This is bad. archive.org by default should have all sorts of offensive things on it. Pastebin and github should not be responsible for people hosting code they don't like. May as well block google too, I'm pretty sure you can find pro-ISIS sites on there as well.
I guess we'll just never know why they do these stupid things. By the time some bureaucrat has to give a statement all they can get out is terror, ISIS and anti India.
Absolute shame that a blanket ban like this is applied. It has a profound effect on everyday activities unrelated to the original reason for banning. Even if there is content of a questionable nature, it's absolutely crazy to not expose this. Let people make up their own minds about what is right or wrong. A simple ban on these websites isn't going to stop those who mean harm from getting to their goal.
All I can see that this results in is collateral damage, e.g., me not being able to push the latest commits for a research tool I'm building. I might be small fish, but that's the exact point; a ban like this necessary works like a cluster bomb.
I queried 1844 Indian DNS servers on this list that are marked 'valid' or 'new': http://public-dns.tk/nameserver/in.html
Only one of them (188.8.131.52, operated by MTNL ISP) returned the fake IP being used for blocked sites (184.108.40.206)
I am trying to figure out if that means archive.org has been removed from the block list, or if the DNS servers listed on that page haven't yet been updated with the blocked sites.
If anyone can help us figure out if archive.org is still blocked, it would be greatly appreciated!
Thanks! -raj at archive.org
Interesting to note is that we also own the domain cryptb.in (a TLD from India) and that has not been banned. However, it is merely a redirect so it does not provide an alternative entrance to the site. We use it only for short URL's on public pastes.
Isn't it a terrible economic idea for India to block access to Github? I thought India was really big into software engineering?
This is unbelievably ridiculous, if not downright stupid. Even as our Prime Minister speaks of bringing about a new digital revolution, decisions such as these show how badly equipped the lawmakers are in dealing with issues relating to technology.
Blanket bans like these are not only a form of internet censorship which flies in the face of the establishing principles of the largest democracy in the world, the lack of any details or explanation before issuing an outright ban on several important software hosting websites and content providers just evokes an image of a myopic government with incredibly poor understanding of technology.
Well, it's open source and easy to install, anybody can duplicate it if needed so I guess it's ok.
Maybe we should add some way to replicate one instance content to other trusted instances to avoid this problem.
According to the list it has been specifically blocked. It appears to be a pastebin clone written in PHP.
Almost all of them are pastebin-like sites.
http://atnsoft.com/atnsoft.com/textpaster/ seems very unrelated.
My assumption would have been that a government crawler stumbled upon some messages it didn't like and the sites they were on ended up on the list, but the two sites above would unlikely be affected by this.
Archive.org was probably affected because they mirrored some content of any of them.
I noticed Pastebin getting a fair number of mentions in the news in connection with the Sony attack as a place for hackers to dump sensitive information publicly and easily.
My guess is this blacklist was assembled to mitigate such hacking damage on Indian targets, but it was assembled with some haste; and github and vimeo, I doubt, will remain blocked for too long.
--The Indian Gov.
As noted by other commented they didn't even try to resolve the situation but rather went the route of blindly blocking access.
This is a huge red flag, in my opinion, that the Internet as we know is has reached a big fork in the road and where we go from here will do are if our future will look like Biff's world in Back to the Future II or not...
I'm wondering how long it will be though before the Wikipedia article gets updated:
Is the intention to prohibit such sharing in general? Such efforts are doomed to fail, but that doesn't mean it won't be a hell of a ride.
The guy who made this list ofcourse didn't have the guts to put Facebook, Twitter on it because the Prime Minister / PM Office actively uses those tools to reach out to the people.
only justification in that article:
" Arvind Gupta, the head of IT Cell, BJP Tweeted: 'The websites that have been blocked were based on an advisory by Anti Terrorism Squad, and were carrying Anti India content from ISIS. The sites that have removed objectionable content and/or cooperated with the on going investigations, are being unblocked.' "
It would be more worrying if ISPs could block individual pages on https sites like GitHub.
And I promise, if they don't revert their decision, I will launch a proxy site for all these websites.
There is a tendency to knee-jerk condemn these blockages, including those in China, or indeed in Europe. It is not obvious to me that some kind of barrier to the Americanisation of the planet, including via its dominant websites, is such a bad thing.
I would like to see what all the curry apologists on HN come up with to defend this bullshit.
Most likely, they had a hard time maintaining the right ratio of bitcoin/yen/USD to match the reality of their customer's deposits (through incompetency) and got hit hard when the "wrong" price fluctuations occurred... when this happened, and in which direction the fluctuation happened, I cannot say.
After that, they were deeply into a fractional reserve situation and thought "hey, we own a large part of the Bitcoin market, we can probably play the price a bit to make our customers whole again, without anyone knowing what had happened."
In this way, they gradually drifted from "cutting corners and doing the ugly things required to keep a business afloat" (aka mild, veiled fraud) into outright fraud.
I find the concept of imposing artificial constraints on apps/interactions fascinating. Twitter was arguably the one to popularise the idea with its 140 character limit (perhaps by accident, the limit was initially there to support SMS) and now Snapchat (ephemeral posts). Are there any other apps that play on this theme?
