skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The thing that I think is missed in the "getting rid of QA" debate is the size of releases. When you're deploying continuously, the size of what's changing drops substantially. Adding QA as a gating step in the process between developers and production is inefficient and, worse yet, QA will be overwhelmed by the number of rounds of QA they're forced to perform. It's not uncommon for QA regression testing to take days so when there are multiple releases per day, you can see the problem with putting QA between development and production.

That's not to say that dedicated QA doesn't have a purpose. They can and should be testing the live code on a regular basis (weekly or daily, depending on how long the testing cycle takes). But automated tests are what's responsible for ensuring that nothing arrives in production in a completely-broken state and it's assumed that the benefits of continually shipping software will outweigh the downsides of occasionally having subtle bugs in production. And even with QA involved, bugs will make it through the process. At that point, the expedited process of pushing code to production becomes a huge win. Testing strategies often aim for the best MTBF, but when that comes at the cost of MTTF, it's not always a good thing. We've had bugs that were fixed in production less than 10 minutes after the bug is filed.

The other point that gets missed is that people assume that there's no manual QA happening and a developer's careless change just goes to production and wreaks havoc. This ignores the code review process, which is crucial to delivering quality software in a continuous deployment scenario. On my team, changes require 2 +1s before being merged into master, subjected to continuous integration again and eventually deployed to production. Moreover, if any engineer reviewing the code isn't sure they fully understand the change or otherwise wants to see the code running, a single command that runs in under 10 min will spin up an environment in AWS using the code in the pull request so that they can do any manual testing they need to feel comfortable adding their +1. When their done, a single command cleans up that environment.

The thing to keep in mind when designing a testing strategy is the context your software runs in. I would not advocate this testing strategy for code that runs in a vehicle where a bug could cause physical destruction. Likewise, I wouldn't use it for an application with access to highly-sensitive medical or financial information where a leak or data corruption could mean millions of dollars in losses/fines. But for the majority of internet software, the stakes just aren't that high and the gains from a streamlined development process will outweigh the losses from bugs that find their way into production.

Disclosure: I manage a team that deploys continually, usually upwards of 20 times per day. We're responsible for our own QA and have a significantly lower defect rate than other teams in the company with a more traditional QA strategy. However we still draw on QA resources when we feel like we're pushing something risky.
> > Inflation has been subdued for years and has recently declined further

> The reality is the free ride on inflation can't last forever and if the Fed fails to predict the future it can get pretty grim.

The Fed didn't actually care about inflation. It cared about avoiding a depression. And it did pretty well after 1940. The recessions were becoming progressively less severe, IIRC. Unfortunately, inflation was growing. In 1981, Reagan and/or events forced the Fed to get serious about inflation, and the result was the double-dip recession of 1981/82. Since then, inflation has been steadily declining (that is, the peak in each cycle is lower than the peak in the previous cycle). However, recessions have been growing more and more severe.

Maybe there's some kind of a restriction on economic management/control: You can minimize inflation, or recession severity, but not both?
The fact that monetary stimulus (a fairly weak tool; fiscal stimulus, which is Congress' domain, is the stronger tool) is insufficient to move things as far in the right direction as desired does not imply that backing off on monetary stimulus would fail to move things in the wrong direction.
Walnuts Have Fewer Calories Than the Label Suggests
yes! that is a much better set of options. I will file an issue.
well, the clever solution here is not to demand a stop to all AI research, but rather to speed it up to reduce the chance that a single bad actor will get too far ahead... i.e., to get "post-singularity" ASAP, and safely.

Definitely bold... might be just crazy enough to work! Would love to see the arguments laid out in a white paper.

Reminds me of the question of how far ahead in cryptology is the NSA compared to the open research community.
I recommend Citymapper. It's been super reliable and pretty accurate (although my impression may be colored by how bad the experience had been in previous years).
Perhaps his tone has changed in the past decade or so.
None of the people hired are AI safety researchers. It also goes without saying that all of the so-called AI safety researchers are philosophers. None of them actually work in deep learning or on building AI systems.
See Jonathan Blow's JAI language. It's exactly this.
>>This is about 100 years too early.

More fundamentally, we are trying to achieve what we can't even define. Define AI, and implementing it should be quite easy.

"Human level AI" seems like trying to define problems through observed characteristics.

I think it was Douglas Hofstadter who had said something to the order that we don't even exactly understand what 'intelligence' means, let alone a clear definition reducible to a mathematical equation or a implementable program.

