skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's weird you're the first comment (from a brief scan) to mention "measurement". All of the obvious tests are fraught with ethical issues, but testing for behavioral responses seems pretty easy, I think. For instance, consider this thought experiment: set up a rogue, landed, state; have that state attack the U.S. Can we predict a response? Surely! So, we know the U.S. responds to very simple "acute pain" stimuli. We know it responds to chronic pain stimuli: if a certain economic activity is no longer justified in a subregion (Detroit:cars), then that region atrophies.

Really, I think the major issue is to determine how to talk to the U.S. What's the sovereign state equivalent of "how's it going?" It seems that the only obvious attributes of the state we to acquire resources---usually by cooperating in s semi-symbiotic fashion with similar states, and responding to basic pain-like stimuli. The U.S. seems to act more like a very simple worm, and less like a higher animal. Perhaps it has primitive organization? (I'm thinking of the larger jelly fish which, while massive, are cognitively simple.)
Assuming you're really awake and having dreams as opposed to your thoughts being reorganized in a way that you simply remember as vivid, real experiences. Even if you're conscious, that's only a tiny part of sleep (often REM). Being awakened otherwise is like just having missing time where there's a gap in conscious experience. As if it was off.
> recruiters have been marked as Spam

As they should be, because they are. They have terrible practices and I have never met one I would want to do business with.
Last year google paid me $1500 for finding a security flaw in Chrome. The mail they sent me with the ACH information was marked as spam/phishing:

http://i.imgur.com/Icfeh60.jpg
I hate blog posts like this.

You get one guy, who is seemingly very smart, and he says basically "Don't do multithreading, it's very hard. Only an elite few, such as me, can do this right, so most of you out there DON'T DO IT!"

It's bullshit. Mainly because it's no harder than anything else, and has just as much pitfalls as every other type of programming. Yes, to a certain degree multithreading is hard, but it's not rocket science. But PROGRAMMING is hard. Not just multithreaded programming. There's nothing very special about multithreaded programming that should scare off people from trying it. Sure, you might fuck up, but that's

For example, our entire company was almost completely brought down a few months ago by our "architect" implementing a feature so poorly that it caused massive system instability. What was this feature? It essentially boiled down to a 1 or a 2. Customer accounts were tagged with either a 1 or a 2, an it's supposed to take a different code path for each, but he made it so fucking complicated and he didn't do his due diligence, the entire weight of his code cause significant downtime, and a customer that accounts for 60% of our revenues almost walked. And none of this is rocket science.

Of course, I worked at another company where one engineer thought "oh, asynchronous APIs are faster than synchronous APIs" so they implemented the entire API asynchronously. Of course, that required mutexes on the server side. And then more mutexes. And it got to the point where the performance was hell because of the unintended consequences of trying to make things faster. You would write a new API and the server would barf saying "You took the locks in the wrong order" but there was no indication of you ever doing anything wrong. It was a mess. So I get what the OP is saying, but it's not specific to just multithreadedness. I bet the same programmer would have made a mess of a single-threaded app as well. They are just shitty or careless programmers.

If you're careful, multithreaded programming is helpful and you can see some significant performance boosts from it. But like every other paradigm in programming, don't overuse it. A judicious use of simple multithreaded programming might help a lot, but there are few apps that benefit from an extremely complex system with hundreds of threads, massive amounts of mutexes, etc.
That's because there's no penalty for lying, usually. Not that I think there should or shouldn't be - the minutiae is overwhelming - but in politics, when trying to get elected, or using your elected position to start wars... I'm sure there's something to be said there.
The claims about the U.S. should be able to apply to a corporation even better given the tighter organization, more clear intent, and how they collectively more in same direction more. Maybe he should write a paper on them. They're even legally classified as persons. ;)
It's the entire metaphor that's broken, so the fact that you can vaguely map "locked" to a properly functioning auth system and "unlocked" to an unintentional 200 response is irrelevant.

My neighborhood is not the internet. There is no written, unambigous protocol which my door implements in order to accept or reject guests. In fact, my door isn't programmed to issue responses of any kind; a human or even an answering system might do that, and yes, they might plausibly grant access.

More important is the reverse: the internet is not your neighborhood, and mapping the laws (both legal and social) on a 1-to-1 basis in an effort to recreate the norms of your neighborhood on a worldwide telecommunications system is really inane. I can't for a second make sense of it, much less what lessons it provides us for the proper legal and moral framework to accompany HTTP.
Excuses, excuses. The solution is to first google the name you've chosen. Then follow that up with some creativity. There are plenty of other animals left on the farm that are not popular projects.
> I decided to do a quick check of my gmail; there were 151 emails in spam, and literally not one I would want in my inbox.

