tyrick

The bitcoin test coverage is thin. Can it validate legacy multisig? Segwit? Bech32?

How will the size of the W16 batch compare with previous batches?

Close Encounters of the Third Kind. (E.T. communication will be weird). The Man from Earth (What it might be like to live through several ancient ages). Citizen Kane (Simple things in life matter--Rosebud). The Fountain (What it might be like to live through several ages with unrequited love). FernGully (Don't mess with nature, or small humans will mess you up).

I loved this movie also. In the end, he was a Big Fish.

Same here. One of the few movies that really stuck. Explores the philosophy of human vs mortality, and how time may not cure all wounds. I will now try to watch it again this weekend.

Cute. I didn't know nameservers had so much personality.

Good point. It seems that in the first case, "sitting in the kitchen" is a restrictive clause and we might want to have "John threw out the old trash that was sitting in the kitchen." to eliminate ambiguity. However, this clashes with DLM. The second case would be better as "Sitting in the kitchen, John threw out the old trash." I think they gave a bad example.

"We will try to do this for every company..." If for some reason this term is not exercised, it will now unequivocally reflect badly for the company. I don't question the good nature and authenticity of a YC "try", but the sentence does naturally express doubt.

Frederick Jelinek, a researcher in natural language processing, has a funny quote, "Every time I fire a linguist, the performance of the speech recognizer goes up."

In general, I think a neuroscientist would be a distraction to any ML team. I don't mean to say that neuroscience is what drives ML insight, but if asked to pick which field influences the other most, my choice is clear.

The subtitle of the article is "What Machine Learning Teaches Us About Ourselves"; This is backwards. Brain sciences inform ML (In fact, ML techniques are often coined after the biological counterpart). A result or finding in ML does not necessarily, or at all, imply anything for neuroscience.

Artificial neural networks do not teach us about biological neural networks, or 'Neuronal Networks', a term reluctantly used by a close neuroscientist for contradistinction. We don't need Google's cat research, but Hubel and Wiesel's cat research.

Let's see: Cheap reference to Kant, check. Vague parallel to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, check.

The 'intriguing' mapping that involves 3 ML terms is desperate.

This article appearing on the front page of HN shows how delusional some of today's ML lovers are with respect to neuroscience, the discipline that actually studies human brains.

Great job. I look forward to coding something over the weekend!

Jameco is very much alive! However, My bank recently called to verify some purchases with them. They claimed that my regular transactions with such a company were flagged as suspicious. I suppose the everyday household is not impulse buying this stuff as I do.

I edited the post to add "I would not recommend buying this if you can afford otherwise." Thanks.

That's also how I got mine.

Raw password storage is more common than we like to believe. A simple way for webapps to communicate that raw passwords are not being stored would be convenient. A small 'NORAWPW' image in the footer perhaps. it would ease my worries, especially with cryptocurrency related webapps.

done! thx again

smart idea!

It's a hand-coded heuristic algorithm with machine learning! =)

A fun weekend project for creating flashcards. Let us know what you think!

We're limiting the release for now, though I wouldn't expect to see anything like that pre-scale.

Well, the CH IS an example of a statement that is undecidable in ZF. Once you include is as an axiom, you essentially bypass the need to use ZF to justify it (or prove it). So, just because you are able to include the CH as an axiom, doesn't mean it is not an example of a undecidable statement within a given set of axioms. Does that make sense?

I think the CH was used just to provide an example of an undecidable statement, not actually demonstrate something weird about the incompleteness theorem. Since the CH cannot be proven to be true or false within ZF (or ZFC), then you are correct, appending it would just provide an addition axiom.