Your chess programs, are really not 'thinking' in pure sense, there are trying to replace 'thinking' with an algorithm that resembles the outcome of 'thinking'.
i use a kiehl's product with ground apricot pits. feels great on my skin. very gritty and satisfying without harming anything. living in the city, my face is coated all sorts of pollutants, oil, and dry flakey skin after a full day in winter. getting rid of all that shit in the evening shower feels amazing.
> A driver for Uber does not get the chance to negotiate a fare with a customer and turn it down.

The customer is not contracting with the driver, Uber is.

Uber offers a fixed rate. Take it or leave it (just like our hypothetical Upwork poster).

Negotiation has, as far as I know, never been included as a test of employment status. For one thing, it's a poor test: there are plenty of contractors who don't have the leverage to negotiate, and plenty of employees who do.
If you take the quote above, and substitute the word "guns" for "AI", you basically have the NRA, and the NRA is not making the world a safer place.

They may actually be. Although mostly not in the way you're talking about, but there is something to be said for the dispersing of power. If one or two players have a power no one else has, there's more temptation to use it. If it's widely distributed, it seems reasonable that any one actor would be less likely to wield that power. (I admit I'm being a bit hand-wavy here on what I mean by "power" but bear with me. It's kind of an abstract point).
Microsoft buys nearly 160 acres in West San Antonio for data center development
E2's have to be financed by citizens of your country of origin.
http://startupimmigrationattorney.com/e2-visa-for-startups-p...
Insufficient fender coverage for bad weather, oops:

https://www.citibikenyc.com/meet-the-bike

Both the front and back fender need to go way lower, e.g. https://janheine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/singer1954.jpg

Your feet will get sprayed on that thing because of the poor front fender, and your back will be sprayed because of the poor rear one. If you have a backpack that sticks out, it's right the line of fire.

I can't believe they would replicate hundreds of bikes with this sort of obvious issue (to anyone who knows anything about year-round commuting on a bike).
Granted. But just because we can't realize the final solution to the capitalist bourgeoise swine isn't a reason against an ownership structure that promotes more employee equity. ;)

The honest argument is probably access to capital. When you boil it down, why would a capital owner trust a structure that was fairly antithetical to him or her and their pals? It's starting off with a fairly big black mark.

And then of course there's the "too many leaders, not enough followers" issue. I'd love any links that pointed to whether anyone has come up with a good solution to the tension between the efficiencies of centralized control and the equality of diffuse control in a general manner.

I thought Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars idea of a truly randomly elected legislative body was interesting. Jury duty for legislature, in essence. Albeit you'd probably need a separate body to develop professionalism.
Animals come in all sizes, and the big ones depend on the little ones. And so, ad infinitum.
It's also very unfortunate because such social networks are key in preventing individuals from going into "deep poverty" in the first place.
> and you didn't have persistent storage beyond the floppies it came on.

Well. While that was true by default for the majority of models, it wasn't for the A2500HD, A3000 or A4000, and the A600 and A1200 had internal ATA ports and were often sold with harddrives pre-installed. And after-market harddrive expansions quickly became common for every single other model too (including via horribly ugly "sidecar" type designs).

You're sort-of right in that certainly a large proportion of Amiga's were A500's sold mostly as game machines.

Note, though that generally even HD models were surprisingly robust against harddrive crashes etc.: You could generally safely assume that you could just wait until the hd light stopped flickering and flip the power.
Bush got scooped for his own domain. New tool saves politicians from same fate
You haven't shown the precautionary principle is the right principle to follow, you've only invoked it.
It's really not difficult to chuck waste drugs into some bleach... more likely, nobody cares.
I just tried to use this for the first time today (independent of the post). It doesn't implement the SOBEL() function.
Not sure that I agree that gov'ts spend other people's money. Once I pay taxes, it's no longer my money. I don't see it as that different from car insurance for example, I pay now for a future benefit.

That said, the connection between the money and the value may not be as clear. It's more holistic than anything else you might spend money on.

In terms of lobbyists or politicians playing funny with these deals, that's more a problem with the gov't than these deals.

I guess my point is that the "race to the bottom" has already born out benefits. This list of "most efficient gov'ts" has Qatar, Singapore and Finland on the list, so it's not like it's already happening.
Free in free market usually refers to free will, and has little to do with disparity or disproportionality. You can choose to define free market however you wish but I think it's worth noting that you're out of line with how most people use language. Your point that property ownership is enforced is taken, but usually that's within the scope of "free" markets.
> When I buy a face cream I should not have to worry that it may be killing sea creatures.

