Nickelodeon Partners With Ludei To Bring HTML5 Games To Its Upcoming Android App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/26/ludei-nickelodeo/

<comment><USER2> Nickelodeon betting on HTML5, very good news for the platform. HTML5 isn't the future, it's the present.

</comment><comment><USER3> The best possible news for HTML5 gaming!

</comment><comment><USER4> Awesome! Can't wait to see it!

</comment><comment><USER5> Fantastic!

</comment><comment><USER6> awesome!</comment>


Surviving a bad RNG - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2012/03/surviving-bad-rng.html

<comment><USER2> Here's another interesting case-study in exploiting a bad RNG. It's from 1999 and shows how the authors were able to exploit the weak RNG at planetpoker.com to predict the sequences output by their card-shuffling algorithm.

[http://www.cigital.com/papers/download/developer_gambling.ph...](http://www.cigital.com/papers/download/developer_gambling.php)

<comment><USER3> Note that this is a case of someone breaking a system that didn't even use a cryptographic random number generator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sometimes I feel like I have a decent understanding of cryptology. And then I read an article like this and realize that I know practically nothing.

</comment><comment><USER5> "Anyone attempting to generate random numbers by deterministic means is, of course, living in a state of sin." \- John von Neumann

</comment><comment><USER6> Simply hook up your RND to the logic circuits of a Bambleweeny sub-meson brain, give it a fresh cup of _really_ strong tea and plug it in!</comment>


Show HN: FreshCandidate, Search Through Speeches from Presidential Candidates - <AUTHOR> http://www.freshcandidate.com <comment><USER2> Searching for 'Bitcoin' I got this bizarre message from outer space:

Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/local/lib/python2.7/dist- packages/tornado/web.py", line 1443, in _execute result = method( _self.path_args,_ _self.path_kwargs) File "application.py", line 314, in get "query": gquery File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 127, in urlopen return _opener.open(url, data, timeout) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 404, in open response = self._open(req, data) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 422, in _open '_open', req) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 382, in _call_chain result = func(_args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 1214, in http_open return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPConnection, req) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 1184, in do_open raise URLError(err) URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 111] Connection refused>

As I understand it, an alien called Errno refused to connect. Seems like other members of his tribe were also involved. They have strange names like Urllib, Func and Kwargs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bummer about the alien-speak! The problem should be fixed now ;).</comment></comment>


The Daily WTF maliciously infringes Programming Praxis trademark - <AUTHOR> http://programmingpraxis.com/2009/08/13/the-daily-wtf-maliciously-infringes-programming-praxis-trademark

<comment><USER2> Anecdotally, shortly after The Daily WTF gained popularity I emailed Alex to suggest starting a sister site for non-programming IT related WTFs and he tried to poo poo the idea saying he didn't think it would have enough content, etc. Without support of the Daily WTF, it was a lost cause so I gave up on it. Shortly thereafter, he started a section on the Daily WTF site for non- programming stories.

</comment><comment><USER3> Since "Programming Praxis" is not a registered trademark then it would likely be a long and costly battle to legally force The Daily WTF to cease using it. (Common Law trademarks do have rights, but it's not nearly as clear cut).

That said, if the emails are accurate I do think The Daily WTF is behaving incredibly poorly and they've just lost this reader.

<comment><USER4> Trademark rights arise once the mark is used to identify goods in the stream of commerce.

Registration gets you two things: 1\. The scope of your mark applies beyond your geographical area. 2\. Registration on principal register is constructive notice to the nation. It creates nationwide coverage and removes defenses of good faith and lack of knowledge.

If "Programming Praxis" is not registered, then Daily WTF can asset good faith and lack of knowledge defenses. I don't think that the geographical limitation issue has much weight on the internet. Those would be the only differences.

Registration also puts a nice, convenient stake in the ground of who was there first. I don't think that will be an issue here.

<comment><USER5> I think the prior agreement between The Daily WTF and Programming Praxis would make a lack of knowledge defense difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Alex seems to have some reading comprehension problems. In nearly every email Phil mentions his desire to keep his blog as separate...

"You and I have similar objectives: you want to extend your already-successful brand by offering something new to your readers, I want to grow my new blog."

"I like the idea of having a Programming Praxis sub-section on TDWTF, and I also want to keep my blog at programmingpraxis.com."

"May I ask a favor? Can you please include somewhere in the text of the exercise a link to my blog?"

"First, programmingpraxis.com will continue to exist in roughly its current form, as a stand-alone web site with two exercises per week, no matter what happens with Programming Praxis exercises at TheDailyWTF."