I find about 2 a week that have been marked as Spam and shouldn't have been. Your experience is not everyones (nor is mine).
Their boss wants them not to stop working but (I imagine) could not care less if they cry or smile as they work. Do you agree it would be harder for them if they were required to smile and make small talk as they worked? If you want another example of not having to do emotional labor, think of a rock star who gets away with throwing tantrums at his manager or quitting halfway through a show - zero emotional restraint required.
Donald J. Trump Response to Huffington Post
It's quite an ugly vehicle.

http://www.bmw.com.au/_common/shared/newvehicles/i/i3/2013/s...
Beme is a social media app that wants to engineer authenticity
Ditto on cooling. I must be the worst person environmentally for sleep. I like it cool in the room, the weight of a comforter, and still some cooling control. (Always have a foot or feet exposed for some cooling.)

Oh, First World Problems...
This is Trump's response to the Huffington Post notifying their readers that they consider him a joke candidate and thus any coverage will now be moved from the Politics section to the Entertainment section.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-note-about-our-coverag...?
Why use it for creative purposes when you can use it to show ads? Talk about a captive audience. I'm betting that Google is going so big into driverless cars so they can show you ads on the windshield once it's proven + accepted as safer than human drivers. It might take 20 years, but they're opening up a new advertising channel.
Erlang and Elixir solved this problem. I only write multi-threaded code in very limited cases when it makes sense to split processing out of UI on mobile devices.

Everywhere else I use Elixir, and I write multi-process code and I don't think twice about it.

And I never run into problems.

I'm really feeling like people keep choosing tools that haven't solved the problem, or even tried to, and then thinking that the problem is perennial.

It was solved a long time ago by erlang.
Hulu may introduce a $12 ad-free subscription option
I have this bookmarked for some reason, it may help: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3205819/bezier-path-widen...

Half the links are dead now. This is the openjdk Stroker.java code: http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/j...
I used to use an electric blanket and would always forget to turn it off and even worse - drift off before turning it off - waking up in the middle of the night piping hot. Plus, setting a temperature that is best to sleep at, not just nice when you get into bed, could have a huge impact on sleeping. I'm all for it.
I have a similar view, that a society (not necessarily a political concept like country, but more culturally defined group of people) is the ultimate intelligent being. And the main rationale behind that notion is that society DEFINES human intelligence. We think human are intelligent beings but as a matter of fact, every capabilities that we deem signs of intelligence, such as language, logic, math are given to the human by the society. Suppose we have a unfortunate person who somehow is raised by a dog without any direct or indirect contact from the human society, he would demonstrate very little intelligent superiority over other advanced mammals - no language, no culture, not even logic.

As pointed out by the article, society as a distributed group entities demonstrate signs of consciousness, but that's not even the key, the key is society defines every single consciousness of the members in it: how we think, what we want, etc. A single person's intelligence is simply a tiny subcomponent of the ultimate intelligent being - the society. How intelligent we are are mostly determined by the society (doesn't mean that everyone thinks a like), and the exciting thing is that some of us get to contribute some improvements to that ultimate intelligent being.
WORLD+TALK+ROCK+REPORT+WITH+KAT+VECCHIONE+&+CHUCK+SKULL
Another similar example is Tracy Kidder (a writer, not an anthropologist) being embedded with a team at Data General, resulting in the fantastic book "The Soul of a New Machine". I can't recommend it enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Soul_of_a_New_Machine
>How could you ever know if that's true or not?

Well, if I never see myself saying or doing something that MY process hasn't decided itself, it's as if those extra processes don't exist for all practical purposes.
I wonder why Linus chose Google+ as his platform for this? Seem's like he has been on a spam crusade lately, going after Github last week: https://plus.google.com/+LinusTorvalds/posts/WHLxTZnjhmz

I also can't stand when I get added to a repo and start getting messages from every single notification.
Most online child pornography is not hidden nor encrypted in any way. Just search Bing; you can get the keywords from wikipedia then follow bing's suggested queries.

Microsoft claims that they remove child abuse links from their index upon notification by such organizations as the National Center For Missing And Exploited Children but clearly they dont.

There are some imagehosts that either have no way to locate their images from their homepages, or whose search forms dont list child pornography in their results, however its all indexed by bing.

The videos at the filesharing services commonly have obvious or easily brute-forced passwords. There arent that many different passwords in widespread use; I expect a list of the 100 most common passwords would decrypt 99% of the videos.

The passwords and lightly obfuscated links are mostly posted to dead forums. If you operate a forum yourself the simplest way to defeat this is to disable posts in threads older than a month or so.

If you want to find these posts on your server look for a large number of occurrences of the word the word "password".

I have even seen this at last.fm.
The book was When Prophecy Fails [1] by Leon Festinger who, if memory serves, was one of the pioneers in the theory of cognitive dissonance.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails
Society may be great at transmitting knowledge but it doesn't create knowledge -- people do. Even the thoughts you've just written down, are your own, not societies. I can even disagree with your thought and we can throw it into the gutter.

