skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Although I'm personally optimistic about driverless cars, traffic is a distributed autonomous-agent system: a failure of one driver is compensated for by other drivers. Someone does a "rude" merge, or an illegal U-turn—and everybody just modifies their own driving to let it happen, even though it's "against the rules." On the road, I'm not really trusting other drivers individually; I'm trusting traffic as a fluid.

My big worry is that we'll have autonomous-car-AI monoculture. If that happens, we'd lose the advantage of the "compensation" other drivers in traffic can do. We could end up seeing car-behavioral "prions": glitches in car software that cause a strange behavior, which in turn triggers the same glitch in the cars attempting to compensate for that behavior. You could see, for example, every car getting into a state where it thinks it needs to swerve "more right than other cars" to avoid an emergency, and thus an entire "pack" of cars driving off the road and into a fast clockwise-torquing circle.

Or, less eyecatching but more fatal in the near-term, you could see a monoculture-wide decision that works alright for single driverless cars, but actively harms drivered cars (and other driverless cars with other-model AIs) when the majority of a "pack" of cars is from the monoculture. For example, I could see a "pack" of driverless cars all deciding to jam on the brakes at once (because, say, a bunch of spike-strips suddenly popped out of the road in between them or somesuch)—leaving the one drivered car boxed in by them to keep going and crash into the vanguard of the pack.
The parent post didn't say anything thoughtful. The same spiel about Windows going down the drain has been repeated for years. People not using computers is just mindlessly repeated these days.

You're asking me to provide data or links to other arguments but the initial statement provided neither.

Why did you call my comment out but not the other two similar responses to the same line?

I could say that you proved my comment to provocative and took the bait but then we'll spiral into comment hell.
> I doubt this will be a popular opinion: Frankly, I think belief in the supernatural should be screenable in an employment application. Maybe it doesn't affect how you think about the world and how you think about solutions to problems but it could. Maybe you're prone to believing in unsupported theories because you've trained your brain to do so in your private life? Maybe you press on with an idea when you shouldn't. Maybe that will effect your business decisions?

As a Libertarian, I wouldn't deny you your right to hire whom you please for whatever reasons.

As a Leader, if you were applying to me for that job, I would take the position of "As long as your code works well and you're willing to work hard, you can go home and worship a flaming bag of dog shit and dance naked around it listening to David Bowie for all the fucks I give about it, just please don't show me pictures." and I would mean it.
I think you can dismiss them as less sane, however. You don't have to treat wacky beliefs as equally valid alternative viewpoints. There's a lot of totally supernatural stuff religious people believe that didn't / doesn't happen. The moral and community aspects are generally okay.
CA DMV's position is basically "let's try it with human backup for 3 years, then re-evaluate". That's reasonable enough.

Tesla may have set the field back. They released their "autopilot" as a beta, didn't provide sensors to enforce driver hands-on-wheel, shipped a system that works well only on freeways but will engage on other roads, and claimed that if it crashes, it's the driver's fault. Everybody else shipping similar capabilities (BMW, Mercedes, Cadillac, etc.) has put more restrictions on them (such as a hands-on-wheel sensor) to avoid over-reliance on the automation. Now Tesla has had to remove some features from their "autopilot".[1]

Google may be able to get approval for their 25MPH max speed mini-car operating without driver hands-on-wheel, on the basis of the slow speed. Google's system is much more advanced, and has a detailed model of what everything else moving around it is doing.

Expecting the human driver to take over if the automation fails will not work. The limits of human monitoring are well known from aircraft automation. It takes seconds to tens of seconds for a pilot to grasp the situation and recover properly if the autopilot disconnects in an upset situation. That's for pilots, who are selected and trained much better than drivers, and who go through elaborate simulator training in which failures are simulated. Watch "Children of the Magenta"[2], where a chief pilot at American Airlines talks to his pilots about this.

[1] http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2015/12/16/tesla-to-...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN41LvuSz10
This is clearly overengineering. All you need to do is hack your kinect to look for eyeballs; no eyeballs for a minute? Pause the show.

Might not work if you have cats.
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Either of you.
Trying to get a grip on the gig economy
The purpose of science is to generate correct beliefs about the world. If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work.
Protests, support growing for fired Lexmark workers in Juarez, Mexico
"Nasty" is just my personal opinion about the efforts to defund PP. And plenty of people here think CISA is nasty.

A more neutral word to make the same point would be "controversial." I probably should have written that instead.
I'd be interested to hear more about your story.
I've been using that app for years. Friends still chuckle when they see that app name on my phone screen.
As much as I respect not wanting to share location, the average user tends to be quite un-tech-savvy. Say that on average users without location services enabled makes 5x more wrong requests - that can result in hundreds of thousands of lost driver hours.
I've always been strangely fascinated by this project. I don't understand it. I appreciate the technical skill involved, and the amount of effort expended. But, I can't imagine working on it.

From my perspective, Windows is an inferior system to any UNIX-based system on almost every front. It has a very strong application ecosystem, but technically it's unpleasant to work on (for me). So, given that, if there's something I want an OS to do that Linux can't do, I would be motivated to work on making Linux able to do that thing so I could do that thing on an Open Source OS I enjoy using, rather than work on replicating Windows so I could do that thing on an open source OS I don't enjoy using.