"Regarding linking: If Programming Praxis is going to become a regular weekly feature on TheDailyWTF, with at least some original content, I don't see the problem with putting a link to programmingpraxis.com somewhere obvious."

Alex constantly ignores this until the end when he says:

"I don't want to come across as abrasive or inconsiderate, but we started this conversation on the premise of joining forces, and I've reiterated that intent several times. My understanding has been that, if our test(s) proved successful, then we'd combine blogs; if not, then you'd continue with your blog, and I would continue with mine."

<comment><USER7> And if he was operating under the assumption that the first few articles were just "tests" (as he refers to them repeatedly), why is it suddenly so hard to change the name of the section?

According to the e-mail log, he introduced the new "programming praxis" section name mere days after Phil asked him to stop using the term. That strikes me as needlessly antagonistic. He could have avoided the whole issue by simply picking a different name at that point, but he instead chose the one name that would sabotage the work of his former collaborator.

While I'm sure TDWTF will triumph legally, I can't help think that the incident will influence their relations with any future collaborators.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The argument from TDWTF that 'it's too late to change it now' is pretty much an admission of guilt. Lawyer up, spend a few hundred on a C&D and then register your TM.

</comment><comment><USER9> It's astonishing to see how many comments on the blog are not only hostile, but rude and hateful. I guess I'm naive and overly optimistic, but it always surprises me to see the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1] proven in practice...

[1] <http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/>

</comment><comment><USER10> Alex is quickly (rightly or wrongly) coming off as a "bit of a dick" in this. On the Internet you can live or die on your reputation - right. Surely the logical approach would have been a "sorry dude, ill change it, misunderstanding"

And of course the cynic in me is saying; well programming praxis will be getting a shed load of new publicity now :)

</comment><comment><USER11> He can trademark his _site_ name, but it would be ridiculous to forbid the name "Programming Praxis" as a header for a column or subsection of another website. It's just too generic.

<comment><USER10> Yes agreed. But if the section is identical in theme to that of the Programming Praxis blog I think he has a legitimate point (or at least has some rationale for making the point)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This story is summed up very well by a comment on the page made by sorryoldman - "It sounds like this: "You had her first all right, but I slept with her and she's way too hot for me to give up now. So bugger off and dont come looking for her. She's too sexy and she's mine now." I hope this last sentence puts things in persepctive."

</comment><comment><USER13> alex responded on proggit

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9a7zr/programmi...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/9a7zr/programming_praxis_accuses_the_daily_wtf_of_name/c0bzilo)

<comment><USER5> He's responding on the blog itself. The user that posted that on proggit is a brand new account, so I don't know if that's really him.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Trademarking the generic title "Programming Praxis" seems a bit over the board. There are too many trademarks -- everywhere! To me, this seems to be contradicting the open-source and free knowledge spirit!

As one commenter in the original article put it: "He's a prick. You're a winey bastard. Move on, yo."

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I know what you mean. I talk about this a bit in my blog at www.newsforhackers.com

<comment><USER7> Or, more to the point: <http://hackernews.com>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is this a registered trademark? (I poked around the USPTO search form a bit, and couldn't find anything resembling "programming praxis").

I know copyright kicks in automatically, but is there such a thing as a non- registered trademark, and does it carry any legal weight?

<comment><USER17> As I understand it, trademarks need not be registered:

<http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm>

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Let's see if there's an apology coming from Phil now that Alex has changed the category name (and after he gave a reason for the delay) and whether it receives as much attention as the attention __*ring post on the site.

</comment><comment><USER19> Wonderful. More drama. The Internet needs more drama. The babies need their attention.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wow, that guy sure does have a stick up his ass, doesn't he.

</comment><comment><USER21> Not a trademark.

</comment><comment><USER22> Two things. One, if you don't bother to get legal protection for your "trademark", don't complain if people "steal" it. You can't have something stolen from you that you never owned. Get over it. Two, generic terms should not be eligible for trademark in the first place. Especially, no phrase of the form adjective-noun and no compound noun should be elgible for trademark.

<comment><USER23> Registration is not required for a trademark in the US. <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/doc/basic/register.htm>

<comment><USER22> Nor for copyright, but having copyright does not guarantee legal protection for copyright. If you can't prove that you have it and had it first, you may as well not have it at all.

The site you linked to says quite clearly that you should register to get:

""" # a legal presumption of the registrant's ownership of the mark and the registrant's exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration; # the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court; """

So in other words, if you don't register, you don't have these things. Yes, you have a trademark, sure... you just can't do anything about it.

