1arity

Whether it was "over-interpreted" or not -- some stressors methylate genes, and those mutations are passed on to descendants.

Does surviving the holocaust count as a stressor? Yes. Would going through that probably involve a bundle of stressors, of which some are likely to produce epigenetic mutations? Likely.

The author of this article is in the business of writing papers that are anti-trans-generational epigenetic inheritance. The author either doesn't believe it is possible, or doesn't believe to have seen evidence for it yet.

It's a useful counterpoint to the majority opinion, tho it's very much the opinion of someone peddling a particular line that happens to be the line their in the business of writing papers about.

The most interesting thing in this study was that the descendants of those who had experienced the holocaust seemed to have become more immune to the stressors their ancestors faced. That's a pretty clear case of the genome responding by becoming more fit, the occurrence of which has evolutionary advantage.

apply your self ( most valuable asset, since that has yielded you success so far ) to learning MVC, and maybe Reactive or single direction of data flow architecture.

here's the kicker: only learn so much that you know a little more than the other guys in the companies doing web forms, and then

market yourself as the guy

who knows the legacy code base, knows the organizational in and outs, knows the systems, and who's going to help transition them to MVC ( and newer tech )

so you're a guy ( or gal ) with little experience in MVC teaching folks with no experience in MVC, how to transition to MVC.

this is a niche, and you'd be perfect for it. it'll be stimulating as there is the conceptual challenge of bridging the two realms, the satisfaction of using your extensive experience, and the excitement of growing yourself into something new.

i'm excited for you. not many people will be able to be at the right place and the right time to do this. and it sounds like, with a bit of results, this could spin into your own consulting or dev shop serving this technical debt.

this path works and the future is bright for people like you.

your entire post is a pretty damning conviction of yourself. I feel sorry for you.

Not really. I'm not substituting hating on others success and pretending it's "evil" as a substitute for actually taking responsibility, creating improvements and getting results.

That's what I'm pointing out critics of Amazon are deluding themselves with, and this attitude, the fake victim attitude, the I-don't-have-a-choice attitude, is fundamentally disempowering. It's the very cause of their purported disempowerment, and it's not going to help them achieve results, or create improvements -- leading them to have more things to complain about, which, unworkably, they blame on others.

So true. There is certainly skill involved, one of them is almost certainly the ability and willingness to exploit your fellow human beings. I'm completely lacking in that skill so, woe is me, I will never make a billion. . .

If you want to pretend you’re the noble righteous fake victim of other’s exploitations, and if you want to pretend that people who are really successful are “evil” and their success is somehow fake as it’s founded on exploiting people, you’re just suckling to the disempowering lie that so many people delude themselves with : instead of taking responsibility for your success, and believing, correctly, that it is about the choices you make, you look at the successful, choose jealously over inspiration, and instead of creating improvements to better your situation, you delude yourself with fabrications to diminish their success and make you feel better, closing the perceived gap between you lack of success and their success, not by taking real action that could create results for you, but by believing these lies for the fake pay off of pretending others are “wrong” and you are “right”.

It’s sad you fell back onto this fake victim delusion, instead of choosing to take responsibility for your life and create improvements that could lead to results for you. And it’s sad that you saw in my sincere words trolling, what’s triggered for you there is what you bring to it, and what’s triggered for you is your responsibility, it’s got nothing to do with me. Pretending it does is just being a fake victim, again, instead of taking responsibility.

The original reduction was given by the well-known Cook-Levin theorem ...

That’s easy. The NTM is just a condensed representation of a DTM, and in each case, the machine encodes an algorithm for whatever NP problem you are working. “Guessing correctly” has no bearing on NP, and it’s not a scary or impossible property that it works for people to believe implies P == NP is false. “Guessing correctly” ( otherwise known as branching ) is simply a property of the NTM occupying more than one subsequent state. As long as you construct an algorithm such that the NTM branches on its guesses in P time ( or equivalently the DTM is P size), then you have the P time algorithm. Pretending a valid reason for P == NP being “widely believed to be false” because there would then exist “an NTM that supports guessing correctly as a primitive operation”, as if this should be somehow intuitively magical and impossible, is obfuscation, “guessing correctly” has nothing to do with NP and makes no problem harder or easier. “Guessing correctly” won’t make a shit algorithm good ( it’s not like an oracle in a quantum algorithm like Shor’s ), it’s just another way of describing a NTM. All you need to worry about is making that P time algorithm for some NP problem. Whether you want to implement that as a DTM or a NTM, is totally up to you. If it’s a P time algorithm it’s still a P time algorithm. I can make an EXP time algorithm in a NTM too if I like. “Guessing correctly” is not some magical speedup equivalent to P == NP. Too suggest that, or imply that, by suggesting that such a machine would somehow be magical is either the result of someone who doesn’t understand this, or someone who is choosing to obfuscate this. So either you don’t understand it, and you are pretending that you do. Or you do understand it and you are needlessly fabricating to try to argue for P !== NP, simply revealing how tenuous you fear the arguments are, and how deeply you lack any substantive ones that you must fabricate them. Your language is an attempt to obfuscate and incorrectly attempt to confuse people who don’t understand. If you really know this space, doing that is just balderdash. Well played.

