in the toolchain. Android never used a Java(tm) runtime, nor Java bytecode in the runtime. by the time an app hits a device, it's in Dalvik bytecode and either interpreted/JIT-compiled by the Dalvik runtime or pre-compiled to the target system ISA for the ART runtime.
I hate to be "that C#/MS guy" in yet another thread, but the Microsoft Datalake/HDinsight/HDFS/R-Evolution looks like it could be a really great platform for this stuff.

I really like that it will integrate with a large number of data analysis products... Data Warehousing, Hadoop, Statistical Packages, R, etc. all on one platform/infrastructure would be a huge win to me.
A peak inside of NerdWallet through a free lunch
yeah, taking advantage of a crisis is impossible and never happens.
I hope and feel like they'll back kotlin when it hits 1.0 regardless of what happens here. We can't be stuck with a half assed java 7 on Android forever.
> terrestrial-based atomic energy... has major advantages when it comes to cost

Are we talking public cost? Because that's all that matters. So far the public cost of nuclear power has been extraordinary, due to accidents and waste.

I understand that some of these startups aim to process existing waste in relatively small distributed reactors but what is the public cost of spreading a bunch of "mini" toxic waste sites around the world that remain hazardous for 100 years, instead of centrally storing it?

Plus I've read that although these mini reactors are not directly producing material that could be used in a dirty bomb, that they could be converted to do so if they fell into the wrong hands. I may be oversimplifying here, but the question again is what is the public risk of distributing atomic fuels and reactors in a manner that makes them much less secure? Would this make them more susceptible to "war hacking" and could this be the mini-reactor equivalent of a nuclear disaster?

Nuclear costs have always been about the long term public costs, not the short term $/kWh.

This is before we even consider the taxpayer cost that's gone into nuclear tech development. I wonder if there will be more public money needed to take this tech to market, even if the test reactors bear fruit.
Powering desalination with the sun
Might be not the best idea to do when you have an angry crowd around you. Second option is calling cops and possibly getting into trouble even if nothing happened. Very few people would actually do it, but that is the right thing to do when you've been risking flying over a crowd.