dsrguru

It's a different technology and has a different capture method. Glasses.com requires using a mobile device and an external mirror.

DITTO engineer here. No need to use your driver's license. Any standard-size card should work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_7810#ID-1

Yes, that appears to be a mistake. In the 36.8% of cases where the best candidate shows up in that first 36.8%, it would seem the algorithm must keep running until it is forced to select the final candidate, which is essentially a random choice out of all but the very best (assuming ordering has no relation to goodness) -- very different from being "stuck with the second best." However, the rest of the quote -- "but still, if you like favorable odds, this is the best way to go." -- might very well be true.

That's precisely the parent's point. The Vim model (I'll exclude vi from the discussion since it lacks core aspects of Vim's composability like text objects, and almost no one should be using it) is about having a largely inflexible editing language built off of composability. The Emacs model is built around infinite extensibility instead. That's why implementing Emacs in Vim would be fundamentally at odds with the principle of Vim, but it's very possible to implement the Vim model in Emacs, and Evil does a nice job.

They're both amazing languages that are simultaneously very fun to use and very powerful, not to mention great with concurrency, but here's the grossly oversimplified gist of when you'd want which language:

Clojure has a beautiful dynamic type system. Haskell has a beautiful static type system. If you're working on a project with changing requirements (which for me means most nontrivial applications), Clojure will be much easier to work with and, as with most Lisps, is very well suited to what pg calls exploratory development. If you're working on a project whose requirements are largely static and known in advance (compilers, interpreters, parsers, static analyzers, mathematical tools, etc.), then you won't have to worry about coding yourself into a corner and Haskell's insanely powerful type system becomes a positive.

Well, even if improving Street View is a shorter term goal, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that Google has at least some intention of using that same core technology to pioneer, or at the very least compete in, the very lucrative market of autonomous consumer vehicles down the road.

This read much more like an advertisement for GreaterThanZero's services than an article whose conclusion actually addresses the title's question, but the author seemed to do a good job accounting for the differences between Warren Buffet's estate and a regular, living person's money (namely that the person sometimes needs to spend it).

Actually, come to think of it, I don't think the author explained why Buffet's estate should be treated as if withdrawals will never be made from it, but I assume it's because the 10% of his money that will go into short term savings bonds is still a ridiculous amount of money and should be sufficient to cover any expenses in the foreseeable future.

It seems like the fear is that allowing the developer to have direct communication with the client could result in people circumventing the 4% commission. But unless they come up with an excellent workaround, it might be hard for the site to catch on without allowing that communication.

I like that idea, and I don't think a multiple downvote system would have to be hard to implement. It would take very little change to the site, for example, to promote a system in which we flag for spam, downvote for irrelevance, and reply to posts we perceive as factually incorrect.

> Don't know enough about it but I think "there's no such thing as reverse racism" is true because it would be just... racism. Or just sexism. Actually the definition given before ("sexism is sexism by the privileged") would allow for "reverse sexism" ("sexism by the non-privileged"). So it seemed kind of inconsistent to me.

As I said in my original post, most feminists assert that society is a patriarchy that is fundamentally oppressive to women. They use the term "sexist" for an act that results from the patriarchy. Because their model of power dynamics does not allow for the notion of males being structurally oppressed, it is by their very definition impossible for one to be "sexist" (or "reverse sexist" as some people say) towards males.

> I know I didn't upvote your comment because of:

I'm not sure I really follow. Are you saying that (1) you disliked that I attempted to clarify that feminists use the term "sexist" differently from how a lot of us use it or that (2) I didn't do a good job in making that clarification or (3) something else entirely?

If the first or third, I don't get why. If the second, what I meant is that a lot of commenters on this thread found the title misleading. I wanted to clarify to them that there are two commonly used usages of "sexism", one in mainstream English and one in academia, especially in left wing contexts. As a linguist, I don't find value in prescribing one definition as "better" to use than another. I just wanted to point out that people were really just having a debate about definitions.

Having attended a very left wing liberal arts college and, therefore, being very familiar with the terminology used by sociologists, I intended the above to be explanatory rather than either an advocacy of or an attack on the leftist definition. Could some of the downvoters please explain which side they're coming from and what aspect of my post they found problematic?

The thing is, the title isn't linkbait from the perspective of modern feminist discourse and its usage of the word "sexist".

In radical feminism (the ideology that the term "feminism" most frequently refers to in contemporary usage), virtually the entirety of human interaction is viewed from the lens of the patriarchy model, the notion that society is governed by "a system of power that organizes society into a complex of relationships based on the assertion that male supremacy oppresses women" (Wikipedia). Such feminists define any act as "sexist" if it reinforces, or even if it is the product of, what they see as the patriarchy. Similarly, liberal sociologists and critical race theorists define "racism" as the characteristic of any action that results from the oppressive power the dominant group (most contiguous with the class of straight white males, at least in Western society) has over minorities. (This is why those on the far left often make statements like "there's no such thing as reverse racism/sexism." They're right based on their usage--it's just a matter of definition.)