Does Airbnb have two factor login ? If so use it.

Step 1. Walk into a University.

Step 2. Enter the mathematics department.

Step 3. Talk to anyone you see, especially anyone in front of a blackboard writing equations, and ask them to Try your keyboard.

Forget product hunt. Forget online.

Hit the streets!

Rinse and repeat. Also try : Physics, Statistics, Biology, Chemistry ( avoid CompSci since there will be too many time wasting questions from "app experts" and people who want to "help you out". Ignore. )

You will have so much info by the end of this. Take a friend, and video or tape record what you can. At the very least, have your friend take notes. Deconstruct at the end of the day. Rinse and repeat.

300 was a cut off, so I'm guessing they sent 50 - 150 interview requests.

I got the worst category of rejection letter ( no re-encouragement to apply in W15, no 300 ).

I think they'll take more than 20.

Stupid people having nothing to be excited about ?

Pretty much the takeaway.

They're looking for a China-based CEO. Will they post the job on HN?

The perspective of the phone on the desk in the hero shot of the "onhub" seems out of wack with respect to all the other objects on the desk, and the shadow of the onhub. Is that phone levitating slightly?

Oh, and it's clearly a telescreen.

hey. i meant that consider the location difference in the jobs. maybe there's a place you'd like to work in, live near or commute to over the other.

probably because falcon is for building APIs which are a workable pattern with a single page app which has a thick client and treats the server only as an asynchronously returning data store.

location?

it would also be ideal to get into the situation where you tell both offers that you are considering another offer at x price and that you will take y time to decide. then you hold the negotiation instead of feeling rushed.

sometimes the side that wants you more will come back with a bigger offer or ask you what's meaningful for you to see if they can give you that.

This is so cute.

I think the biggest thing Boston Dynamics are dealing with ( aside from power density ) are improving balance and running algorithms, under the stresses of heavy loads, non-homogenous terrain, and loss of friction.

It's possible to use deep learning for controlling the servo motor positions and torques, the hierarchy of features is then varying levels of abstraction over the set of positions. The most granular layer may be features related to all the torques and positions of the servo, a higher layer may be some combinations of subsets of these, and the highest level may be features akin to the general representation of the spatial position and tension of the limb.

It's quite naturally similar to how human kinetic intelligence and perception works, say you are learning how to dance, you can be aware of the position of all of your limbs simultaneously ( the general pose you are adopting ), or you can be aware of the angle and position of your ankle or your right hip independently ( what your foot is doing ).

I think there could be things to learn from the networks in octopus limbs -- because of their extensive innervation.

That is so cool.

L-systems could work as a stack system too perhaps ?

This is cool. Is there a service for this already? Maybe I'll make one.

Here's some thinking from Google employees on this : http://www.quora.com/What-do-Google-employees-think-of-the-c...

An idea is a tool is an idea. Or an idea is a description of a tool. In any case, code is a history of our time. A computed history. It encodes the way we thought about things, reflected in the way we arranged our systems of doing things. There's an argument to be made that it is a highly efficient description -- it might be possible to accurately rebuild a fallen civilization if we could read its computer code. At the very least, we'd have a start on rebuilding its infrastructure. The writings of a time encode its culture, you can rebuild a culture from that. The Renaissance did this with the culture of ancient Greece and Rome. Code is a medium, of today. It works to save that, if we value the preservation of our time.

Divorced founder here. I had this experience.

It really works to establish this before you get married.

Since the journey you are on, as you say, it really works when your life partner buys into your vision.

You are going to be making choices about how to work, when to work, and with regard to the current burn rate of your life, and with regard to the value of future pay offs, that are vitally important for people in a relationship to agree on. If your partner doesn't share your passion for this, or believe in you, how are they going to come on that journey with you? Will they be there for you and support you when you and your business need that?

Will they give you the extra runway by getting a job, or will they insist you chuck it in and get a job?

I mean, having a business is a lot of ways like having a baby, you are always working on it, and everything changes around doing it. And it really works for your partner and you to carry that weight together.

No one knows what's going to happen, it could all work out. Maybe it's simply differences in expectations that can be reconciled through communication. Or maybe it's something more fundamental. At this stage tho, you don't know.