Exactly. But having to put such things on the label is a failure. We pay taxes so that the government can set up agencies ensuring, by means of regulation, that what we can legally buy is environmentally ok. If we have to worry if our face creams are bad for the environment, someone is not doing their job.
I don't think there's cause to feel guilty about flying or other technology. The transition to an advanced industrial society, in a competitive and violent world, requires ruthless forward progress if you want to create and defend your prosperity and freedom. In the long run, improved technology will allow us to stop damaging the environment. The best way to get there is to move full speed ahead. Between nuclear power, electric cars, biofuels, and other renewables, we are almost there.
Are you suggesting women would calibrate CCDs a different way? Or that if Brandon Eich was a woman JS would be better or somehow "different" (given the same constraints)?

The idea that someones' chromosomes (or identified gender?) influence the outcome of machines seems like it'd need some rather massive evidence. Is there a short summary of this evidence? And why stop at XY vs XX? Why not include hair colour or other things?
Based on Tumblr's past performance, it's a shock that they had a QA team in the first place.
3G networks that still use the A5/1 cipher can also broken with a rainbow table.
Unfortunately it seems the current market for public opinion that is the modern media is too inefficient, we need a high frequency bid/ask system that can implant ideas directly.
I've been passively looking to get out of my troubleshoot Linux job to development. It seems like there is only internships or senior jobs.

I guess an anecdote but managers at my company don't hire entry level developers because they don't want to pay what they can ask for and don't want to wait for them to get up to speed.
What's wrong with pumice soap that we need plastic?
No. The Fed buying stocks and bonds doesn't increase the price of anything else very much. Not very many people buy cars because the stock market went up. But if you hand out money to actual people (basic income, maybe?), then some will pay down debt, and some will buy stuff, and some will do some of both. But those who buy stuff increase the demand for stuff, which means people have to make more stuff, which increases the number of jobs, which means that more people have money to spend, and hopefully the economy improves on a sustained (non-bubble) basis. (It also cuts down on the amount of bad debt, which is helpful to the economy as well.)

The Fed buying stocks, on the other hand, does not increase jobs in any meaningful way. It just raises the prices of stocks. People with money then want to be in stocks, because the prices are going up. But they aren't buying stocks because the fundamentals are better; they're buying only because the price is going up. And their buying pushes the price up further, so more people see the price going up, so more people buy, and away we go. "Price going up disconnected from the fundamentals": that's a basic definition of a bubble. Add in the positive feedback loop of people wanting to buy because the price is going up, and it's definitely a bubble.
African campaigners demand compensation for global warming
"Just, wow" is people lying to your face. They always add more words after "just, wow".
Caring Too Much vs. Not Giving a Fuck
The Potential Cardiac Dangers of Extreme Exercise
I ended up just installing OpenVPN client and using my existing PIA VPN subscription. You can gain a lot of metadata MITMing DNS queries...
Nonsense. My entire argument is about her writing and how it was shaped by her childhood experiences.
But there is no precise definition of sound that encompasses both (or more?) uses. It could refer to either, and you just need to make it clear and the whole fuss disappears.
What are you talking about? This is the absolute definition of the Tragedy of the Commons -- when you have a public resource it is in everyone's interest to exploit.

The free market does not just mean "anarchy! take everything!" There's no market here!
If we're focused on weapons of mass destruction, I prefer a world of nuclear nonproliferation to the opposite. There are relatively few nations that possess nuclear weapons, and we have very few instances of them using those weapons against anyone else.

To argue against myself, I'd say that the difference between weapons and AI is that AI is more general. It's not just a killing machine. In fact, I hope that killing represents the minority of its use cases.
> And the quotas are usually too high for political reasons, to avoid losing votes.

This is a problem with some of those quotas - they're not being set up right. That's the failure of democracy though, not of central planning per se.

> A market solution would allow a fisherman to catch below quota and be rewarded in later years by replenished stocks in the waters he controlled.

That may work, in a type of business with big inertia (i.e. where you can't go out of business over a single season), if we could parcel water like that. Sadly, fish colonies don't respect arbitrary lines we draw on maps. I don't know if such a market solution is ecologically possible; fish need space, and they often need to travel.
Apple Pushes Users to Upgrade Their iPhones via Pop-Up Ads in the App Store
Super cool! Signed-up instantly. Great concept, but hopefully you'll find these suggestions useful:

- Pop a modal when someone hits play, and then play the video in a much larger format while darkening the rest of the screen (ie. theater mode). It will dramatically improve the viewing experience and prevent people from needing to hit fullscreen.

- Within said modal, at the end or in an unobtrusive part of the screen you can add buttons reminders.

- I'd love some sort of 1-line description front and center along with a button to click to get a full synopsis. I often don't know if I want to even click to watch a trailer without reading the synopsis, so ideally make this take as few clicks as possible. I could easily see this as a collapsible bit of CSS below the trailer thumbnail.