So anyway, when feminists use the term "sexist", they're not usually using it in the colloquial sense of "you're a bad person" but rather in the sense of "you're saying or doing something that results from the patriarchal society that governed your upbringing, and it would be really good if you start questioning the assumptions that led you to this action." In fact, I've heard quite a few feminists describe an action of their own doing as "sexist" and immediately set out to unlearn whatever caused them to say or do that. If only more feminists were as open to entertaining discussion regarding alternatives to their patriarchy hypothesis, but I digress!

I'm not very familiar with their policies. Does that apply even in the case of theft? Didn't the article's author recover her domain within a few days?

This. I want to upvote this comment a hundred times. If there's a dispute with probable cause, temporarily freezing the domain while launching an immediate investigation seems by far the best balance of thwarting domain theft and minimizing fraudulent claims.

It's not that it's a better communication medium any more than a 4K monitor is a better medium for learning what's being broadcast on your television. But it's certainly more enjoyable.

Imagine if you had an actual supernatural button that you could press to teleport yourself to an alternate dimension in which you could chat with friends. It wouldn't be a more effective tool for communication than a phone or video chat, but I'm sure you'd often use it since magic is, well, magical. VR is the closest you're gonna get to that experience.

Edit: And hopefully there would be a workaround for the issue of goggles obstructing the face.

Would you find it magical if it were truly immersive 3d where eye movements would scroll and an Omni-like 3D treadmill actually worked?

Either you're misunderstanding me or you're equating an anthill with the pyramids of Giza. In Second Life, your avatar is a sprite on a screen. With Oculus Rift + Virtuix Omni, your avatar is you. It's like the Matrix. Or Avatar. Or a [lower resolution] lucid dream where you can interact with people from the real world in video game maps. For me, that's truly awesome in the literal sense of the word.

Fair point, I forgot about the lack of eyes part. I guess the Oculus Rift would work better for a multiplayer FPS where your characters are all wearing helmets.

I totally agree that wearable computers like Google Glass aren't ready to replace conventional mobile devices. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the webcam+screen model of video chat (not the keyboard+mouse model of computing) in the near future will be replaced by something like webcam+Rift+Omni. I think the technology will likely be mature enough within the next few years and that the public is already ready to adopt it.

Before the 1964 World's Fair, the notion of video chat to accompany the telephone was considered science fiction. Even after the technology was demonstrated to the public, it stayed in the realm of science fiction, as seen in the film 2001, until the 21st century. I really think that being able to interact with other people in a digital world a la the Matrix would sell millions of units instantly.

I said this on the other thread, but this is the most terrifyingly awesome technology acquisition I've ever seen. Facebook chat in two years: put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars. Skype and Google+ Hangouts suddenly seem very 20th century.

I've always found Facebook's stock to be a ridiculously risky long-term investment since their entire growth plan is predicated on monetizing an already established customer base, where a single event that causes people to switch en masse to a more private/secure social network would destroy the company. After today's acquisition I no longer think this.

This is the most terrifyingly awesome technology acquisition I've ever seen. Facebook chat in two years: put on a headset and get teleported to a room in a virtual world where you can talk to your friends' avatars. Skype and Google+ Hangouts suddenly seem very 20th century.

I've always found Facebook's stock to be a ridiculously risky long-term investment since their entire growth plan is predicated on monetizing an already established customer base, where a single event that causes people to switch en masse to a more private/secure social network would destroy the company. After today's acquisition I no longer think this.

The author made it clear that the question's primary purpose was to see if the applicant could use the system. They assumed, incorrectly as it turned out, that the problem was about as trivial as hello world.

InclinedPlane wrote a fantastic post on this exact topic a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4753117

Looks like flag no longer exists for a post until it's endorsed. Makes sense.

Or, if the purpose is to have high karma users function as semi-moderators, why not just keep the upvote/downvote system but make a comment's precedence a function of weighted upvotes based on the karma of those voters? I guess that still wouldn't prevent a very deep off-topic tangent off of an ancestor post that's high up on the page, but it seems like a simpler and safer solution with much less potential downside, and there are always specific solutions to the above problem such as collapsable threads.

Hopefully this will prove overly pessimistic. The way I see it, either we'll be proven wrong or pg will revert to the system we know and love until he comes up with a better method for improving the quality of comments.

No, it just means if you comment low down on a page, you'll probably have to delete that comment before participating in a second discussion.

That, coincidentally, works quite well in the current system too. You don't even need to agree. Just post your comment as a reply to the top comment or, since your karma might be a bit too low for that, as a reply to the first comment deep enough to have no siblings. I'm not advocating that you do this, but I am asserting that this comment of yours would have been seen by many more people had you done that!

Regardless, I think it would qualify as gambler's fallacy for the person buying your stake!

I was thinking the same thing. There's currently no known harm for upvoting, so we do it to promote good discussion, despite the fact that there's typically no personal benefit. But if endorsing posts not only provides no personal benefit but also bears the risk of possible harm, people might be too cautious with endorsements for this system to work.