It's contradictory for libertarians to be calling for more government spending on the economy. Most of the issues, like crumbling infrastructure, would be better spent not by advocating for effective spending, but rather privatization and letting people vote online on which firm to contract out to various public works paid for by tax money that we vote on how to allocate.

I think the hundreds of billions of tax dollars we've spent on privatizing the expansion of internet hardware/fiber is a iron-clad evidence to this being flat out wrong. It's been a complete and total failure with no accountability.

> letting people vote online on which firm to contract out to various public works

This is getting into an entirely different argument about direct democracy. How about just having an election and voting system that is better for voters and the public will, and actually being able to elect officials who are willing to implement a fair and balanced bidding system for government contracts?

Your next door neighbor Jim who listens to Rush Limbaugh 2 hours a day and watches mainstream news outlets another 2 hours every evening and makes his voting decisions based off television commercials is not the person I want selecting a government contractor. It will become a marketing contest and needlessly increase the cost to tax payers as a result.

Well, it would be evidence it it had actually happened, but the claim of hundreds of billions of tax dollars on this is very questionable [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7709556

Here is my understanding, which largely disagrees with the guy in your link arguing against the $200 billion statement:

It's 1991 and the US government says "our telecom infrastructure sucks". They knew there'd be tremendous economic impact based on the quality (or lack thereof) of this infrastructure. The monopolistic nature of a system involving hardware infrastructure installed literally everywhere on essentially public land (easements) meant that existing companies owning this infrastructure have no incentive to expand it.

The options we were faced were either:

1. Using tax payer money and having the government directly build out this infrastructure to the tremendous and direct benefit of everyone

2. Changing the regulations around the existing infrastructure so that the barrier of entries were lower and more people could theoretically participate in expanding the infrastructure

These two options are the subtext for the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The guy in the thread you posted is trying to argue that the act wasn't about quid pro quo, but about deregulation. He's correct but also misleading. The act itself is marketed as being about deregulation, but the entire reason the act existed was quid pro quo. This is blatant and obvious - the most visible part of the entire act are the goals that the telecoms were required to reach in terms of expansion. It's also funny how this is marketed as deregulation when there's a huge list of requirements regulating what has to be done by certain dates.

Of course, as it often happens, immediately after this passes we have the exact opposite of expectations. There is tremendously less competition and constant mergers to create only a few massive telecoms. Today it's literally only three companies providing long distance according to Wikipedia - AT&T, Sprint and Verizon. Instead of having a government lead initiative to expand what is inarguably a utility service, we naively trusted private companies to fulfill their end of the bargain and meet the legally required goals.

Obviously this didn't pan out. Our infrastructure is shit and the progress was/is laughably short of the specified requirements.

The short summary is: we allowed private companies to continue operating in a space they really should not have, or at least in a manner they should not have. We did this because they said they would, as legally required, expand the infrastructure. That didn't happen and there's never been any accountability for it. As a result, Americans have paid hundreds of billions of dollars to these companies in excess of what they would have otherwise paid, and that excess was legally required to spent on infrastructure and never was to any significant extent.

So yes, Americans were scammed out of hundreds of billions of dollars, even if it wasn't money that went to the government first as tax income. This is also entirely ignoring the economic impact from our lack of infrastructure, which could be estimated anywhere from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars.

You might not have looked at this closely enough, but "contenteditable" is really only one line that has been added to make the demo more useful.

The real thing this is about is the CSS. There are ~250 lines that produce the correct page sizes, margins and paged content and ensure that prints are as expected.

My question is how well the trained models interpret human meaning in joined sentences. I discovered that by simplifying sentences you lose the original meaning when that grammatically-low-importance word is central to the meaning. "Clinton may be the historically first nominee, who is a woman, from the Dem or GOP party to win presidency" is way different meaning than that if you remove the "who is a woman". I am also interested in how it makes sence to join-up nouns/entities across sentences. This will cause the wrong meaning unless you are building the human meaning structures like in ConceptNet by learning from the article itself, as opposed to pretrained models based on grammar or word vector in Gigaword.

My work for the future, is using tf–idf style approach for deciding the key words in a sentence, which I would recommend over relative grammar/vectors. In the example in your blog post ("australian wine exports hit record high in september") you left out that it's 52.1 million liters; but if the article went on to mention or relate importance to that number, by comparing it to past records or giving it the price and so on, you can see this "52.1 million liters" phrase in this one sentence has a higher score relative to the collection of all sentences. As opposed to probabilistic word cherry picking based on prior data, this approach will enable you to extract named entities and phrases and build sentences from phrases in any sentence that grammatically refer to it.

Things lower on a parse tree aren't less important than things higher. It just represents a dependency relationship.

You still need some way to find what's "less important", which is what the topic is all about, like by using grammar dependency or keywords infrequency.

I have some experience in this area[1]. I found keyword frequency worked quite well.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12356133

If you aren't getting a lot of use out of the features it provides then you are better off without such a heavyweight dependency.

I've experienced this in many web apps, which had major benefit from these changes. The same applies to managed code (C#), where just being mindful about how and what you write, makes everything faster.

sed -i "$ a\#custom shortcuts \nx(){ case \$1 in .tar.bz2) tar xjf \$1;; .tar.gz) tar xzf \$1;; .bz2) bunzip2 \$1;; .rar) rar x \$1;; .gz) gunzip \$1;; .tar) tar xf \$1;; .tbz2) tar xjf \$1;; .tgz) tar xzf \$1;; .zip) unzip \$1;; .Z) uncompress \$1;; esac; } \nf(){ grep -R -I \"\$1\" ./*; } \np(){ ps aux | grep \$1 | grep -v grep; } \nown(){ sudo chmod 777 -R \${1:-.} && sudo chown -R \${USER} \${1:-.}; } \nalias u='sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -y && sudo apt-get autoremove -y' \nalias l='ls -la' \nalias ..='cd ..' \nalias i='sudo apt-get install -y ' \nalias gg='git add . && git commit -a -m "." && git push -u -f origin master'" ~/.bashrc && source ~/.bashrc

More here https://github.com/gulakov/nodejs-starter/blob/master/README...

ran emotional sentiment analysis from an ipad camera while user scrolled thru menu items. won a prize in salesforce $1 hackathon