- When I signed-up I wasn't prompted to check my settings. You might want to make those preferences more prominent or add that as a "step 2" of the sign-up process.

- Any plans to integrate other services like Amazon Prime Instant or Hulu+?

- Wikipedia/IMDB/etc. have release dates and other super helpful metadata for movies that are relatively easy to scrape. Displaying some of that and then adding basic filters for release date, genre, country, language, etc. to some sort of top of page nav element would be really helpful.

- Search functionality would be awesome.

- Is this in conjunction with Fandango? Otherwise not sure why you seem to be relying on their trailers vs. the studio ones. Often times the studio trailers have no ads vs. the Fandango ones that quite often do. Would much prefer the official studio trailers. On the flip-side, I'm not sure what is involved with getting permission to post trailers and monetize them (like Fandango does), but you could have your own trailer channel on Youtube and monetize with ads.

- For adding a growth mechanism, add some sharing functionality that gives people a default message with links for letting them set a reminder when it is in theaters/netflix/etc. (which obviously prompts them to create an account)

Great start and keep up the great work!
If you actual had a vested interest to protect something though it would be more likely to actually end up protected.
Think about how long it takes a baby to learn (a few years). There is no reason an AI would self-improve multiplicatively in hours or days or even weeks.
How does Kloak handle metadata? If people can see who you communicate with, they can get access to your social network, which contains a lot of information.

By seeing my location dozens of times, a company can figure out where I live. They might not know what bar I went to last night but they will be able to know that I visit Chipotele frequently.

It's better than nothing, but it seems like strong analytics could still access most of the important information.
Hy Monad Notation - a monad library for Hy
What does detached mean? You just removed the comment? I'm certainly not complaining; I'd just like some clarification on the jargon. Thanks.
It is very sad that someone has lost their life.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-2492360 states that between 2008 and 2013 their were 1,889 people seriously injured or killed by a London bus.

I can't help but wonder if you might not be safer on a "hoverboard" than on foot or a bicycle.
Holding out the carrot of what sounds like a large payday to poor people in order to encourage them to do something that will financially destroy all participants except the winner(s) sounds a lot like what the gaming/lottery industry does today. He didn't profit from it, but it's just as cruel and damaging. He may have viewed it as a practical joke, but the impoverished children that resulted from this probably didn't find it as funny.
Are you suggesting there is something about drones that makes them fundamentally inaccurate? It would seem to be that advancements in computer vision will solve that problem in short order. Particularly with the VR industry introducing strong incentives for marginal improvements on image-based tracking.
You are not correct, there are people working on these problems who are experts in the relevant technical fields. Just not enough of them.

But yes, I'm also concerned about the lack of safety-focused headliners at OpenAI, given the message that they think safety is important.
Sure. Let me first start with this: There are four classifications to spending money (in this context):
1) spending your own money on yourself - this yields the most appropriate level of thriftiness and the most appropriate level of focus on the individual's needs.
2) spending your own money on others - this yields an appropriate level of thriftiness (I can only spend so much on Jane's birthday gift), but your ability to best predict the recipient's needs is lower than the individual. i.e. Jane would never spend this much money on a coffee maker, so I will.
3) spending other people's money on yourself - this yields a poor level of thriftiness (Its not my money!!!), but it does get spent on things the individual wants (although a bit more recklessly).
4) spending other people's money on other people - this yields a poor level of thriftiness and a poor level of focus on the individual's needs and wants.

With this groundwork laid, now I can answer your question. Companies spend their own money to deliver a product or service to market because of the profit associated with the effort. At some point, that effort isn't worth it, and the participation in the race to the bottom ends. Hence, companies that can profit at the end of the race win, and consumers win because the goods or services are much lower priced.

However, governments don't follow the same thought process. When the profit of participating in a market (attracting businesses) disappears or never appears, they don't experience the negative response and therefore don't make the same decisions as companies would. They may stay in this particular market longer than they should and their drive to participate in the market may not be measured in profits. However, somebody is paying for this endeavor. Taxpayers don't get a choice to "opt-out" of these decisions. Further, a fraction of the tax base may want to spend other people's money attracting businesses (via taxes) however very rarely will write a check to do so, indicating it's only worth it if its with other people's money (see #3).

I hope that helps.
You must approve all contacts who get a copy of your feed. There is no way to just follow others. It is a white-listed system. Analytics can only be performed by those you trust
> and it harms no one to finally get this accomplished

Doesn't it now?

See my detailed answer below [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10721003] as to why this sort of thing is actively harmful.

Sad to see HN downvoting legitimate discussion left and right, though. This is as bad as reddit.
Is an IPO the right next step for your co? 148 pg guide