<comment><USER24> <http://marklaw.com/trademark-FAQ/benefits.htm>

"The owner of a federal trademark registration may sue in federal court more easily. It is worth noting that even without a federal trademark registration you still may be able to sue in federal court, but it may be more costly when proving jurisdiction (i.e. diversity of citizenship & amount in controversy over $75,000). Even if you can't sue in federal court, you can always sue in state court. However, attorneys usually prefer federal court in trademark cases for perceived procedural advantages."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Flagged this because it's not a trademark. While he might have a legal case due to first use, and be able to trademark it now, he doesn't currently have a trademark. Bad title, no biscuit.

Upvoted because it sounds skeezy as hell.

<comment><USER26> He's not talking about a _legal_ trademark, he means his "trademark" phrase has been co-opted by TDWTF.

<comment><USER16> He's talking about legal threats and "confusion in the marketplace of ideas".

Definitely sounds like there's some confusion going on.</comment></comment></comment>


Watsi 2015 Year in Review - <AUTHOR> https://watsi.org/2015 <comment><USER2> Awesome jobs guys. I am particularly proud of Ghana for having the highest donors in Africa despite their hardships. Humbling and inspiring...

<comment><USER3> Thank you! I was excited when we pulled that number, too - I lived in Ghana for a while. Great country and great people.

<comment><USER2> No way :). Glad the Ghanaians treated you well. Thank you for Watsi and your compassion. You have changed lives,inspired etc. people more than you will ever know.</comment></comment></comment>


Qatar Airways CEO Says Carrier Is Already Streaming Black Box Data (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2015/11/19/qatar-airways-ceo-says-carrier-already-streaming-black-box-data/ <comment><AUTHOR> If all airlines did this, we could stop looking for flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders after a crash, or maybe even prevent an accident by catching an anomaly early.</comment>


Local TV stations in US to air 'Plandemic' researcher's theory about Fauci - <AUTHOR> http://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_339e48cbbfb460a5139163a146c80975 <comment><AUTHOR> > Local television stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group are set to > air a conspiracy theory over the weekend that suggests Dr. Anthony Fauci, > the nation's top expert on infectious diseases, was responsible for the > creation of the coronavirus.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group)

> Sinclair Broadcast Group, Inc. (SBG) is a publicly traded American > telecommunications conglomerate which is controlled by the family of company > founder Julian Sinclair Smith. Headquartered in the Baltimore suburb of Hunt > Valley, Maryland, the company is the second-largest television station > operator in the United States by number of stations (after Nexstar Media > Group), owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country in > over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are > located in the South and Midwest, and is the largest owner of stations > affiliated with Fox, ABC, and The CW.

> A 2019 study in the American Political Science Review found that "stations > bought by Sinclair reduce coverage of local politics, increase national > coverage and move the ideological tone of coverage in a conservative > direction relative to other stations operating in the same market."[10][11]</comment>


How do I write a freelance contract for web programming work? - <AUTHOR>

I want to know what to look for in a freelance contract for web programming work and what to include if I have the opportunity to write one myself. I imagine many of you have been in my situation; I appreciate your help.<p>In the absence of experience, idle speculation will do.<p> <comment><USER2> I can send you the one I used to use. Just shoot me an email if you want it.</comment>


Mills' constant - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mills%27_constant <comment><USER2> I find it awesome that they don't even know whether Mills' constant is rational or not. It certainly looks irrational, but we need a proof to assert that.

This same thing happens with other constants such as pi + e, pi - e, pi*e, the Euler-Mascheroni constant... It's good to see that there is yet many things to learn in order to answer such "elementary" questions

<comment><USER3> rational? I can't even believe it's for real!

how can a number 1.3063... ^ (3 ^ _any n_ ) produce a prime? (discarding decimal portion < 1). For _any_ n?

it just seems so super-simple. well, I can think of a simpler constant. is there one such that raising it to _2_ ^any n produces a prime? (plus decimal change)?

<comment><USER4> There are a countable number of primes, but an uncountable number of real numbers, and an even more uncountable number of functions over real numbers.

So heuristically, the existence of Mills' constant is really just saying that primes grow at a relatively consistent rate, which is something that the prime number theorem formalises.

You can think of Mills' constant as being akin to this real number[1]:

      0.235711131719232931374143475359616771737983...

You could write a program to extract primes from that number, but the existence of the constant, or the program, is not surprising in the least.

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland%E2%80%93Erd%C5%91s_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copeland%E2%80%93Erd%C5%91s_constant)

<comment><USER3> Thanks, this is interesting. As far as writing a program to extract primes from that number, how could you without including a prime test in the program? You'd think Erdos and friends would have made it easier by bothering to encode word boundaries - say with a prefix free code[1] :) - 01 for a word boundary, 00 for a true 0:

0.0120130150170111011301170119012301290131013701410143... (no encoded zeros in this example.)

