barisser

This would be more credible coming from shareholders rather than employees.

Goliath Acquired David

They are precisely incompatible because Blockchains are all about programmatic, self-enforcing arbitration. In a correctly-functioning Blockchain, there is no entry-point for non-permissioned humans to meddle with outcomes. This is not a bug but a feature.

Ethereum keeps hard-forking and has thereby undermined its legitimacy. The premise that code is law is central to Blockchains. The necessary corollary is that human-law is irrelevant within the space of outcomes on the Blockchain.

In Bitcoin, no human court can prohibit a transaction from going through, or being valid. Bitcoins cannot be confiscated by fiat. Full stop. Blockchains were designed to create a purer, more mechanical and reliable arbitration than the courts can give.

1nm carbon nanotubes... I doubt these can be produced at macroscopic scale.

Moreover the difference between 1.05 and 1.06 nm drastically affected freezing point. I don't think these can be built, en masse, to such precision.

Sorry but if Microsoft is doing it.... it's probably not going to be great.

People don't even understand how important materials science is. All they think about is digital/hype technologies.

The country is simply too large to physically secure everything.

We'd have to become a police state to even begin to protect every potentially sensitive area. You can kill people with almost everything and it is infeasible to prevent it altogether by force of arms.

Should the state really presume to sway cultural trends? It seems strikingly arrogant and likely to be counterproductive.

Cython is really fantastic. It makes you realize that there is often not a huge reason to leave Python if that's what you are comfortable with. The community has simply produced so much.

Log is often used because it makes linear proportional returns. It makes the most sense when gains are considered derived from the principal, ie proportional returns from capital. See an example below.

As others have mentioned, maximizing log is equivalent to maximizing the underlying.

But when considering returns on accruing capital, a 20% loss is much worse than a 20% gain is good, and similarly a 100% gain is much less good than a 100% loss is bad. This is correctly captured by taking the log. In the case where money is simply accrued from some external source, and their is no proportional return, log isn't necessary.

I don't think that is evident at all. Clear writing will resonate with the reader far more than hackneyed, pretentious constructions.

Many of the best communicators in history successfully employed "simpler" verbal constructions than those Orwell rails against.

My experience also

Good luck with innovating.

Whatever your opinion on Brexit, it would be a miscarriage of democracy to ignore the referendum's result, even if it is not strictly legally binding.

If Leave can win now, it will garner more support if the public's will is neglected.

Also the comment takes it as a foregone conclusion that triggering Article 50 would spell the political demise of the sitting Prime Minister. Isn't this a dubious assumption? We're seeing short-term market reactions today, but it is a very different thing to assert that the long-term impacts are as suicidal as is commonly believed.

But hey, they can always issue more TSLA shares right?

That's their main product right now.</satire>

Software is almost always flawed to a certain extent.

The problem with Ethereum is that you can't push a fix to your contract.

Too small to destroy the Earth, yet not big enough to act as a Space Prison... alas.

What concerns me is that they want to do a soft-fork to handle just this case. One shouldn't fiddle with the protocol every time something like this happens.

This is Peter Thiel's hypothesis in action: that the world of things sees little progress due largely to regulation.

You're right; let's go nuclear:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

I found this article really frustrating.

The US government forces American tech companies to spy on users, so US companies are to blame?

These services are so useful and well-liked around the world that they should be considered a threat?

The author is amazingly willing to accord French bureaucrats the right to regulate the cultural consumption of Frenchmen. How is this defensible? Should we knock Netflix because it makes it harder for French social engineers to impose their preferences on their own citizens?

Companies like this don't come out of Europe for a reason.

I've been betrayed enough times on the Internet not to be surprised.

You make a fair point. We're still adjusting the branding. I could see us tuning it down.

One difference with Squall is that, while the post is an image on Twitter, it lives on as a text post on Squall.io. So you can always follow the link and parse the text there.

Also the images are highly legible. Check out this Squall for example: https://twitter.com/bshyong/status/573557768285732864

Hi, core team here from Squall. I'd be happy to answer any questions/comments.

Squall is a community-built product on Assembly. So each contributor gets some fraction of ownership, commensurate with their contribution to the product.

I'd highly suggest writing a Squall post. It's an easy way to say more on Twitter.

This is spectacular.

Redstone circuitry is an excellent exercise in the operation of digital circuits. I learned a ton about digital logic by trying to recreate stuff like this (albeit much more modest incarnations).

Building sophistication yourself out of base elements is the ultimate educational experience.

You're right about normalizing the user preference vector: not strictly necessary. Still if we're normalizing bounty vectors, it feels right to normalize everything :).

Another variation that I was considering is to generate 'user clusters'. In Mark Vector Space, divide user vectors into N groups such that the net variance across all clusters is minimized. Then when a user, for which there is sparse data, needs contextual information from other users, I could simply ask how correlated he is to the different clusters. If each cluster's 'center of mass' is a vector, the dot product between a new user and the different cluster vectors could be informative in reconstructing suggestions: the idea being to infer from similar users what a particular user might want.

I was also wondering whether adding a stochastic component to each user-vector would be interesting.

Thanks for the feedback.

How are 'millions of separate blockchains' supposed to be secure? We have enough trouble securing one Blockchain.

Also it seems redundant to include the fruits of computations in a blockchain, for all time, when SNARK-based proofs can accomplish the same goal with much less overhead.

Correct me if I'm missing something.

The team is in a great superposition to collapse into a winning eigenstate. Its interference pattern is constructive. The phase they're in is totally coherent. Their offense has got this great duality going, that you simply can't measure without screwing up. They've got this non-classical strategy that I don't understand. However I'm not going to comment on their position at this time; I don't want to alter the team's momentum going into the game.

US Company Fined for Exporting Math.

We ain't got enough Math in the US to be sending it abroad!