allenz

https://www.videogist.co was mentioned previously on HN:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38555629

No, Tesla probably has very few employees older than 65 and no employees in nursing homes.

To add a bit of context: brokerages like Robinhood send buy/sell orders to national exchanges and to private trading firms e.g. high-frequency traders. Private firms provide price improvement: orders that execute at prices better than the national exchange. All brokerages have a duty of best execution, including a duty of price improvement. Brokerages can also receive payment for order flow from private firms, as long as it does not interfere with best execution. However, "Robinhood explicitly offered to accept less price improvement for its customers... in exchange for receiving a higher payment for order flow," which is illegal.

Full order: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2020/33-10906.pdf

That’s only for the final model. To find it, they’d need to run 1,000 experiments, trying many high-level approaches, many architectures for each component, hyperparameter search, and multiple seeds. Large machine learning projects need $10M in capital.

Same here, I run the latest Firefox on both Windows and Linux. Gmail always takes at least 5 seconds to load.

Perhaps he wasn't prescient, just lucky.

People are perfectly capable of distinguishing between browsers and websites. For example, users have no problem logging into Facebook with Chrome.

Auto-signin only adds confusion. Many (most?) users have no reason to associate their browser with a Google account. This is something that Google is pushing unilaterally, just like Google+/YouTube integration. As an advertising company, they stand to benefit from more accurate user tracking.

Thanks for the explanation. It seems to assume that Gmail is the internet. If people sometimes use Facebook or forums or games instead of Gmail, then history will appear to sync to random places, no?

The world is very small, and privacy is a mainstream concern these days. The impact of one story or one action is limited, but in the end, users do get their say. Otherwise, we would still be using Internet Explorer.

What's the point of signing in at all for users who don't use sync?

But the tech-savvy community has influence. We set up computers for our friends and families. We write IT policies. We are web developers, tech reporters, and more.

At least for me, Google's behavior means that I can no longer recommend Chrome.

craftyguy was just speculating.

"Chromium does download hotword-x86-64.nexe on startup, but it has been carefully designed as an opt-in feature"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9735795

It was an intentional download so that Chromium users could use "Ok Google".

CamTin was saying that workers should be considered investors in a moral sense: they put time and effort into the company and deserve a share of the profits. Obviously, workers are not investors in the literal sense.

"Listening in" is inaccurate. "Ok Google" was opt-in only, and did not record users without consent. Chromium downloaded but didn't run the binary blob.

Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9724409

including Google's perspective: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9735795

You're still making an ideological argument, though you might not realize it.

The question is whether workers should have some degree of ownership and control of their company. You point out that the workers voluntarily gave that up.

The broader question is whether free market outcomes must be fair/best. What you ignore is that in an unjust society with imbalances of power, markets will reflect and amplify those inequities.

For example, what do you make of the fact that most board members are white men? Will you argue that this is the fair outcome? Or is it possible that there other explanations and better outcomes?

the students admitted before 1969 were more open to radical ideas

Perhaps this reflected a broader social trend, rather than a change in admissions preferences? The 1970s marked a growing desire for stability and conformity, as symbolized by the transition from Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat) to Richard Nixon (Republican).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_modern_American_co...

I recommend learning linear programming first. It's simple and useful, and makes it easier to understand quadratic programming, convex optimization, etc.

You should use a modeling library which abstracts away from individual solvers, such as pyomo for Python: http://www.pyomo.org

Gurobi is the fastest solver, and it's free for college students. SCIP, MIPCL, and CBC are the fastest free solvers, in that order.

To learn how to formulate a problem as a linear program, you can read through the examples at https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~vazirani/algorithms/chap7....

While that's true, it doesn't appear to have been a partisan or even controversial bill at the time, so I feel that it's disingenuous to blame Republicans.

Citation needed that conservatives killed USPS. I didn't find any unbiased sources to confirm this. To the contrary, the 2006 bill was a bipartisan measure passed by voice vote in the House and unanimous consent in the Senate.[1]

[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407

Related: Jason Baumgartner has maintained a Reddit scraping pipeline for a few years now, and wrote up some notes about making it robust: https://pushshift.io

For compatibility, it's feasible to represent elastic tabs with spaces. All we care about is the new behavior. The editor can parse for aligned columns.

That is surprisingly high. Presumably the queries weren't actually made years ago. There are many possible explanations: incorrect DNS clients, incorrect system clocks, automated scripts scraping into a DNS database, misconfigured embedded/IoT devices, etc.

Yes, time complexity is based on the length of the input to a Turing machine. For example, integer factorization is a hard problem because all known algorithms are roughly exponential in the number of bits.

first snippet has quadratic performance

Not if primes is a set.

In addition to the incentive problem, you would also need to get people to peer review any changes to a paper. Most of the changes would be minor and annoying to peer review.

I think that courses remain the best way of distilling and communicating knowledge. The only problem is that they're not always available to a lay audience, since there's little incentive to make them available.

The other alternative for the lay audience is science/economics journalism (Economist, Scientific American, Discover, etc). This works to some extent but mostly just scratches the surface, since even regular journalism is struggling to be profitable these days. With deep technical topics there are too few readers and too few qualified, willing writers.

Most departments are heterogeneous, with mutually unintelligible subfields. CS encompasses both information theory and robotics. Cultural anthropology has little in common with medical anthropology.

your example has never happened

My example would apply whenever an analyst comments on AA or whenever any polarized headlines is published about AA.

It is the point of the markets to reward [information]

But that's exactly what we're debating: why is updating information a couple microseconds earlier something that is valuable? Conversely, if it doesn't make the market more efficient, it shouldn't be rewarded.

Since you mainly want to talk about market microstructure, how do you think a switch to batch auctions would affect the market?

Sorry, I mean microsecond-level competition. I agree regarding algorithmic trading.