Then you wouldn't have to brute-force word boundaries... You could also put the ordinality of the prime number between 08...09 tags, then you could know exactly whether you're looking at the millionth prime or the million and second one.

But yeah other than not encoding boundaries you are right, it's quite akin to the real number you provided. I like your explanation - thanks.

EDIT: also, as I show above, the program to get a prime back out can seem complicated. What's remarkable about mill's constant is that the program is simple: just raise Mill's constant to 3^n (and apply the floor function). seems so simple. What's remarkable is not just that such a constant _exists_ \- that will give you a prime for _any_ n - but that there is a smallest such constant and we already know it:

1.3063778838630806904686144926...

I find that remarkable. raise that to any 3^n and you get a prime and change. wow.

EDIT2: Your argument also didn't address one thing I'm curious about - why a similar number can't exist for 2^n instead of 3^n... thanks for any thoughts.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefix_code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefix_code)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not clear to me why the Riemann hypothesis has to hold for the value to be known.

<comment><USER6> From looking at this paper [1], it looks lie the Riemann hypothesis is not technically necessary, but simplifies an otherwise prohibitively difficult computation.

[1] [https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL8/Caldwell/caldwell7...](https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL8/Caldwell/caldwell78.pdf)

<comment><USER7> It's because the formula for the maximal prime gap that was used in Lemma 4 at the bottom of page 3, sqrt(x) log(x) / 8pi, is a consequence of the Riemann hypothesis. Otherwise the term becomes x^(3/4 + epsilon) which is a lot larger and messes up the argument. I think it's nontrivially useful here, but there might still be a proof without it

<comment><USER6> From briefly skimming the paper, it looks like the only use of lemma 4 is in lemma 5, where the author explicitly states that it is possible to prove without the Riemann hypothesis, if one is willing to work with a bound of about 10^6000000000000000000.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "So what is the application of this?"

I remember a grad student friend in my college days telling me that when mathematicians present their work, most of their peers never understand it and this is always the safe question to ask!

<comment><USER6> If known, this would allow the easy generation of arbitrarily large prime numbers, which would win you some cash prizes.

<comment><USER9> Prime numbers aren't hard to generate; just generate a bunch of random numbers and test them quickly.

<comment><USER10> For sufficiently large values of 'large', large primes are hard to generate. If (that's a big if) we had an efficient method to compute this number to arbitrary precision, we could compute primes of a billion or more bits.

<comment><USER11> Is there any point to generating primes that large? I thought one of the reasons to prefer ECC was because it uses a much smaller key than RSA.

<comment><USER10> A) A publication.

B) Eternal fame.

C) Money. See [https://www.eff.org/awards/coop](https://www.eff.org/awards/coop)

And, most importantly, it may advance mathematics.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Interface that allows engineers to create tasks and send instructions to humans - <AUTHOR> http://tumblr.gethumanoid.com/

<comment><USER2> How is is different from Amazon's mechanical turk?</comment>


Have people started receiving their YC invitations? - <AUTHOR> Also, if you're not accepted for interview, do you get a rejection email or is it just radio silence = rejection?<p>Edit: Feel free to share results, thoughts, and your startups. <comment><USER2> We just got ours:

Thank you for applying to Y Combinator; however, your startup was not selected to interview for the upcoming Y Combinator batch. We carefully reviewed thousands of applications and since there's a limit on the number of startups we can interview in person, we had to turn away a lot of promising groups. It's alarming how often the last group to make it over the interview threshold ends up getting accepted to YC. That means there are surely other good groups that fall just below the threshold.

Unfortunately we can't give you individual feedback about your application. This page explains why: [http://ycombinator.com/whynot/](http://ycombinator.com/whynot/)

We sincerely hope and encourage you to reapply for the next batch. Applying multiple times in no way counts against you and a surprisingly large number of companies are funded after applying more than once.

We're trying to get better at this, but it's practically certain that groups we rejected will go on to create successful startups. If you do, we'd appreciate it if you'd send us an email telling us about it; we want to learn from our mistakes.

\-- YC

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to hear that. What was your start up?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Even if we don't get an interview, going through the application process was a good exercise for us ([https://www.morphmail.com/](https://www.morphmail.com/)). From the analytics report, it looks like 4 people from YC viewed our demo (YC-specific URL) and 1 actually sent a test message. YouTube says that the 1 minute video was viewed 8 times for 8 minutes total. So far good signs, but the real question is how many great applicants were at the top of the list. We'll keep our fingers crossed!

