awesomepantsm

The title should be Losing At Kaggle The Easy Way. They never even broke top 10.

Exactly, but it will never be zero. There will always be scammers trying to get rich quick on the trust users have placed in the (more) honest scammers. All organized crime has to deal with some amount of posers trying to cash in on their reputation.

Sometimes the way they keep the dishonest guys in line is by attacking others who try to get in on the scheme. Traditionally this would be breaking people's knees, and I imagine well-organized cyber crime boils down to the same thing in the end.

Visiting non-AMP sites on mobile is masochistic (e.g. try searching news results). You get basically all the same problems, but also pop-unders, late loading ads, greedy javascript, autoplaying videos, and other bad behavior.

The AMP is really quite solid for the news use case, in my experience.

I dunno. Robots already can make artistic artifacts, but certainly it wouldn't really be considered "good", but I would still stay it's interesting to us. http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/06/an-ai-wrote-th...

Yes, you can have an opinion on which art is better. You can also argue about which religion is better. If you've never done either, I recommend it some time. Having opinions and forming arguments can be very fulfilling.

This makes no sense. If you have the ability to run software to decode the youtube video, then let's be honest, what is actually stopping you from just using Tor browser, or a proxy site to get to your content? Or just a USB stick with whatever data that you downloaded elsewhere?

tl;dr, He's against the PRISM program.

Yawn, as if stopping one state sponsored surveillance program would "save the internet".

>Don't just torch everything on some suspicion of something going wrong.

You can rest assured, if it was child porn, they'd be obligued to keep backups as proof for law enforcement. I doubt the material is actually deleted, just hidden until they sort it out with the feds.

And Windows defaults to IE and Bing search. I don't see any antitrust case against Microsoft for essentially the same thing you are describing.

Or Apple and Safari.

>It rejected Google’s argument that its chief shopping search rivals are Amazon.com Inc. and EBay Inc.

Really EU?

While the video is more of a joke, farther down in the article there is a discussion of using fMRI scanners on brains when the participants are told the wine is a $10 or a $90 bottle (it was the same wine in both cases). Not only did the participants agree the $90 bottle was better, but the brain scans showed increased activities in the pleasure centers. They actually did like the wine better that sounded more expensive.

So their conclusion is that the people who do worse, use the product they happen to sell less?

Sounds like bullshit to me.

I'd guess it has more to do with fascism than the Japanese in particular. See: Nazis.

I just assume that Cowen & Co must be bad at predictions.

This type of practice is common in government work. Hire a dozen teams to make a thing by some deadline, and award the best result with a contract.

It seems wasteful, but as we can see here, clearly the Nest work style couldn't compete with Google, and so no need to waste further R&D. But until you didn't the contest, how could you know?

Try setting up rails dev on a windows environment and get back to me.

>Should the government be able to access citizen's digital data with a court order?

I don't think that's a good question at all. Regardless of the ruling, they aren't going to up and declare encryption illegal. You can't throw a legal requirement at math to stop working.

If you blocked 99% of ads though, youtube couldn't exist. It would have to become pay to watch. Don't be stupid.

As per a comment in the original article, they could choose to "sync" when one of their children is first told the rules about not knowing your own eye color. This changes the way that person would behave, and is a completely reasonable time for each islander to reevaluate the logical cascade.

Why can't they synchronize at any other moment? They already knew N is either 99 or 100 even before the visitor came.

In the original, you know the other islanders can see a minimum of 98 BP (blue eyed people). And you know that they know that you know that they can see at least 97 BP.

Given that, the statement that there is at least 1 blue eyed person doesn't provide new info. The argument that this "synchronizes" them is a little strange. For all we knew, they were in the middle of counting to 100 days prior to this statement due to the aforementioned common knowledge that everyone already knew there were blue eyed people.

I think there is a fallacy here actually. Some of the comments come close to touching it.

If there are 3 islanders with blue eyes, each can see 2 blue-eyed people. The information that there is at least 1 blue is therefore not new information, and can't change the outcome.

The outsider's comment is superfluous given that N > 3.