But, it seems there are people who genuinely enjoy Windows more than Linux (or BSD), and are willing to work for 17 years in pursuit of being able to run an Open Source Windows version. I admire them for it, but still can't understand it.
https://gethuman.com/email/Lexmark

(Don't know if it works.)
Can you elaborate? As an extremely risk averse individual who prefers liquidity, how does a Vanguard mutual fund help me? I.e. an alternative to CDs.
I work for Overstock. Take a look at the company's stock trends over the last year to see the affect this has on them.
'Good' and 'bad' spending are pretty loose concepts. Sure, building weapons is worse than building tractors in terms of human impact, but when you get down to incessant government intervention in everyday spending, it's not clear that governments spend money better than individuals of any wealth level. Only a minority of citizens waste their money; while a majority of governments waste theirs.
Also pilots generally have much more time to respond to a automation failure.
If the automation fails in a car, even a 1 second driver response could not be enough.
Spotify Party – Introducing party-ready playlists. Mixed by us, tuned by you
Well, he didn't actually build the car. He built a system that operates the existing car's steering and speed controls. And comparing the proper software solution to a CRUD app undermines the work that's been done by the big players in the space for the past several years.
How were the masses of the W and Z bosons predicted by the Standard Model? And why didn't that work, to predict where to find the Higgs?
One of the biggest advantages of blockchains is that you can create your own private blockchain, and then hash the state of it every X interval and then put the hash on the Bitcoin blockchain.

You get all the the security of a 6.6 billion network without the costs.
I replied to your post because I saw it first. Had I seen the others at the time, I might have just moved on.
Lessig took on $50k of personal debt for his presidential campaign
Where did I ever say they were an unclothed person?
If you're looking up 4-byte integers, you can simply create a hash table, or even a dumb array as an "index", which gives you 1-operation lookup. Can't get much faster than that.
“Cloudera guys have learned from research work at Actian”
My sanity is perfectly fine, thanks, and my beliefs are not beholden to the standard you define as "wacky."
Presumably you can imagine a somewhat stupid robot that does random scientific experiments, generating good beliefs and bad ones. Why would that invalidate the good beliefs?

Belief A has no rational basis. Belief B has a rational basis. If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong. Even if believe that it was A which led you to the discovery.
Did people have to interact with every single Nazi to have a blanket hatred against them? Not really. I don't see why you think this is a new phenomenon.
I imagine that what the author intended to say was something along the lines of "An individual's political views are the private business of that individual." I think that's pretty clear from the context.
That is a very well put metaphor that we should definitely refer to more often when discussing corruption amongst law enforcement.
For a time, why not allow the cars in fully-autonomous mode on a restricted set of roads, even particular lanes on particular roads, at particular max speeds, marked as such so everyone, including the cars, knows what to expect? In the case of unusual construction particular routes could be temporarily disabled. This would severely curtail the number of outlier cases the software has to be ready for, be actually safe, and allow for awesome quality of life improvement for commuters on those routes who can do something else while commuting. And in the meantime, gain huge number of hours driving experience for the software, enabling the fully autonomous routes to be slowly expanded over time.
That's what I'm complaining about, MS keeps taking two different products and giving them the same name. :)

I have major problems with Lync/S4B's IM implementation. The most obvious are the lack of store-and-forward for messages to offline users and the poor to nonexistent support for persistent chat rooms (my solution: a "conference call" that's been going for weeks without anyone having turned on the audio). It's also very bad at handling changes in network connectivity, docking/undocking my laptop drops me from IM for at least a couple of minutes and often requires a restart of S4B.

I will agree that the softphone support is pretty good, but it's non-interoperable with our VoIP environment so it goes almost entirely unused. Unfortunately this has been the case everywhere I've worked except for one place that had WebEx and Cisco phones - those would get along with each-other sometimes if you were lucky, but it wasn't very reliable.

My point is that I've found the office communications landscape to be a terrible backwater of technology. I dislike Slack but I can see why it's taking off - most of the on-prem options for IM fail at basic IM features while adding VoIP/telepresence options that are non-interoperable and complex to implement and support. It says something that my employer has multiple FTEs dedicated to scheduling and setting up the videoteleconference rooms, because it takes a specialist just to make a call these days.
Way to have a holier-than-though attitude right off the bat. "Oh, look at me, I am so misunderstood for having OPINIONS"

Your opinions are that it's OK to casually look down on people for having political views. I think that's a legit reason for someone to think that your opinions are full of it and are worth downvoting.
As Alphabet moves out projects from Google, does that make Google a less interesting place to work at?

And introduce more bureaucracy as now Google Car has to negotiate with Google for access to AI tech, computers, maps etc instead of just using whatever they can?
Well yes, he only built the software that operates a car without a person driving it, connected it to a car, and did it all by himself. One person.