Makes me wonder if there are other apps out there waiting to be "constrained". Here's some dumb ideas off the top of my head. What about a social network where you can only have 10 friends? What about an email inbox where you are limited to receiving X emails/hour (perhaps senders could bid on delivery priority?). What about a HN where you are only allowed to comment once a week? What about a continuous delivery system where you are blocked from releasing after you reach a quota of defects (I heard Google uses such a quota system internally)? What about a package repository which rejects packages with over 150 lines of code or some other quality metrics?
I always thought that Facebook were too big to fail, like in no one would close their account because of what they've invested there (friends, pics, etc...); yet, people are leaving it at an unprecedented rate. I remember Facebook desertion not being much more than a statistic even a year ago, now it's pretty common to encounter people that don't have an account there anymore. I think that the bandwagon effect that is behind the growth of online communities is a double-edged sword; once the trend shifts to users leaving, the more they leave the more users are likely to leave later and everyone snowballs out until there is no one left. Fortunately for Facebook, many of those peers left because of WhatsApp/Instagram, so business' still in the family... for now, albeit much less profitable. Sooner than later, FB will be gone and its place will have to be filled up by something else. Snapchat has a seat reserved in the post-FB era and apparently that is worth at least $20B.
Anyway, derailing the discussion a little, I'd like to hear what you'd think if 'Core Facebook' went out of business right now (but not WhatsApp/Instagram). Would you consider it a success or a flop? Was it a profitable endeavour or not?
Snapchat is at 200m users, but has doubled since August. If you think it's headed for 500m users then 10b is only a 2x premium for an unusually large pool of users in one place.
WhatsApp sold for 18b with 500m users. It was headed for 1b users so 18b is a similar 2x premium.
At first I thought the math didn't work but I guess it does. Users are king. Engaged users are directly convertible to money.
Props to them for not getting acquired though, and pushing on.
It's still difficult for people sitting outside North America to comprehend these high valuations. Snapchat's CEO's leaked letters few days back provide an interesting peek into how he is thinking of bringing in revenues. To me, dropbox and youtube are more interesting case studies. It all seems quite simple now, but in their initial years, people wondered how they are going to monetize. But I have begun to see a clear trend in how the Social Apps, Sharing (Rental) Economy apps, and Ecommerce are behaving at different places across the globe.
100 Million users of a social app in US (followed by other western countries) are several times more revenue generating than the developing countries. The one metric that matters here is the Average Revenue per User (ARPU). Mobile advertising is growing in second and third world countries, but still lags behind. Not to say that users elsewhere are any less useful; Facebook has a huge focus on the Indian Market.
Apps for rental(sharing) economy, Uber et al, work more evenly everywhere, since they bring a straight cut out on the amount paid.
The segment that seems to works most at par globally has to be Ecommmerce. Amazon committed a $2Bn investment in India in 2014, as Flipkart got over 1.5Bn in funding.
There is a point where the glue logic becomes very complex (and brittle) - At that point, the best thing to do is to redesign part of the system's class structure.
If your components (at all levels of your class hierarchy) are specific about their own behaviors, it means that you can use simpler glue logic to make them work together.
When you need to handle a lot of complex use cases, it's often useful to have many specific classes which share the same interface and can be used interchangeably.
The only thing you can do is1)Mitigate that by isolate it2)Separation of concern
You could have a component that's fuck-all complex, but as long as it's a single, isolated component, that can be disabled by
messedUpComponent.isEnabled = false, then I'm ok.
"Conquering Complexity in Your Business: How Wal-Mart, Toyota, and Other Top Companies Are Breaking Through the Ceiling on Profits and Growth Paperback"by Michael L. George and Stephen A. Wilson
The idea of calling this stuff technical debt is simply laughable. there's no debt. you don't owe shit.
hint: if you code something up in 20 minutes you still don't have to do all that other stuff, you can just ignore it, and throw away the twenty minutes of code if it's not better than not having it. if you become a millionaire you don't have to do all that stuff, you can just ignore it.
Let me put it another way. Say you're an MBA who can't code anything but excel formulas, yet you figured out how to get excel and powerpoint onto the web as a web app (wat). you create something and get 5,000 paying users and raise a $500,000 investment.
Have you created technical debt? No. You're at the same square as if someone gave you $500,000 to spend on developers against your mockups, except that you've validated them as well. There's no debt here. This article had it right:
The people that call this scenario (excel on the web) technical debt, think that somehow the MBA 'borrowed' the web app from a real dev, and now owes it in real development costs. That's a wrong way to think about it. In fact it's a ridiculous way to think about it.
Students in a class were given horoscopes in envelopes marked with their birth dates. The students were then asked to read the horoscopes and tell if they were accurate. Most were amazed how accurate the horoscopes were.
The trick is that every student had been given the same horoscope which was just cleverly written.
We're not half as intelligent and rational as we believe we are.
There are numerous documentaries and films about him and his life, the one that got me started was a BBC Storyville episode: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/galleries/p029bgws
It's not currently available on iPlayer apparently, though that restriction does not apply to torrent sites. Couldn't recommend it enough.
This is a fine fluff piece about someone's experience watching a magician (and not a particularly good one from the tale). Nothing wrong with enjoying the story, but it doesn't reveal anything particularly interesting.
The psychology of the spectator is the most fascinating part of magic to me. I'm not sure how it would relate to "diplomacy, politics, finance and everyday life."
I know I use the same psychology in social situations, and public speaking that I do in magic, at times. It's hard to generalize because magic is an amazing field of a ton of areas.
