relate

One wonders why the incentives aren't aligned. I.e. the value of the recruiter to the employer is finding a higher paying job, so the compensation should reflect that. E.g. 10% + 50% of the pay increase.

The annoying thing about sous vide is that you need to be home at least 1-2h before dinner. If you're a lot at home, it's great though.

If you're willing to pay more for faster retrieval I guess you could store e.g. 5TB of random data to get a fast "base speed"- cutting those 3 days down to 12 hours.

"Because non-technical/non-contributing users are nothing but a drain to FOSS projects."

except that the size of the userbase drives companies to port their products to the platform.

Had to add a colon:

    ytplay() { youtube-dl "$1" -o - | vlc -; }

but works great!

I remember that from Google Wave at least.

Yes, I think (automatic) car makers will have to be extremely careful. If we have dramatic accidents to soon, it may be hard to sway the public opinion with statistics (as is the current case with nuclear power).

You chose to make your point with probability, which is actually what will most likely make people accept driverless cars in the end.

It's amusing to read the same reasoning after striking away "driverless":

"You are far more optimistic than me about the future of cars. Given N cars, some fraction p will eventually run over and kill small children. Stand back and watch the hysteria and the end of cars."

or with elevators:

"You are far more optimistic than me about the future of automatic elevators. Given N elevators, some fraction p will eventually malfunction and kill small children. Stand back and watch the hysteria and the end of elevators."

If the accident probabilities can be brought to acceptable levels, why wouldn't we adopt them?

PS: With trains and subways we have 1 driver per dozens of passengers, where the savings gained from reducing it to 0 may not outweigh the risk increase/loss of safety feeling.

At 48:55 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Sr96TFQQE#t=2933 ) Snowden says you cannot control who uses the backdoors.

I assume he is referring to malicious bugs and simple/sloppy backdoors? For example, if I append my public ssh key to someones .ssh/authorized_keys, it's not a backdoor anyone else could use.

I just wanted to point out vim's persistent undo: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5700389/using-vims-persis...

Sometimes I forget to commit, and suddenly I'm in the middle of a second feature, with the code in a non-working state. Then it's perfect to just undo back a couple of hours, save, commit, and redo back to where I am.

However, It's rather risky though if you're not confident with the undo system, so it's a good idea to save the file to a temporary location first.

I couldn't agree more, it makes a huge difference - especially for e-mail.

ICA helps you separate a superposition of two or more signals. Assuming the speakers are not speaking at the same time, he might rather want to use speaker identification methods to find what parts to mute (e.g. train a binary classifier that operates a spectrogram of the signal).

I just hope it will still be easy to prepend urls, such as when entering reddit.com/s/URL_OF_CURRENT_PAGE

From the text:

"For example, we employ rate limits around sensitive actions, such as requesting money, to prevent them from being abused at scale."

I really don't get debates like this. You should simply account for the (a) time it takes to write the program AND (b) the time it takes to run the program. Selecting a language only based on (b) is clearly suboptimal.

Could you elaborate on why you think this is the case?

The "debt" wasn't "forgiven", the Icesave dispute went for the EFTA court, where Iceland was cleared of all charges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute#EFTA_Court_clea...

First, the majority of Iceland does NOT want to join the EU - and the Mackerel dispute is not helping, since Iceland's main fear of the EU is due to the fishing policies.

To pick up the Europe, Iceland would have to lower their national debt, among other things. However, that's not an restriction to join the EU.

If you are referring to the Icesave dispute, then Iceland has been cleared by the EFTA court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icesave_dispute#EFTA_Court_clea...

Most definately, although the currency has been very unstable from the beginning.

In fact, the ISK/USD has gone from 7.25kr/USD (1981) up to 97.5kr/USD (2001), down to 62.7kr/USD (2005) and is now at 115kr/USD. So yes, half it's value relative to 2005.

However, this probably paint an overly pretty picture, because the currency is essentially fixed by the central bank and protected with restrictive regulations. For example, if I want to buy USD, I have to show the bank an airline ticket and there's a limit to how much I can buy (< 6.000$ )

I'm being pretty vague since I'm not really an expert, but yes the old banks were put into receivership but not bankruptcy. However, previous laws from 2002 already established that financial institutes would not go through normal bankruptcy ( http://www.althingi.is/altext/stjt/2002.161.html ), but I'm not sure how that would have worked out.

Icelander here - there seem's to be a lot of misconception about what happened in Iceland. We technically let the banks fail, but at no point did my debit card stop working, my online bank go down or my money disappear. Joe_the_user says we simply nationalized the banks, but that's not true - here's how it was done:

For each bank X (Glitnir, Kaupthing, Landsbanki), there government created their own new X. The following was by force brought into each new X:

   * Regular loans
   * Checking accounts
   * Credit cards
   * e.t.c.

This of course created a debt between the new X and the remains of each old X, which took some time to resolve.

On the other hand, a lot of things were left in the falling banks, including international branches, investment accounts (i.e. accounts with interests related to stock performance) and more.

These selective operations of course caused a international controversy (Icesave dispute, e.t.c.), but if the government had let all the banks fail without these transfers - the damage to our economy would have been much greater.

This makes no sense. If you want to know how much they differ from the expected value, you first define what you mean by difference (i.e. L1 or L2 norm) and then measure it somehow. The standard deviation is an estimator for the square root of the expected value of this difference, when it's chosen to be the SQUARED L_1 distance (which is the same as the L_2 distance in 1-D). The MAD takes the mean of the L-1 distance.

While the standard deviation is proportional to the L_2 distance betwen the vector of the samples and a equal sized vector with all coordinates as the mean, that's not an intuitive expression based on the problem statement.

Tried it out, works well!

You'd have to define trust to understand and then answer the question.

Trust is the inverse of what most people think it is.

Trust isn't about what someone won't do, it's about what they will do.

You might trust a guy with your life by asking him to hold a ladder whilst you climb up it, but you probably wouldn't trust the same guy with your medical history and insights into your state of mind and personal relationships.

Yet you would trust a doctor with your medical history, and you would trust a psychiatrist with your mental wellbeing.

The basis of trust is a belief that the person/entity you are trusting will do something. In the case of that ladder, that the guy will hold it. In the case of the physician and psychiatrist that they will keep your information private. The NSA stuff can be seen in that light, there is a betrayal of trust as the basis for trust in a government spy agency was that they would do a certain thing... spy only on foreign people. The rest is all forgiveable (you pretty much should expect them to spy on everyone else whether you agree with it or not, that's their purpose).

When it comes to Bruce Schneier the question is "Do you trust Bruce Schneier?", but this seems to just beg the next question, "To do what?".

I trust Bruce Schneier to honor his own principles and belief system by not backdooring some code or otherwise compromising his work.

But I don't necessarily trust Bruce Schneier to hold a ladder that I'm standing on (he may well have a sense of humour that reflects silent cinema, and being up a ladder was never a good thing when a Loki character was holding it).