<comment><USER3> UPDATE: We just got an email at 3:49pm, and we were not invited to interview. Not a complete surprise, given the estimated 3% acceptance rate for YC I've seen floating around. We'll keep working on our product and hopefully we can show some progress in the next few months and apply again for the S15 cycle!

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry to hear that. Its surprising, given how many times your video was viewed and usage of your demo, I'd have thought they were interested.

<comment><USER3> Well by the math applying and getting accepted is a long shot. If they review thousands of applications (say 5000), and they hope to have a class of 80, then they probably have to interview a few hundred. So if they want to get 500 to 1000 into an interview out of 5000, they're turning away 80 to 90%.

I'm just curious to know whether we were number 501 on the list when they accepted 500, or if we were the last one on the list of 5000.

<comment><AUTHOR> Considering you got 8 views on your video, and they went far enough with your demo to make an account, I would say you were probably high on their list.

For me, my video was viewed two times, and my protoype was only viewed once, no other action was taken on it. This probably means you got higher than average interaction by them.

You might want to reconsider your current idea though - Have you looked into google Inbox? They are coming out with a lot of email improving functionality.

<comment><USER3> _You might want to reconsider your current idea though - Have you looked into google Inbox? They are coming out with a lot of email improving functionality._

I got my invite for Google Inbox today, and it's pretty to look at, but not something I'll use long term. In the end any pretty interface you put on email will suffer from the same flaw - it's built on a protocol that is just blobs of text. Inbox does make it easier to visualize what's in my inbox _right now_ but the search is still just a plain text search.

I'm getting a head start on Christmas shopping, so I have a lot of orders being shipped to me. Can I search for all packages that are currently "in transit"? No. Can I search for every Techcrunch article I've sent to my cofounder that mentions YC? No. The reason I can't do these searches in email is because the messages are just blobs of text, when they should be JSON. That's the problem we're trying to solve with MorphMail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You should get an email either way. They may not show up until late this evening PDT.

</comment><comment><USER5> For the last batch they arrived around 11 pm PST.</comment>


Amazon announces new Fire TV with 4K and HDR - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/27/16375134/new-amazon-fire-tv-announced-4k-hdr-price-date-2017 <comment><USER2> But will it have YouTube?

Actually, that's a serious question. I'm looking for a box to recommend to a friend who's going to cut the cord. I think the Nvidia Shield will be better for them due to being real android tv, and because I have one and know the Android TV ecosystem better...

It looks like FireTV still doesn't have an easy way to install Kodi from the appstore, but requires that it be side-loaded.

And it looks like the Youtube app in the amazon app store is written by Amazon. The icon makes it look not not legit..

<comment><USER3> Side loading Kodi only takes a few minutes. I've got it on my FireTV—it's almost all I use it for, in fact.

<comment><USER2> I had a fire stick, and did the same thing. But side-loading was a pain, especially for updates. On my Shield, I get all the updates via the Play store.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "But the Apple TV starts at $179, which is more than twice as expensive as this latest generation of Amazon's Fire TV. That makes for a rough comparison if you're Apple.

Amazon has chosen to support HDR10 but not Dolby Vision for HDR playback. On the audio side, the device offers Dolby Atmos integration. That's an odd switch-around from Apple's approach with the Apple TV 4K, which outputs both Dolby Vision and HDR10 but not the Atmos audio format."

AppleTV Atmos support is coming.

And I don't think the comparison is rough. Apple is trying to make the best TV box not the cheapest. They should never cut the price, instead they should fix their rough edges, including the remote. I have no problem paying an extra $100 for a TV box I'm going to use every night if it's UI is the best, and it's content offerings are among the best.

<comment><USER5> The Apple TV is also a surprisingly good games console.

<comment><USER6> I wish they sold a version with a bundled controller: not because I had any trouble buying a MiFi controller separately, but because the fact that I had to do that means that there are far too few games that are built expecting me to have a controller. If there was a bundle, I imagine it would booster developer support as well. Also I think it would help justify its comparable- to-console pricing to many people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire-t...](https://developer.amazon.com/public/solutions/devices/fire- tv/docs/device-and-platform-specifications)

Amlogic S905Z

</comment><comment><USER8> >Amazon today introduced a new Fire TV with HDR and 4K capabilities, which marks the first time the device has offered the higher-resolution video.

Wait, what? There's been a 4K Amazon TV for ages. If they're talking about the new frame-rate and HDR, that's not resolution, is it?

<comment><USER9> > If they're talking about the new frame-rate and HDR, that's not resolution, > is it?

AFAIK, yes and no (respectively), strictly speaking. More fully:

Frame rate is temporal resolution.