I want to tell you what it is, why I use it, and details about it because it's a passionate hobby of mine, but magic is also the only field I've ever known where you aren't allowed to share what you do.
You build up a tremendous amount of skill, and then hide it. Guitarists show you what they do, amazing. Artists, Actors, Jugglers, Comedians..
Magicians are the only one where success is hiding your skill.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voice_phenomenon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
Edit. To answer my own question it seems to be the very vague "All other causes" .
Another interesting fact is if you look at US deaths, fewer die between the age of 60 and 80 than before and after. Seems like if you can make it to sixty you'll die of old age or some random cancer.
He makes a nice point that trying to assign a purpose to everything we do, and to Life itself, may be a mistake. He takes animal behavior as a comparison. Animals usually don't act in order to achieve a high-level goal. They do things because that's what they are built to do. Most of their actions are consequences of basic impulses, emotions and instincts. Now I understand we are highly sophisticated mammals with big brains, and as such we are capable of acting on a rational basis towards an abstract notion of a goal often simplistically called "happiness", for instance. Yet we are still very much animals, so it may be very wrong to think all our actions should be based on this mode of behavior. If we do we may face the absence of a definitive answer to our quest for purpose, which would explain our tendency to jump into goals made up by religion, or into philosophical wanderings which can sometimes be quite unsettling.
The point is not whether or not you like TV, or what choices the Amish have made. The point is to engage in a thoughtful decision process with technology, (or anything else in your life), and decide if it truly is helping you be the person you want to be, helping your family to grown on a personal level, and improving your community.
If you have truly thought it out and decided that any given tech is good for your life, great. But if you are just bringing technology into your life because it is new and shiny, you might want to consider stepping a level or two deeper in your decision process.
But the Amish did not make a conscious decision to refrain from watching TV. No, the Amish shied away from electricity because of a religious belief that was in place before Television even existed. It is also worth noting that the Amish do not believe in education past 8th grade, and yet everyone would raise their hands if they were asked if they would want their children to go to college.
TV (just as books) is a tool for delivering entertainment, education, and culture, and it's reasonably effective at that.
I'm glad I had TV when I was a child. The thing I value most is that it inspired an interest in science, math, and technology. Thanks, Square One, Bill Nye, Beakman's World, Discover, etc! Later on in life (teenage years), it taught me about time management; you can allow yourself to be entertained for many hours and not actually feel better for it, but actually worse, as you've lost that time; you can allow yourself to be entertained for an hour and it will change your whole outlook on the day. Always be aware of what you are gaining and giving up for entertainment.
Anyway, I could go on about why I love TV (and these days, the Internet), that's the gist.
I'm perfectly willing to pay the price of living the way I do, and so are a great many people here. Most of us have given the technologies we use some thought and selected the ones we use to maximize benefit and minimize cost.
There's no data presented in the article, just some guy's some informal impression that he can get away with accusing most people of hypocrisy. I dunno... I don't feel like a hypocrite. Do the majority of people here? My informal impression is they don't, but that's worth about as much as the informal impression in the article.
A more plausible reality is that we all have doubts that we've chosen well, when making choices of technology etc, and we're aware that both costs and benefits can be hidden and only show up at a later time. But that latent concern is quite different from what's being imputed by the article, which doesn't even get the Amish right: their rejection of many modern technologies is driven not by any consequentialist cost-benefit analysis, but by a deontological desire for plainness, self-effacement and submission to the rule or order of their anabaptist religion.
I might keep reading this blog.
This can also be applied to self-improvement.
You can watch stallmans talk here for reference:http://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/31C3/webm-hd/31c3-6123-en-d...
The joys of living in California. I wonder if this will happen in East Palo Alto too.
I wonder if this will have a positive impact on the arctic communities that the cable goes through. Is there any history on technological booms and hubs appearing in places where a new cable went through previously low-occupancy areas?
Finally they'll be able to get decent internet without all the shenanigans!
Andrew Turley's "What we can learn from COBOL" talk is probably my favorite.
Or are people really enthused about talks as a way to learn things? I haven't been to a talk in awhile and I just can't get into video learning. So FWIW, I'll throw in the Ruby-related-infothing that I was most excited about this year: the publishing of "Metaprogramming Ruby 2:" (https://pragprog.com/book/ppmetr2/metaprogramming-ruby-2)...The original version was one of the most helpful books to me as a Ruby beginner in 2010, both in learning the language and learning new ways to think about programming.
I'm pretty good with "small methods" but her refactor from that to "small objects", while more flexible, seems like its more complicated in the end. I mean if you're going to have a lot of those it makes sense, but I feel like it could equally be called premature; but I respect that it is more tolerant to future unknown changes. "small methods" is also easier for a junior developer to support, and i think that should be taken into consideration.
These are excellent tools to keep the size down when using large static binaries. By compressing the file on disk and decompressing in memory you often wind up with a smaller and sometimes even faster loading (depending on disk IO speed vs decompression speed) package. I got a static Qt binary from 4 MB down to 1.3 with upx --lzma. Very nice stuff.
suckless.org seems to focus on their web browser and their xterm clone these days, judging by the listserv traffic.