My choice was to cut my losses quickly when it seemed like it wasn't working. I would caution against that, since I feel that the marriage is an asset, because of your commitment to each other. When you got married, didn't you vow to be there for each other, through sickness and health, and failure and success? So my recommendation after trying the opposite ( and it not working ) is just stick it out. Try to make it work, because that relationship could be so important to you if it maintains.

In my case, we divorced. Not, mind you, just because of a business. There's always a mix of things, and both people are responsible. I think the main thing was simply not really emphatically communicating about what our expectations were, and also not really being so committed to sticking it out, we both chose to cut our losses. Well, at least we had the same efficient mind! Still I believe through lack of communication and commitment we didn't quite work out exactly what it could have been. So persistence, could really be key.

Later I found someone who really did buy into my vision, and support me while working on the project. Objectively this person is far more compatible with doing this startup, tho the truth is, you never know how things could have been different, had you done them differently.

As other posters suggested -- maybe get some husband time to yourself, away from the wife and kid, cafe working, or cave working, or shed working, some time and place to be around other people who do share your vision. I think that idea of community really helps. Why? Because in a way you are asking your wife to be your community if you don't get out there and rely on others as a community. And being around the energy of others can really refresh you and give you that mental reset so when you come home, it's like a delineated time, and you're all ready to go husband and daddy mode again.

It is a scary time. Maybe rethink feeling ashamed, tho. You're trying to juggle doing a lot of things. You're not doing anything wrong -- you're just trying to make it work. That's noble, not shameful.

I watched a couple of video presentations V8 did about optimization. It was really coherent. And their skills were really advanced. Also, visceral experience of the speed and stability of Chrome.

Also visceral experience deving Chrome apps and extensions ( man, I love their clear APIs ) versus doing the same in Moz with XUL ( omg, die ).

Browsers are as much about branding as anything, and I'm never going to come to the Mozilla camp. I don't believe a browser works to be a political cause, nor do I believe Mozilla is anything like the narrative they have about it. I mean what the hell is the committee of the Mozilla foundation doing? Wasting time with meetings about the grandiose purpose as a "movement", instead of making a better browser.

They pretend they're so "righteous" and yet all that pedantic dogmatic nitpicking and differentiating themselves is actually costing a lot of efficiency, which doesn't work for people who browse or for people who code.

Aside from that, I like the way Chrome does JS, and I don't like the way Moz does. Custom Elements, c'mon!

The masses have voted anyway. Chrome FTW.

Your answer was clear, it just seems we're on different sides of the browser divide. I wonder why there's so much loyalty? The browser is such an important piece of software.

Your entire post is a pretty damning conviction of yourself. I feel sorry for you.

I'm pretty sure you don't know me, and I get that you're comfortable offering your certain opinion of me based on not actually knowing me, tho I don't want that to dismiss what you said because this leads to a very important point.

Speak about anything you care about -- not just the things you feel you are immune to judgement on yourself.

This is so important.

in other words, if i'm only going to express an opinion on subjects i'm safe from judgement on, that doesn't make me a very reliable source ( huge personal bias ) and i'm choosing to try to protect my ego ( and also not challenge myself in what could be opportunities for improvement ) instead of saying something inspiring with regards to ways improvements could be made in general.

if i did that id be choosing ego and me over contributing to technology and progress and success. that doesn't work.

it's pretty simple. i believe in technology, humanity and progress and success, and i see clearly a lot of the ways that people limit themselves and their thinking and sometimes i choose to say something about it. a reason contributing to that choice is because i care about these things, and it works for people to work on them, and if you are not working on them, not because you're not capable but because your perspective doesn't work, then theres a big opportunity for improvement, that sometimes i choose to contribute to meeting with what i say.

i know i pick the subjects that get the most pushback, and a reason contributing to this for me is because this is the ones that are holding people back the most, the ones that are most important and where people are most stuck by the clarity missing from the ways they are getting in their own way. it's like the importance of working on the big opportunities, if you only pick the areas where there are small safe bets, you think small and the results you get will be small.

so in contributing to the meta opportunity of the psychology with which people approach this work, just like with the opportunities in tech themselves, if you choose to contribute to the area with the riskiest biggest bets the results you get will be the greatest.

what i am doing by pushing back here in the middle of controversy is the very essence of what we do as founders.

there are so many algorithms in so many different areas.

it may work to start with just one area, an area that is close to something you already are making or solving, and then, literally, in searching for algorithms for that pick the shortest one and solve a small implementation of it.

in finding a reference implementation i found the following helpful :

-- pick code in the same language you will be writing your version in.