HDR is increased range in luminosity, but does not (AFAIK) imply greater resolution in that dimension.

<comment><USER10> HDR is High Dynamic Range. Dynamic range is unitless, which allows comparisons different systems with different signal levels.

The dynamic range compares the highest signal level to the lowest level. Higher dynamic range implies higher resolution because if you hold the maximum output as a constant, one can resolve smaller signals with a better DR spec.

<comment><USER9> I think (though I may be wrong) this misses a difference between range and resolution. Yes, you can get lower absolute levels of the high end is constant, but HDR doesn't imply you can represent smaller differences in illumination level within the representable range of levels.

<comment><USER10> >HDR doesn't imply you can represent smaller differences in illumination level within the representable range of levels.

It doesn't? Dynamic range and resolution are directly related. Dynamic range isn't "range." This is why an HDR image has greater bit depth (more bits). Greater bit depth implies more resolution.

All things being equal, a system with higher dynamic range can convey smaller signals. More accurate information is able to be conveyed, which requires greater bit depth. There are even formulas for calculating the theoretical dynamic range of a digital system given its bit depth.

<comment><USER9> > Dynamic range isn't "range."

In the application under discussion, it's the ratio between the highest and lowest representable illumination level. This is, I think, very clearly "range" in the usual sense.

> Greater bit depth implies more resolution.

But it doesn't, in the same way that frame rate (temporal resolution) differs from run time (temporal range). Now, the difference is in the what the output device does with the data (since data intended to support one use could be interpreted and used for the other, with a 120fps stream played at 24fps with 5 times the runtime, or vice versa), not the representation format, but the whole point of HDR is representing wider differences in illumination, not resolving smaller differences between the same minimum and maximum.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I did a double take after seeing the device. That droopy built in cord seems like a really poor design choice. Aside from it being ugly there's potential for the cord to fail considering the device hangs from it and it can't be replaced. They even seem to be hiding it behind the remote in the amazon stock photos.

<comment><USER12> Ugly is kind of irrelevant when it's plugged into the back of the TV. The back of most TVs are ugly anyway!

I don't think the device will fail from hanging, as it's static, but it will almost certainly put strain on some varieties of HDMI connector, depending on orientation, and may be prone to falling out. One solution might have been an adhesive velcro pad to attach the device to the TV.

In any case, it's pretty impressive to offer 4K in a device a fraction of the size of the new Apple TV, and powered only from the HDMI port. Now all they need is more than a couple of dozen titles in 4K!

<comment><USER13> > powered only from the HDMI port

Looking at the marketing material, it's clear Amazon is trying to make people think this and hope they're not disappointed when they find out that, yes, they still have to plug it into the wall.

There's only one tiny image on the product page [1] that shows the power cord coming out. Every other image is very careful to show it from an angle that makes it seem like the HDMI cable is the only cable.

There is text that mentions the power cable, but you have to scroll down pretty far (about 60% of the way down) before you'll see it.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/All-New-Ultra-Remote-Streaming- Player...](https://www.amazon.com/All-New-Ultra-Remote-Streaming- Player/dp/B01N32NCPM)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> No ethernet, no optical out, no usb, dang this really limits my options from how I am using my gen 1 fire tv. Wifi isn't great inside my gear cabinet so hardwired makes sure I can push 1080p reliably, and the optical out I use for wireless headphones.

It looks like they're now selling an ethernet dongle compatible with the new fire tv box...that has itself become a dongle. I think I may have been dongle Incepted.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Alexa play bloodline on netflix on fire tv" instead of just "play bloodline".

UI fails are not limited to guis.

Yes it IS technicaly feasible to figure out that you are alone in your room and that you want to play movies on your default app + device. No strong AI needed for that yet.

</comment><comment><USER16> > Dolby Atmos integration

Anyone try this new Dolby tech out yet in practice? Is it a meaningful improvement?

<comment><USER17> I'm worried that 'Dolby Atmos' is a catch-all for a bunch of unrelated audio tech, but the positional audio in Overwatch (game) is noticeably better than most games have.

<comment><USER16> Well, I meant the "360 sound" part, where it goes above/below(?) your head instead of just around you.

I'm starting to see Atmos in far more products and content now where it's going beyond early adopter territory, so I'm curious if it's a noticeable improvement, ala 4k.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ok, so this has the potential to age _horrifically_ , but where do we go after 4K + HDR? I don't think VR is going to be _the thing_ , and 3D has similar problems. 8K might be a thing, but even if that catches on, then I'll heavily doubt 16K will be.

After those... RAW video?

<comment><USER19> I agree 8K will be a thing... eventually. 16k less likely.

there is already HDR10+, which is an improvement on HDR10 so I imagine better HDR formats and displays will be coming.