The notion of being able to fix an app by merely upgrading a library it depends on has not worked out in practice. More often than not, when I upgrade a library, I find myself having to upgrade my apps code because so much has changed. The burden of having to constantly backup, upgrade, manually tweak config files, over and over and over again for days/weeks/months was SO not worth the few hundred megabytes or whatever dynamic loading was supposed to have saved.
> Because dwm is customized through editing its source code, its > pointless to make binary packages of it. This keeps its userbase > small and elitist. No novices asking stupid questions.
However, it's also a failure - in part, due to Brian and his attitude towards contributors. See this twitter conversation: https://twitter.com/the_zenspider/status/547527644535726080 He's been grinding on Rubyspec for years, bless him, but I think there's a reason why he was unable to rally the community behind his effort, both in terms of gathering more contributors and in making it "official" in terms of the language spec.
JRuby, currently the only non-MRI ruby implementation that you can seriously consider for production use, runs the MRI test suite against JRuby. RubySpec is far from The Only Solution, though Brian would like you to think it is.
If Rocher and Laforge had come clean about how they turned the RI into the language itself, the backlash might have blown over quickly, but instead they led developers along for many years afterwards, not changing the spec to dormant until April 2012. Projects other than Grails who've tried to build atop Groovy have had to risk the ref impl changing in breaking ways between versions. The most spectacular incident was when Groovy++, an experimental static compiler built by Alex Tkachman that hooked via annotations into Groovy's AST, had to drop back down from Groovy 1.8 to 1.7 in 2011, and my own side project was also affected by the change. It turned out Rocher and Laforge had secretly employed a mate to extend Groovy with the exact same static type-checking and compilation functionality as Groovy++ and were obviously trying to shake us off.
Matz and Charles have helped to set the tone for the community. While I appreciate Brian's passion, it sounds like he needs to check his ego. No matter how smart we are, we can always learn things from other people. Without the collaboration of others neither JRuby or Ruby would be what they are today which is why they are successful.
This seems telling.
Does anyone have any concrete information about why Matz and the Ruby team are opposed to using RubySpec then?
Has there been any progress on creating an ISO spec?
EDIT: It seems Ruby has a published ISO spec since April 2012 - http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_...
I really wish it was:
"I set up a server that runs ruby spec on ruby-head daily and automatically reports spec failures to ruby-bugs"
So many companies are making big bucks off Ruby, yet so little are willing to fork out a bit of money and time to make Ruby better.
Just read the actual code of the MRI tests.
Aw crap, I have to buy this doc to see it?
Some years ago I tried to motivate people to contribute to Perl 6, and found that while many had some lingering interest in doing so, they needed some steering.
This was hard for me to do, because usually in Open Source communities, you aren't supposed to tell people what to do; they are free to chose the occupation after all. But I found that it worked very well.
So I think the CPAN Pull Request Challenge is a very good approach to steer people to particular projects, without causing too much work for those who steer. At least it's a very good experiment to try.
I find it pretty fun to try to modify code that lives in a world that I'm largely not part of, this is a nice little impetus!
Does anyone know of any other langs/communities that have tried something like this? This seems like a great idea to learn and contribute.
Seems like it shouldn't be limited to CPAN modules.
This is amazing and I guess I'll need to meditate over this fact (as I still like those files on my computer, feels as if I own them).
For now I'd still recommend holding on to your important stuff and considering the nature of the relationship between you and your cloud provider.
This seems so huge to me - maybe it's because I have kids and saw it happen firsthand over the course of this year.
"This is the field where one STUDIES the locus of
by combining the algebraic properties of
the rings of
the geometric properties of
known as a variety.
Traditionally, this HAD MEANT complex solutions of
complex coefficients but
just prior to Grothendieck's work,
Andre Weil and Oscar Zariski HAD REALIZED that
much more scope and insight WAS GAINED by
considering solutions and
e.g. finite fields or
algebraic number fields."
........This is "almost lisp code" in its structure.
The inner flow here is really dislocated here with all those interruptions and changes of direction and meaning. There is also a problem with the timeline. They talk in the same paragraph about at least four, maybe five different moments in time, shown in this order: 5,1,4,3 and maybe 2 (being 1 the oldest and 5 the current time). This is driving to distraction to the reader probably (I find it pretty annoying at least)
When I was a biology grad student, I was the only person in the department that tried to do active collaboration with the math department. I took more math classes during my graduate program than biology classes.
On the biology side, I got ridiculed for all the 'hand waving' that seems to happen with the math. Biologists want to see concrete experiments and results.
On the math side I found people to be much more open and fascinated by the biology, but they had a tough time explaining what they were doing to a lay audience.
No easy answers, but I think more programs should graduate people with dual skills in both subjects(and of course have job opportunities for those grads, instead of having them jump into industry like I did).
Compare it to:
''The proper foundations of the enlarged view of algebraic geometry were, however, unclear and this is how Grothendieck made his first, hugely significant, innovation: he invented a class of geometric structures generalizing varieties that he called schemes. In simplest terms, he proposed attaching to any commutative ring (any set of things for which addition, subtraction and a commutative multiplication are defined, like the set of integers, or the set of polynomials in variables x,y,z with complex number coefficients) a geometric object, called the Spec of the ring (short for spectrum) or an affine scheme, and patching or gluing together these objects to form the scheme. The ring is to be thought of as the set of functions on its affine scheme.''
Sorry, this writing is just awkward. I can see why the editors of Nature rejected it.