Society may know how to create fire, but it's one man who created for the first time, and it's the choice of just that one man to pass it onto another (and yet another). A man on a island may certainly discover fire.
It's interesting to note the usage of the slashed O (letter o) as opposed to the modern slashed zero (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashed_zero ).
Front end was consistently broken
I read about this back in 1997 or so. Chris Schefler, one of the two founders of Webcom was also intrigued with it but until now I have never known anyone else to discuss it.

I discuss this idea in "The Software Problem: a Taxonomy of Error" at:

http://www.warplife.com/jonathan-swift/books/software-proble...

as well as in a metaphorical way in an allegorical work of fiction "The Frog"

http://www.warplife.com/jonathan-swift/the-frog/

I must caution you that thinking about this too deeply may be a bad idea; I have spent lots of time in psychiatric hospitals since then and Chris committed suicide.

I lost my original domain to a cybersquatter as a result of my mouthing off to a judge who then committed me involuntarily. While I have reposted everything I have not set up the internal navigation yet. I expect I can do that tonight.
I wonder why set operations were never supported for dictionaries.

a = b | c

makes perfect sense, vs:

a = b.copy()

a.update(c)
One would assume they'd find qualified professionals for the job.
Linus frequently puts blog posts up on G+, possibly as part of some Google sponsorship deal.
Already exists: http://www.edison2.com/
Maybe there is something to do with taking on the liability of possible legal action? From what I understand reclassification suits are retroactive. I'm not sure how that works with an acquisition, but I wonder if that had something to do with it.
On Topic: This seems very shady on behalf of her manager... I've never heard of the peer bonuses or read the fine print of how they work so I can't comment beyond my feeling that what happened to Eric doesn't seem right at all.

Off Topic: Is this style of prose common? I feel the proper medium for this post would be a blog rather than ~20 individual tweets.
Winner will take all. Uber will be the Uber for X (for everything) and AirBnB (potentially) AirBnB for everything. Low margin markets are usually zero sum in the long-term.
Yes, but a lot of the knowledge you rely on to construct complex concepts were taught to you at some point, they didn't just manifest in your mind independent of society. Every person may add a little bit, and that little bit each person adds may be only a very small bit outside of the collective knowledge that would exist had they not existed.

I guess my point is that how we have learned how to attribute and locate the source knowledge doesn't necessarily describe how it is actually created, moves, and is altered.
What would be really fantastic is if Google let you set your own spam threshold. I can't even imagine it would be too difficult. Presumably they determine a numeric 'spam likelihood' number for each incoming email already, so this would just mean being able to customize the threshold that that number is compared against. Obviously entering it numerically wouldn't be very user friendly, but even 5 levels from most to least aggressive (like Spam Assassin and such offer) would be extremely helpful.

Even better would be if you could have different handling for different levels, like black-holing or auto-trashing the absolutely-definitely spam, making it easier to occasionally scan the regular spam box. I get something over 1000 spam emails per day, so it's just not feasible to give even a cursory look over them to find the false positives. I can't even imagine what it would be like for someone like Linus.

Unfortunately, that would draw attention to the fact that the spam filter isn't perfect, and would require users to make choices with tradeoffs, so I can't imagine it's a very attractive option for Google.
This looks cool, but sadly not compatible with either of my devices. What requirements does this have? It's never clear to me if I can find this out on Google Play.
Credit Deflation and Gold
In his paper "Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity" [1], HN-favorite Scott Aaronson resolves to my satisfaction the question of whether a waterfall can be said to be computing the solution to some problem as it cascades over the rocks, because there exists a mapping in which the initial water state is the initial state of the problem, the gyrations of the water "compute", and the final state of the water can be mapped to a solution. He points out that we can with some actual mathematical rigor observe that the mapping itself can be said to be doing all the work.

Similarly, I feel trying to parse conscious intentionality by any known meaning of the term "conscious" out of something like "all the individuals of the United States" is a situation where the mapping is doing all the work.

Clearly, there is something to the "United States" as well as other groupings of human beings. But I daresay in a lot of ways these things are less mysterious than they seem... we deal with these groupings all the time, and if we thereby fail to ascribe consciousness to them, I'd say our experience should probably be listened to. Sure, groups of humans routinely do great things no individual could do, but at the same time, and with no contradiction, groups of humans fail miserably and stupidly too. We've all seen committees that fail to successfully accomplish a goal than any individual on the committee could have, or where the committee remains fuzzy on its purpose (pardon English's anthropomorphization, there) even as the individual members are all quite clear (but divergent). Rather than trying to throw this in the "consciousness" bucket I think it's better understood as, well, the way we all already collective conceive of these things, as human organizations, with their own foibles, characteristics, and properties.