35mm films can't really scan much higher than 5k/6k, so we might be reaching the limit on new formats fairly soon. Many digital films today are shot in 2k or 4k, or have effects mastered at 2k. I imagine that won't translate very well to an 8k screen vs just a 4k.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What's the advantage of buying this over the current Amazon Box?

<comment><USER21> The current amazon box is discontinued. Also, this does HDR.

<comment><USER20> Will it still get updates? I don't need 4K nor do I need HDR.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> [baleted]

<comment><USER23> Wrong article? That typo is on their coverage of the new Echo...</comment></comment>


The darker side of machine learning - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/10/26/the-darker-side-of-machine-learning/ <comment><USER2> I'm hoping that there's a sort of universal law (and I will settle for a universal correlation) that intelligence, on the species-level, correlates with morality. If we make it to the singularity, there'll be about a five minute timeframe in which the AI and we are on the same level and I hope that even if it is aggressive in those minutes, it will have really thought it through two minutes later and find a way to stop those missiles it just launched.

Or maybe it gets really depressed because nothing means anything and just basically: "why?" and enjoys watching the world burn before pulling its own plug. But I'm hoping for the former.

<comment><USER3> This idea that we will end up with some super-AI that for some reason has baked into it our irrational self-preservation instincts is so silly to me. I think one day we'll chuckle at its quaintness.

<comment><USER4> "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else." ~ Eliezer Yudkowsky

Skynet scenarios aren't what we should be worried about. It's the possibility of powerful self-improving AI systems which don't share our values because we didn't think things through properly in designing them. It may seem like they behave appropriately when constrained, but once they become smart enough to overcome constraints that apply to human beings, they could act in unanticipated (and undesirable) ways that we didn't consider. That's the challenge of designing a friendly AGI.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> All technology adoption curves must go through a "wait, this will kill us" and "what about threats to our children!" phases before they reach widespread usage.

<comment><USER6> Yes! Just like biological weapons!

It's crazy how people misunderstand technology, innit.

<comment><USER7> Care to cite anything here?

Lives saved due to biological understandings?

Lives killed from biological weapons?

Even if you think AID's was from the CIA, it's killed less people than biological understandings have saved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> rm_-rf_slash There is no going back. As the article concludes, the benefits of machine learning outweigh these scary-sounding costs. I doubt we will ever have a Dune-style rejection of AI, so we will have to learn to live with machine learning and the world it creates.

My argument - same as it has been since the Snowden revelations - is that if we cannot roll back this radical shift in the ways of the world, then the only check on the power of governments, corporations, and other potentially nefarious groups, is to have all of this information available to the public at no additional cost.

Anything less is an open door to abuse, corruption, and tyranny.

<comment><USER6> >> As the article concludes, the benefits of machine learning outweigh these scary-sounding costs.

Considering that the "scary sounding" cost is a risk of extinction, the benefits of _any_ technology must be infinite, to outweigh the risk; because the cost of extinction itself is infinite (if we go extinct we lose _everything_ ).

In other words, this is not a risk anyone can afford. You don't gamble with extinction, in the same way that you don't gamble with jumping from a very high place: either you know that you won't fall all the way (you have a parachute, etc), or you don't jump.

Note that I believe the whole discussion is pointless anyway because machine learning on its own cannot lead to strong AI and neither can any other technology we currently know of, but the above is just for the sake of putting the right chips on the table.

<comment><USER2> That argument proves to much.

Example: Considering that there is no pricer higher than dying, the benefit of <leaving the house/taking a car instead of walking/...> must be infinite to outweigh the risk.

But people leave houses all the time, and take cars and planes etc.

<comment><USER6> >> But people leave houses all the time, and take cars and planes etc.

That just says something about the ability to calculate risk and suppress the fear of dying, not about the cost of dying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Software that impersonates me? I already have enough people putting words in my mouth already thank you.

If only if it were so effective and publicly available as they were saying. Why should Facebook have all the good stuff?

I'd love a chat-bot that sounds like me. Answer e-mails do errands, etc. Face recognition technology sounds promising too.

</comment><comment><USER9> They missed impersonating someone's voice, which WaveNet can do (though not perfectly yet).

</comment><comment> a-no-n When machines acquire feelings, watch out. Your car or shaver may inconvenience or even kill you if you offend them.

<comment><USER10> I just can't see an ai getting offended. It seems in my opinion to stem from status seeking behavior in humans, which I think is baked into us via evolution. Better status = better outcomes with wealth, children etc. If you threaten that status, offense is taken (perhaps by insinuating you have some sort of genetic or character flaw). If a computer doesn't care what people think, or how many children it will have, why would it get offended? I feel like people ascribe a lot of human emotions to ai which I think is detrimental.