I think the audience of Hacker News is closer to mathematics than the audience of nature (programming being more closely related to math than biology). I doubt that anyone in this thread unfamiliar with schemes was able to get much useful from Mumford's obituary. I don't even see many comments on the exposition.
There is age-old question of, "What should I major in if I want to go to medical school?" Turns out that mathematics majors have the following statistics:
1. Highest average MCAT Physical Sciences Scores2. Highest average MCAT Biological Sciences scores (higher than biosci majors)3. Second-highest MCAT Verbal Reasoning scores (second only to Humanities majors)4. Highest overall average MCAT scores.5. Second-Highest average Science GPAs (biosci majors are 0.02 higher)6. Highest average Overall GPAs
'Course, math majors make up < 1% of medical school applicants (0.81% to be exact), so this very well may be selection bias. Still, it seems as though what medical schools are looking for are individuals with analytical (mathematical) reasoning skills.
EDIT: It's also worth noting that in many countries an undergraduate education is not a prerequisite for medical school, so there's likely to be even less math-major physicians outside of the US.
I'm not going to let this slide. This would be scandalous if it were true; however:
I could easily keep going.
Edit: As ninguem2 points out, apparently the author was referring to the percentage of female math professors. Nevertheless, if you do not count only doctoral-level departments, even that appears to not be true:
(This study is counting all tenured professors, rather than full professors only, but the proprortion is well enough north of 10% that I feel it's safe to extrapolate.)
Of course, the proportion of female math professors is terribly and inexcusably low, but the situation is at least slightly less bleak than is painted here.
That said, I was a mathy undergrad and now am in a neuro PhD program. The gulf is large indeed. I think the largest difference for me is the relation to science in general. As a mathy person, we are all about the predictive powers of science. I do A, then B happens at time T. In bio, it is not that at all. Bio is an observational science. I see A, then I see B at time T. Sure, you can make predictions, but what these events all have to do with each other is almost impossible to predict in a living organism/environment. As such, when bio people hear Partial Differential Equation, they go running for the hills.
Case in point, PDEs are no big deal for me, I took an entire class on them. But in one class we had to read a paper on using PDEs to model genetic interactions with a sugar input and then write up 1 single page on it (with some guidelines). Oh man, the riot! 59 of the other people in the class were up in arms about this. They tried to get the points on the paper halved, then eliminated, then the teacher to rescind the assignment, which they were all successful in doing. Then the non-stop complaining ensued for weeks in the halls. All because we had to read a paper with PDEs written out in it. My lord.
On the plus side, it leaves a huge hole that none of the bio people want to crawl down. This is a positive for mathy people, as the bio is ore memorization than anything. The bio field is rocking and rolling already from the intrusion that mathy people are mediating. Now, if your lab does not have a CS major in it, you are going to fall behind. The idea that quants and big data people are necessary is just starting to grab hold of the bio world. Now is a good time to get into grad school in the bio field if you have a math background as they are just now starting to realize they need you. It's just hard to get through classes though.
I quit soon after finding out that my (mathematics) supervisor had been actively blocking me from communicating with biologists, including blocking meetings with my (biology) co-supervisor.
I gather they thought real, practical concerns would be a distraction from the purity of theoretical problems.
The terms are awful: "The Shareholders limited rights of legal recourse against the Trust, Trustee, Sponsor, Administrator, Trust Agency Service Provider and Custodian and the Trusts lack of insurance protection expose the Trust and its Shareholders to the risk of loss of the Trusts bitcoins for which no person is liable."
"The Trust will not insure its bitcoins. The Custodian will maintain insurance with regard to its custodial business on such terms and conditions as it considers appropriate in connection with its custodial obligations and will be responsible for all costs, fees and expenses arising from the insurance policy or policies. The Trust will not be a beneficiary of any such insurance and does not have the ability to dictate the existence, nature or amount of coverage. Therefore, Shareholders cannot be assured that the Custodian will maintain adequate insurance or any insurance with respect to the bitcoins held by the Custodian on behalf of the Trust. Further, Shareholders recourse against the Trust, Custodian and Sponsor under [New York] law governing their custody operations is limited. Similarly, the Shareholders recourse against the Administrator and Trust Agency Service Provider for the services they provide to the Trust, including those relating to the provision of instructions relating to the movement of bitcoins, is limited. Consequently, a loss may be suffered with respect to the Trusts bitcoins which is not covered by insurance and for which no person is liable in damages."
I've never seen terms this unfavorable to shareholders in a prospectus before. They're taking on less liability than Mt. Gox took on. If the Bitcoins mysteriously disappear, no one is liable.
- easy shorting of bitcoins which facilitate price discovery
- lower transaction costs. The cheapest and most liquid exchanges still charge .2% per transaction + spread. Most (all?) of them charge you for getting cash in our out of their platform. Buying shares of an ETF would cost just spread + transaction cost charged by your broker which should be much lower (.0035 per share on Interactive Brokers for example)
- easy hedging of a real bitcoin position. Let's say you hold a large fluctuating position in bitcoin that would like to hedge in USD. You could continuously convert all your BTC to USD or go long/short the ETF which is much cheaper.