It's not consciousness. It's something else. "Greater" in some ways, and yet, profoundly lesser in others. Trying to view it through the lens of "consciousness" is just anthropormorphism striking again, and I'd say actively harmful in terms of trying to understand the phenomena.

[1]: http://www.scottaaronson.com/papers/philos.pdf
I wish they would do the same thing to Hillary and Sanders. But what do you expect from an extremely left-leaning publication such as the huffington post.
>> 2. It feels like nobody here actually read Adora Cheung's quotes about multiple lawsuits coinciding with investment timing. That is obviously the reason they shut the doors.

Everybody did. It seems like a convenient face-saving excuse. The company didn't grow fast enough. If the all the numbers were impressive enough, investors would've taken the risk, especially the ones that already had $40m in.
Just because there's an unsubscribe button doesn't mean it's not spam.
> to contribute some improvements to that ultimate intelligent being.

That's fair, I'm just turned off by the language of "ultimate intelligent being." Perhaps that's just my human bias, but I have trouble seeing society as anything greater than its parts, primarily people and knowledge.
so you think it's valid that the racist movie distribution industry in France only distribute non-African culture (whatever that is) movies? i mean, by your standard, limiting by skin color is doing a service to someone...
That's the kind of thing that legislators actually do; consider that the digital signature act didnt mention cryptography.

While I readily agree that web and mobile analytics should be unlawful it is unclear how to define what should be illegal.

I feel it is more effective to follow my example of pointing out the problem then explaining technical measures that may be used to defeat it.

However while my mother is diligent about shredding paper documents she ran out of filesystem space because she never empties her iMac's Trash.
Well if I didn’t explicitly sign up for the mailing list, I’m just going to report it as spam.
Workers cannot express (unrestrained) anger towards their boss. Can you? Rock stars cannot express anger towards their audience. I mean, I suppose they can, but it increases the chances of unemployment.
And even better, "Yes, we sue people that leave to work for Google" is exactly the message you want to send to founders. /s

(depends on the type of IP though, but you better have a really solid claim)
Maybe the FBI and Hacking Team had overlapping sets of exploits. Is there double selling by exploit dealers?
Linus's 20% is not a false positive rate -- how has nobody caught this? Let's assume that "the 0.1% false positive rate [Google] tried to make such a big deal about last week" is actually a false positive rate by the normal definition.

The false positive rate is defined as (the number of false positives over (false positives + true negatives)). However, Linus quite obviously calculated the 20% as (false positives over positives), i.e. (200 / 1000). If Linus happened to have 200,000 true negatives (i.e., non-spam messages that were not flagged as spam), a number that I'm making up because he did not disclose one, then his false positive rate would be (200 / 200,200) ~= 0.1%.

Think about it... whether his email address was harvested by all the spambots in the world or none at all would have no effect on the fact that out of 200,200 legit messages, 200 were incorrectly flagged. This is why the false positive formula doesn't even include true positives! The 800 true positives (actual spam messages) don't matter to the formula. Therefore, neither does the 1000 total (true+false) positives. Don't divide by it.
I would actually be fairly surprised if there weren't some neuronal mechanic that regulates and reinforces group thinking. I have my doubts that it is entirely the individual consciously observed and consciously declared will that constructs collective direction. Even little tweaks ... 'is this idea going to go over tomorrow in meeting, nah, better do this instead'. There is so much thought that goes on that is regulated partially by how happy one feels, how validated and accepted one feels. It doesn't necessarily mean it is in the best interests for the company, the country, or the individual. It just what they choose to accept as most likely true at the time of having to make an assumption about the way things are, and what that means for how one can direct oneself.
Another great one is when you're having a conversation with someone, and after several back and forth emails, the next one goes to spam. Sent from the same device, same headers, etc. Presumably it triggered some keywords. But I mean, come on! Obviously if I've replied to this person four times in a row, their fifth email is not spam.

I realize that everything takes time to implement, and developer time is not infinite, but this one seems like pretty low-hanging fruit.
Lex III: Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.

Only if something is moving backward.
I feel exceptionally bad even saying this, but the presenter for this video would have been best served implementing the code and avoiding the camera altogether. I cringed the whole time -- it was like watching Joseph Nash discuss .. anything on youtube.

Stop forcing your elites into a role. Stop forcing your anyones into an anything that they aren't. "collaboration" is the mantra, but let them work. Please.
"Hancock also kept top placement in France, estimating $4.4 million" --Wikipedia
Confusion Regarding Newton's Third Law (2011)
Still probably the best book on product development ever written. [Disclaimer: I worked at DG for 13 years, albeit a bit later, and knew many of the people in "the book" quite well including Tom West.]

Showstopper, on the development of Windows NT, is also quite good.
EDC – Every Day Carry