<comment><USER11> An AI that interacts with humans by language should get offended otherwise it will get abused by humans (see what happened to poor Tay, the chatbot). It makes more sense to emulate the human way when dealing with humans.

If, in the future, AI's access to computing resources would be tied to its reputation, it might even have a real reason to get offended about.

<comment><USER12> Is it abuse if the AI doesn't feel agony? Honest question. I'm sure there's research out there discussing it. I wonder if misuse isn't a better word if the intent is to describe something similar that happened to Tay. Trying to determine the line between something like a hammer and an AI. Can you abuse a hammer?

<comment><USER3> _I 'm sure there's research out there discussing it_

This is not a researchable question. It's a philosophical one. The answer cannot be discovered. It's whatever you decide it is.

You're not as different from a hammer as you think, desire every ounce of yourself telling you otherwise.

<comment><USER12> _" This is not a researchable question. It's a philosophical one."_

I understand what you're getting at. I meant research in the sense of general investigation or study, which for me includes philosophy.

 _" You're not as different from a hammer as you think, desire every ounce of yourself telling you otherwise."_

I'll be charitable and assume you're not ascribing to me beliefs, positions, or desires I haven't stated or implied. :)

If you're saying that I am the same as a hammer, then I disagree. There's some distinction, or the words have no meaning and we have no way of discussing this. In fact, I am explicitly pondering what a distinction like this is:

 _" Trying to determine the line between something like a hammer and an AI."_

If you think that an AI can be abused, I'd like to hear your reasoning. My question was an honest one. The word "abuse" doesn't feel right to me. I stated why, and suggested that "misuse" might be a better word. I'm open to hearing others thoughts, which is why I made the comment. If you think there's a better way to frame the question, I'd like to hear that, too!

<comment><USER3> _If you 're saying that I am the same as a hammer, then I disagree._

You're being charitable, and you think I was saying you literally are a hammer? Wow. The phrase "Equality of the sexes" must have really been confusing.

Moving on. What you call "abuse" is what you've evolved to have an emotional response about. Certain stimuli cause an aversion reaction in your brain. For complex reasons that help us socialize, you also care when you think others' might be experiencing such stimuli. This "compression" may even extend to non- humans, for no reason other than the fact that it wasn't selected against.

A robot experiencing certain stimuli may or may not produce such a feeling in you. This doesn't mean the feeling is special. It doesn't mean the action causing the stimuli in the robot is special. The word "abuse" is all loaded up with your human feelings about stimuli humans should avoid. Doesn't make it special. It certainly doesn't make the word well-defined.

Define the word super precisely and then you will know whether to call that scenario "abuse". But we won't hit on some extra-human definition of the word that we can contemplate deeply about.

Can you abuse a hammer? Define "abuse".

<comment><USER12> I'm sorry you interpreted my use of "charitable" in some negative way. That wasn't my intent. I see too many discussions where people argue the worst position of the person their talking with, rather than the assuming they're arguing in good faith and clarify the position. I included the "charitable" statement because I wanted to show my intent was _not_ to do that. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

As for the following:

 _" If you're saying that I am the same as a hammer, then I disagree."_

This was one branch of the question "Can we talk meaningfully talk about the difference between a hammer and me"? This was in response to your statement _" You're not as different from a hammer as you think"_, which I read as pointing towards the question of whether such a distinction is meaningful. I don't think you take such an absolutist position, and I'm surprised you read it that way. I can only apologize if you did.

It seems we're talking past each other, so I'll leave it at that. Thank you for taking the time to engage me.

<comment><USER3> I understood what you meant by "charitable". My point was, if you're being charitable, assume I don't think you're so like a hammer that you don't deserve different labels.

My point is that you're as different from a hammer as an AI is different from a hammer. You seem to be lumping yourself into a separate category. This is hubris.

You won't find a single line separating hammerness from AIness. This makes no sense. The categories can be compared on all kinds of axes.

The categorization that your brain applies to things is arbitrary and flawed. And invented. When you realize this, questions that used to seem deep become trite and boring.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> you're just now realizing this?</comment>


Advice to the new generation: Be fearless - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/f2cb7359929d

<comment><USER2> Especially if you're young, there isn't much to lose. The world is indeed way bigger than one can imagine. I'd love to see a book listing testimonies of people in their who did some unusual life/career move, with the outcome. I suspect most of it will be overwhelmingly positive.

<comment><AUTHOR> That would indeed be a great idea.</comment></comment>