It just struck me that the market cap trend seems to have gone down in very similar fashion tot he price of oil over the last 6 months. If enough people who bought bitcoin did so primarily as a hedge, then you'd expect it to loosely track a basket of popular commodities like oil and gold (the price of which looks quite similar to Bitcoin's market cap over the last year IMHO - http://goldprice.org/). Can't wait for Google to get their automatic statistician tool online - I don't like statistics well enough to want to use R regularly but I would love a tool that I can use to quickly measure the coupling between different datasets.
A good resource on the connection between leverage and financial bubbles is Kindleberger's "Manias, Panics, and Crashes"
I wonder how much bitcoins they own.
EDIT: From the top of the article: "In April 2013, the brothers claimed they owned nearly 1% of all Bitcoin in existence at the time."
My wife cycles to work, and takes our 15 month old to daycare on her bike. Next year I'll be able to cycle too. Can't wait :)
When I was younger, I was regularly biking in between the car lanes( sometimes very risky ), skipping the bicycle paths since they were much slower or simply missing. I would almost always get there before I would with a car or a bus, and parking wasn't a problem. If the lanes were completely separated this could be done safely.
From my experience the roundabouts where the bicycle lane isn't separated, are the least safe for bicyclists, out of any type of intersection. I think the cause is that apart from normal intersections with stop signs or lights, where stopping is the usual procedure, the roundabouts are fluid where drivers stop much less and thus "prefer" not to stop or just think they have the right of way.
Even as a driver, this is how I want things to be.
"If there are so many competing adjacent deletes that you exceed this number of traversals, you just stop on the 10th deleted node and modify it, editing out the following 10 deleted nodes. The upshot is a list that steadily shrinks..."
...unless you're inserting and deleting more than 10 consecutive nodes all the time. Then the list steadily grows. Though I could be missing something.
If you want sequential behavior from your datastructure in the presence of concurrency then, sorry, but linearizability is the only model that meets the requirements. I imagine 99% of programs want their concurrent lists/stacks/queues/maps to behave like their sequential counterparts.
Of course, as jacquesm noted in his comment, a lot of this is probably due to people being unable to find other, desirable work.
One thing I worry about is the USA government, that seems very keen on extracting taxes from non-rich people, will start plugging up some of the fair tax right offs that 1099 workers get.
The first part of this process, I think, has been the pressure on companies to make people work as W-2 workers. W-2 workers have fewer tax write offs.
Also, I've been working on putting together the CRDT wiki page. I'd love to hear feedback on the talk page!
He spent a big chunk of that time trying to convince government agencies to build roads with pavement that had a better coefficient of friction. See for example
He estimated that they could reduce deaths considerably with more appropriate pavement.
In many cases, states refused to even allow pavement friction tests to occur, as they didn't want to be on the hook for paying for improvements if the tests showed poor friction. Also, requiring better friction would disallow certain road materials, which would adversely affect certain very large politically connected contractors.
In Europe, they take this much more seriously. The Germans have started using a concrete pavement that is both better for friction and is quiet.
It's interesting that if a government builds a substandard road that leads to people losing their lives, it doesn't seem to be a big deal, but if a car manufacturer produces a car that leads to a much smaller number of people dying, then it is.
* "2+1" roads, which discourages meaningless overtaking or competing. (But I don't buy it as the single cause).
* Roundabouts instead of crossroads with traffic lights. (My bet this is one of the most important factors).
* Special reserved lane for doing left turns to secondary roads.
* Lots of street lamps (Sweden is famous for illumination and urban development).
* High percentage of expensive, very good quality cars (lots of Volvos) which kept well-maintained.
* 40 km/h speed limit in most small towns.
Together it works. Basically a complex phenomena is a weighted sum of multiple different causes - cultural (tradition), economical, social (current "normals"), technological, etc. with "random variables". Such simple model could explain it to some extent.
I am in Sweden now, and I drive a classic Volvo.
(In fact, in America, the last few decades' worth of safety improvements to cars have been almost entirely offset by an increase in miles driven; despite their much safer cars, Americans are only slightly less likely to die driving today than they were in 1990 .)
The bigger mystery is why Americans are now far likelier to die in their cars than Europeans even after you control for the time they spend in them. That didn't use to be the case. Until the mid-1990s, Sweden (like almost every other country ) had a higher rate of traffic fatalities per mile driven than did the United States. Those rates have declined markedly all around the world, but much less in the United States than elsewhere.
My guess is that the divergence comes down to diverging patterns of living. Over the last few decades, American cities have sprawled all over the landscape, so Americans not only drive more, but their road infrastructure is built to facilitate daily travel at high speeds over long distances. A great many Americans drive 30+ highway miles each day between their suburban homes and city offices, but that sort of commute is rare elsewhere.
2. See, e.g., statistics showing that fatalities per vehicle mile were lower in the United State than in many European countries in 1991, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs93/Sec7.pdf [PDF; see page 4]
Basically translates to: "this substantial increase on costs (3 lanes instead of 2, +50%) is going to save the lives of 15 people per year". It is really praiseworthy for a country to just go for it and put people first. A human life is truly invaluable but very few countries actually account for them as such; on most other countries "15 dead" would simply just not be worth the investment.
.. Accidents happen because on narrow, inadequate roads, full of blind corners and surrounded by dwelling houses, vehicles and pedestrians are moving in all directions at all speeds from three miles an hour to sixty or seventy. If you really want to keep death off the roads, you would have to replan the whole road system in such a way as to make collisions impossible. Think out what this means (it would involve, for example, pulling down and rebuilding the whole of London), and you can see that it is guite beyond the power of any nation at this moment. Short of that you can only take palliative measures, which ultimately boil down to making people more careful.
