andischo's comments

As a German, born roughly 40 years after the war, I still cannot fathom the atrocities we Germans brought to the world at large and to so many million individuals. I grew up learning the history, I know my grandparents (as well as probably great grandparents) played their part in what happened. I am deeply sorry for what they/we did and even saying it these words just sound hollow in light of the magnitude of cruelty and injustice that happened.

I am very sorry what your grandfather had to endure and I am happy he survived. Though it doesn't change the past I will make sure that my children and grandchildren will remember what happened in order to prevent anything like that happening in our lifetimes again.

I currently work 32 hours / week at 80% pay and have done so for some time. On paper we agreed on 5*6,4 hours per week, but it is really flexibel. In practice I work somewhere between 32-40 hours a week and additionally take a couple of days off per month.

For me, it's the best arrangement I've ever had. If I don't feel like it or need to take care of some other stuff, I just work for a couple hours a day. Other times I really enjoy it and work 8-10. Additionally I get long weekends without having to use any holidays.

I also think my employer gets a better deal this way. Being productive 8 hours a day is more or less wishful thinking. I think the reality is somewhere between 4-6 hours for normal people. Hence I'm still almost as productive asif I were working 40h/week, but at 80% the cost for my employer. Everybody wins.

Also, for those interested: In 2012 they created a car which is able to drive at ~2x the wind speed upwind: https://www.wired.com/2012/07/wind-powered-car-upwind/

That is also a very interesting way to think about it, if I understood you correctly. Seeing the host as another player, any "bad luck" he has, should translate into myself having a higher chance of success if used correctly.

The easiest explanation I've ever heard and which immediately made me understand it was the following:

Instead of 3 doors, imagine there are 100. 99 of which have a goat and only one of which has a price behind it. Now blindly choose a door and the host opens 98 of the other doors which have a goat behind it. Would you switch your door now, given the choice?

It's easy to see that your probability of choosing a "wrong" door when you had 100 doors to choose from was much higher than choosing the right door when you only have two doors to choose from.

This method of thinking, i.e. increasing or decreasing the problem space by some orders of magintude has helped me a lot in thinking about problems and their solutions in general.

Seems like one turn is 60°. Is there a specific reason why it isn't 45° or 90°? Is there maybe some advantage to the 60° in regards to the ascii rendering?

Might be some stupid questions, but maybe someone can enlighten me:

Could this explain the Schrödingers cat experiment, i.e. the light moving through both of the two slits? If light has a self torque, a single beam of light could travel through both slits (almost) simultaneously depending on the torque. Also, can someone clarify whether every beam of light has self-torque? Or do you need to create a beam of light in a special way to achieve this property? If every beam of light has that property, wouldn't that mean that light doesn't travel in wave form, but rather in a wave-cylindrical form?

In case anyone is interested in a similar open source solution that can be self hosted I can recommend Trilium (https://github.com/zadam/trilium). It was also recently featured on HN. I since host it on my private server and it works like a charm.

Curiosity and persuit of knowledge are what drives many people. I would like to believe that HN is a place where these traits are encouraged and not looked down upon as you seem to do with your comment. If I could down vote your comment I would.

Short answer: yes, crowd sourcing would work better.

Long answer: It's difficult to determine how good/bad people actually are at detecting the correct sentiment, as data sets containing phrase/sentence <-> sentiment pairs are often created by majority decision of human taggers. E.g. 7 people are given the same training examples and whatever most of them choose is then used as "correct" answer (gold standard). This might not be the real correct answer though. However, even if we accept this gold standard to actually be the absolute truth, most humans only have a correct detection rate of about ~80% (this is a very rough number, as it depends strongly on the source material, e.g. Tweets, product reviews, etc.). Still, this is way better than computers perform at the moment.

Having written my bachelor's thesis on how negation in sentences affects their sentiment: it is really, really difficult. Even just differentiating between negative/neutral/positive sentiment is successful only about ~65% of the time (depending on the source material). Text based Irony/Sarcasm detection is still an unsolved problem (most of the times even for humans, as it is strongly context dependent, not to mention missing indicators such as tone of voice and body language). Basically, you are way better of listening to your own intuition rather than using a computer to flip a coin.

I get the advantages of generic algorithms. But sometimes overfitting can be very useful. Imagine wind or water turbines where this method could be used to increase their efficiency based on the individual hardware.

"Five individual logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the tones. Furthermore, the final program did not work reliably when it was loaded onto other FPGAs of the same type.

It seems that evolution had not merely selected the best code for the task, it had also advocated those programs which took advantage of the electromagnetic quirks of that specific microchip environment. The five separate logic cells were clearly crucial to the chip’s operation, but they were interacting with the main circuitry through some unorthodox method— most likely via the subtle magnetic fields that are created when electrons flow through circuitry, an effect known as magnetic flux."

This is absolutely incredible. Makes you wonder how much potential the real world has compared to the simulated environment usually used to test theoretical solutions.

This interview makes me wonder where we are heading as the human race. The Japanese society, so certainly very different in some aspects, does strike me as a glimpse into the future of western society. Technology has a much bigger impact on the daily life there and I believe that this is one of the main reasons, why (face-to-face) social interactions are becoming more infrequent. What struck me the most from the article was the impression that the customers of this service seem to feel especially lonely - or even more worrysome - that some of them view social interactions as hasselsome and being work. If that is the way humans as a whole start thinking than we will have a lot of problems in our future.

> For them, it’s a lot of hassle and disappointment. Imagine investing five years with someone and then they break up with you. It’s just easier to schedule two hours per week to interact with an ideal boyfriend.

> I don’t have a real girlfriend right now. Real dating feels like work. It feels like work to care for a real person.