-- if you can, find and read the original paper ( try searching google scholar ) describing the algorithm, these are often clearly written and explain the motivating situations that led to the way the algorithm was constructed.

finally some example short algorithms from a few areas and favorites of mine :

string processing :

-- LZW algorithm

-- longest common subsequence algorithm

tree graph processing :

-- post order depth first search

list processing :

-- group elements in an array into sub arrays of length k

integer processing :

-- change of radix algorithm ( change a mumber from the given base ( 10 ) to base 2 ( or even to other bases as well ) )

most of all, just work your way through step by step, like the algorithms your are making.

because it is condescending

yes exactly.

you have perfectly summed up how its percieved by those in the defeatist culture around P can not be == NP, and this really goes to the heart of what is inefficient and not working here.

and that is especially what im talking about when I speak about the psychology of compelling pay offs for believing this, and the strong attempts at defensiveness when its being considered that the majority response doesnt work.

NP defeatists can not stand the feeling they percieve of being condescended to when their choice to abandon a problem they failed to advance on or make a faster algorithm on, is unmasked from beneath the cloak of being "impossible" they covered it with, owing to their religion that P can not be NP.

instead of owning their choice to give up, they disguised the problem as impossible. when that disguise is revealed, they face their choice and face the possibility their failure was not excused by its being impossible, and their belief in intellectual superiority is challenged, and they percieve it as condescension.

the core contradiction is that the origin of the insecurity they are protecting against is their own choice to surrender, yet they try to blame it on the revealing of that choice by pretending its condescension. so they want to fight the voice that says the problem can be worked on ( and pretend its making them insecure ), to preserve their own narrative that it can't, instead of fighting their self defeatest narrative which gave them cause for the insecurity in the first place.

its a common misattribution of responsibility to preserve a protective delusion:

"it is not my fault i didnt solve this, the problem is impossible"

"it's not the fault of my choice to give up that I feel insecure, it's their fault for unmasking that my giving up was a choice."

misattribution of responsibility is a common maladaptive ( non workable ) response substitute instead of choosing to try another approach and create some results.

it so important to think about the culture of defeat around this because the stakes of these opportunities are so high: efficient acheduling, and dispatching, and gene sequence matching.

and the culture of defeat is essentially inefficiently systmeically and structurally draining resources from working on this. its of a significance that the psychology of this becomes important.

science works when it embraces questioning, including self questioning, of its methods, including its structural, systemic and cultural methods.

these are after all the operations or support and infrastructure faculties which support the work of science.

the culture of defeat and fake excuse around P and NP, lets people off the hook, as an excuse to shutter advances on whole classes of problems, and excuses a lack of results in making more efficient algorithms to meet those opportunities.

it becomes indoctrinated, a dogma, that P can not be NP, and the true believers as we have seen are all the more fervent to compensate for the absence of proof of impossibility.

and this slows progress, which doesnt work.

that is so cool and a really clear tutorial. does it use three?

I think you found a solution to __your__ problem with P == NP, not a solution to that actual problem.

You had a problem with working on this. You found a solution to that. I hear that.

The solution you found that worked for you has no bearing on a solution of the problem you abandoned.

They say perspective is 80 IQ points. Maybe no one has had the perspective that works on it yet?

In any case, if you are going to be someone who solves P == NP, you need to also be someone capable of solving the "you as a person working on P == NP" problem, the meta problem.

You got to take care of yourself, so you can take care of the problem. If you don't do one, how can you do the other?

The video gamer can't run the marathon until he trains. Even if you have the brain for this, you can't do it until you can sustain your effort. It's like an elite sport.

Dude, with all due respect, that's what the church said when the possibility was raised of the Earth not being the centre of the universe.

"We cannae conceive how it can be bearable to be so" !==> "It can not be so"

Why is there such a strong reaction to this?

For the very reasons identified. People want it to be true, without proof, because believing it is true serves a psychological need that provides a fake pay off. It's not "your fault" you didn't make progress in that algorithm, because "the universe" conspired against you and "P != NP", you're off the hook.

Getting off the hook like that is so much easier than facing your own responsibility.

I understand it's very compelling to believe this for that reason, and yet, to do so doesn't work to actually make progress. I understand the psychology. People will fight this to the end to preserve their sense of zero responsibility, to shelter their ego. So much invested, so many layers of justifying narrative, already deposited.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong what you choose to believe. I don't think you need to feel bad about it. You can choose to live your life however you want. If you want to believe P != NP without proof, you're just not someone who is mentally equipped to create innovations in that space. Does that make you bad? No, it's just your choice. You already made that choice. No need to deceive yourself about it. Can you really feel an absence of shame however, trying to talk other people out of it? I guess that is what I am campaigning for.

Believe whatever you want, you've already made your choice. When that young student comes to you, and you try to talk her or him out of pursuing this to preserve the narrative you've already subscribed to yourself, that doesn't work. So if you are aware of how it's your belief, maybe you'll give them space for their belief.

That awareness, and awareness toward others.

I hope sometime you come back to the light. Stay strong.