But the only palliative measure that would make a real difference is a drastic reduction in speed. Cut down the speed limit to twelve miles an hour in all built-up areas, and you would cut out the vast majority of accidents. But this, everyone will assure you, is impossible. Why is it impossible? Well, it would be unbearably irksome. It would mean that every road journey took twice or three times as long as it takes at present. ..
Why poor countries have lots of deadly car accidents probably has something to do with corruption, in part. People won't respect order, such as traffic codes, when their government isn't respectable. If I imagine I'm a citizen of a poor country, why would I stop at a red light if my president gave a contract to some foreign company in exchange for bribes. If he can do as he pleases, so can I.
There is also driver licensing. Here in the provinces of Canada, for instance, if you have a measurable pulse and/or your breath can fog a cold mirror, you can get a driver's license. I can't imagine that the same is true in Sweden.
A learner's permit can be obtained by passing a written test. After that, a very brief and easy road test results in a driver's license. No formal schooling is required; a friend or relative can teach you, for instance.
Furthermore, driver's license renewals do not require any testing. I got my driver's license in 1987. Since, then, I have renewed it every five years simply by paying the fee, signing a paper, and having my picture taken. I've never been required to take any additional training or testing.
Imagine if it was like that for, say, commercial airline pilots.
* head-on because someone crossed the center line on a 2-way, 40-55mph road, and they are usually going well over the speed limit
* one of the cars was running the light at a 4-way intersection
* someone pulled out into traffic into a 40-55mph road and was hit
However, only 14% of traffic fatalities ~(4,743/year) are pedestrains in the US. ed:(+ 726 bike/year) So there is a limit to how far that can take you. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
Why are they testing those other 399 people (0.25% = 1 in 400)? Driving while drowsy? drunk driving checkpoints? Someone's a little swervy and gets noticed?
I'm no expert in roads, but can anyone explain how that shared middle lane is not the recipe for disaster?
We have around 250 road deaths per year in a country of 5 million, and about 50 of these are suicides.This means that practically every week there's someone who kills him/herself by an intentional act in traffic. For instance, a couple of months back a mother killed herself and her three children by driving 100 km/h head-on at a bus where his husband was travelling. This was just an act of defiance, desperation and hate.
When suicides count for about one fifth of traffic deaths, it is not insignificant and leaves the number of traffic deaths well above zero. Also, natural deaths - people dying of a heart attack or a stroke while driving - account for a significant part of the statistics (somewhere around 10-15 %). They're counted as traffic deaths even in cases where no one else is hurt and even the vehicle is unscathed.
This is big. Cities in Sweden have the ability to cater much faster to bikers because biking is a much more prevalent way of trasport than in the United States. In fact, that is one of the larger causes for deaths in cities like San Francisco. 
 FTA "Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roadswhere each lane of traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtakingis reckoned to have saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero"
In my neck of the woods, riding a bike is a disaster waiting to happen.
"Sweden has 264 road deaths for 9.5 million people. Britain has 1730 for 62 million people. The deaths rates, at 28 per million people, are virtually identical in both countries and way below every other European country.
Britain though, has impossibly crowded narrow roads laid down hundreds of years ago, full of bends and hazards large urban conurbations with lots of people, including pedestrians, using the roads at the same time, and almost no new roads designed for safety or anything else.
Yet Britain has no more per capita road deaths than Sweden. Perhaps the Swedes have technical solutions in road planning, design and all sorts of legal restrictions on drivers to aid road safety. Perhaps the British are just more considerate and more aware, that, as their roads are much more hazardous, they have to take a lot more care when driving."
Very surprising that Britain has done that well.
If you had the choice between getting to your destination in 20 minutes, with a 11.4 in 100,000 chance of dying, or arriving in 25 minutes with a 3 in 100,000 chance, which would you choose?
Dialog box on screen saying which alarm might have been an idea perhaps. Software was obviously logging all the events.
Took a few seconds before I realised that arcticready.com is a parody produced by Greenpeace. I was previously unaware of this whole saga.
I'd wager there's a sort of selection effect: the sort of person willing to sit down for a 2 player game in the first place is probably the sort of hard-core gamer who enjoys highly complex brainburners, and thus is more likely to rate it highly.
Compare that to the sort of moderate/casual boardgamer who prefers something along the lines of 7 Wonders. The former will play 7 Wonders and (may) give it a mediocre rating, while the latter aren't even going to try TS. Just a theory.
And for the record, the last time I played, TS took 5 hours, but neither of us were fluent and were thus often consulting the rules and/or stuck in analysis paralysis.
(I am not affiliated with twilightstrategy.com in any way)
So sad, since there are so few great two player games. I was really hoping this would be one of them.
I can give some insight into why 2-player games are popular. (ETA: when I wrote this, I missed that 3-player games do slightly better.)
I'm a guy who engineered (optimized?) the fuck out of a 4-player card game (to minimize card-luck in a trick-taking game) called Ambition: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S7lsZKzHuuhoTb2Wj_L3zrhH...
I succeeded in the design challenge, and I think it's a damn good game, but the game hasn't caught on and player-number (or, for math people, player arity) is almost certainly the biggest culprit. It takes exactly 4. (There's a 3-player variant, but it's not as fun and I'd rather just play a game designed for 3, like Skat.) The reason I bring this up is that I have insight into what 2-player games do so well. It's cultural. A 2-player game (or a 2-party game, like Bridge which has 2 teams of two players) is a showdown and it's decisive. It develops a "mind sport" culture. There's less of a feeling of decisivity in a 3- or 4-player game because you can't always separate "A outplayed B and C" from "B played best but C's mistakes unintentionally advantaged A over B and A won".
Game outcomes generally have four components: Chance, skill, strategic interaction, and flux. Flux is minute-by-minute engagement in the game (which can be modeled as a fluctuation in skill). Skill and flux are what we care about. The "strategic interaction" term might seem odd, because "strategy" and "skill" are often used interchangeably, but it actually refers to the scenario in 3+ party games where A, seeking his own strategic goals, unintentionally advantages B over C. This is sometimes called "strategic luck". (Or, it can devolve into a king-maker scenario. Or it can become an influence of table position, as in Puerto Rico, that some dislike. Or it can be made a part of the game, as in Diplomacy, where people pre-arrange interaction effects-- but might defect.) It's inevitable if you have more than 2 parties. And it makes it easy for people to feel "screwed", just as chance does, so while you can have that element and still have a good game (just as I'd argue that random chance doesn't make a game "bad", even if the Euro aesthetic eschews it) you're not likely to develop the "mind sport" culture of Go, Chess, or Bridge if that's the case.
I don't know for sure if this explains 2-player games getting higher ratings, but 2-player games and variable-player games (like Texas Hold 'em, which accommodates varying player number better than, say, a highly-engineered trick-taking game) do the best job of catching on and developing a reputation. A 2-player game is a showdown and a variarity game accommodates a group of unplanned size; exactly 3, 4, or 5 limits the audience and "catch on" speed.
I believe the following articles are the ones on which this story is based:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2014.06.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoen.2014.10.018(behind a pay-wall unfortunately)
The advance is not that they "reached 90%", that's absolutely trivial, and nothing to do with a "Solar Power Material". They seem to be claiming that their advance is a black material they can paint onto thermal pipes that is durable at 1000K for an extended period of time in Earth's atmosphere, made out of blends of nanoparticles.
"High temperature black paint created that lasts 5-10 years instead of 1 year, reducing maintenance needs for concentrating solar thermal" would be a more honest title.
Electricity is like steak, heat energy is more like hamburger. It's useful but not nearly as useful as electricity, so you're going to need another conversion step (steam turbines are best at this right now) to get to a more usable form of power and that conversion step will have losses (radiation losses, mechanical losses, electrical losses).
So 'overall' efficiency is the key, not the efficiency of a single step in the process (they should at a minimum then list their current efficiency next to the previously achieved maximum for that step and how cost effective this new method is).
Here's a better source URL:
Those in charge still seem to be of a 'secure the oil and the heroin' and you rule the world.
Oh dear -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW3XeT7qavo
Some people need one, some people don't. What we are finding is that very few people wanted a general purpose computer in the first place. They wanted to do a thing, and a general purpose computers did that thing(also many other things they didn't want to do or understood).
You could buy a dvd player that was region unlocked. You can purchase unlocked phones. You don't have to buy an iphone, or stick to the Google play store but it's nice to know that you could live in the garden if you wanted to.
Is the NSA a problem? absolutely. Could requirements like cell-phone termination be used for nefarious means? yes. But we built strong democratic institutions for a reason, and we should be turning to them, not some ideology that helps only the technologically gifted. Mr. Doctrow needs to argue against policy on it's individual merits, not claim it violates some FSF ideology he loves and fearmonger luddites.
If the human experience shows us anything it is that those with power will use any instrument to exert its will. The internet and computing generally was not born from anarchy and does not exist free from powerful influence from the start.
There is no man-made system that is not corrupted by powerful interests.
Discussion of related talk from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8805039.
Viewed purely as an image manipulation tool, I have real trouble seeing a good reason why this couldnt be done locally using Cairo. Viewed as an Imgix parameter previewer, I dont see why you wouldnt simply use Imgix directly via a web browser.
Beyond a certain point of classes / SAT scores, you're going to be much better served doing something productive and interesting with your time than endlessly taking practice tests and posting on a forum full of people who don't know what they're doing. The only people who really know whether or not you're going to get into a college are its admission officers.
[Essays]> Read a lot of college essay books. See whats cliche and whats not. Absolutely avoid cliche topics.
[Recommendations]> These can be crucial, but usually arent.
So they are but they aren't...give an example of when they are, and when they aren't.
However, you do have some good information that you don't emphasize enough:
[Extracurriculars]> The truth is that most people, high school, college, or otherwise, are not really passionate about anything. The goal of your extracurriculars should be to explore things that you may be interested in. The more unique your ECs are, the better. Don't do math club just because you saw someone online doing it.
[Overview]> Being the smartest in your high school doesnt guarantee you anything.
Also if you're going to use references, e.g. in Essays: "Some good books are [1,2,3]", make [1,2,3] links to said sources.
I recently finished this website. It aggregates a lot of material from College Confidential and other sources and just tries to present it in a nice manner. The goal is to explain how top college admission works and most of the rest is on SAT preparation.
I used Pelican + Sphinx for all of it. Would love to get your feedback.