My point was that what 99% of HackerNews does is likely nowhere near as interesting or as difficult, so when the top comments are all shitting on someone who did something that's actually pretty amazing, HackerNews can go to hell. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I'm done here.
2015: The Year in Volcanic Activity
> "Does AMP work? Pinterest found AMP pages load four times faster and use eight times less data than traditional mobile-optimized pages."

A better question is: how much faster is it than ad-blocked webpages?

I think it's more about ad-blocking than "making the web faster". Also, it looks like it framejacks web pages so that you just visit sites as a side journey from Google.com, with Google's toolbar on top:

http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/opinion/2430844/google-s-am...

"From the search engine results page, users can click through to a list of AMP-compliant partner sites. Doing so will load that content almost instantaneously, as Google will also pre-render content above the fold for AMP listings. Once a user clicks through, there is a persistent blue bar at the top with a call to action to return to the Google SERP."

Do publishers really want a "go back to Google.com" toolbar on the top of their webpages? I'd rather encourage users to stay on my own sites.
I'm not sure where you're going with that. Ok, so we become wealthier if we produce more. The next question is, how do we shape public policy so that our economy produces more?

If you tug on that rope, you find that supply is connected to demand, and demand is connected to things like the money supply. So choosing the correct money supply can increase real output.

I think you're arguing against a strawman, something like "if you give everyone money then we'll all be richer because we have more money." But nobody's saying that.
No it is not. Like every simile or analogy, there is more that's not true with it than there is that's true with it.
Your move Slack.
Any word on what the license will look like?

Gonna grab the current binary to play around with, I love learning new styles of programming and kerf seems rather approachable compared to the others in it's family.
Copyright tribunal slaps Pandora with 20 percent rate increase
It's not useless - its humor.
> If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work.

Non sequitur. What you believe is separated from your work. Just like when you were a kid and your math homework had nothing to do with the fact that you believed wrestling was real.
Sec 102.(5)(B):

The term cybersecurity threat does not include any action that solely involves a violation of a consumer term of service or a consumer licensing agreement
How do the employees feel about the CEO constantly chasing one cryptocurrency project to the next? From what I've seen it's just costing them a lot of money with almost no success in any of the ventures but is the response positive from inside?
Aren't there systems for that already? Vizio's connected TV watches you, with a camera. Kinect watches you, with cameras and LIDAR.

Orwell saw this coming. Winston Smith watches his exercise program: "6079 Smith W! Bend lower! You're not trying."
> To me, it shows the outline of an adult, physically fit male human. Observe the narrow hips and wide, square shoulders. Compare with the shoulders on the "woman" symbol.

You have a point there.

> It doesn't mean sex segregation - quite the opposite, it means that in this building, toilets for both sexes are located right next to each other!

The notion of "toilets for [...] sexes" is inherently sex segregation. It's not "separate but equal" (in the ironic sense), but it's still segregation. Unisex toilets, on the other hand, are not sex-segregated.
Freelancer Available
Looking for a Freelancer!?

Every brand has stories to tell—stories that will not only engage, inform, surprise, delight, and impact their audience, but that will also deliver on measurable business goals. I am the conduit between brand and consumer a person in the middle and a community developer. I help people find the subject and medium that best fits their unique identity, and then I produce high-quality content that meets their objectives.

My specialties include business development, innovation scouting, program development, solution design, cross-functional ICT management and channelization marketing campaigns. I have almost 5+ years progressive experience in diverse strategic, proven tactical planning, program execution and change management from a non-profit sector. Collective knowledge in information policy, web development and extensive cognition in privacy and security on Internet governance matters.

Enthusiastic, result-oriented, team player, motivated, analytical thinker with effective communication skills.

Please email me for further discussions at mudongo[DOT]oarabile[AT]gmail[DOT]com if you have an open position you'd like to offer.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/oarabile-mudongo-71457453
You could just open the Wikipedia, you know: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no difference among groups

Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis — and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena — is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.
Sorry, my phrasing was poor. The searched for elements are indeed random, but the first few (and last few) accesses will hit cache. Depending on the size of the total array, the relative importance of the different access times vary. We were actually comparing some different memory layouts besides the standard "sorted" (http://cglab.ca/~morin/misc/arraylayout/). Our conclusion was essentially that with proper implementation, there wasn't much if any advantage to alternative layouts.

But there certainly were some subtle things about testing. In particular, there is a significant difference between preparing a list of random searches in advance (and loading them from memory), versus calculating a random number on the fly. Since the performance advantage of the branching approach depended on how far ahead the speculative execution would get, the additional µops for making the number sometimes slowed down enough to remove the speculative advantage.

But to clarify my earlier answer: I think the author is seeing real effect, and the difference has to do with prefetching due to speculative execution of the branching approach. This doesn't mean that branching is the best approach, though, only that a "naive" approach can indeed beat branchless at certain sizes. Both the branching and branchless approaches can be improved significantly with either batching or explicit prefetching.
What is your political affiliation that you shared? I am curious to know if I would empathise with someone wanting to delegate blocking people with your affiliation by a communal block list.
It really depends on the supervisor, which is a bit of a weird thing since so much depends on a single person -

my supervisor let me do anything I want as long as there were a few publications at the end (graduation requirement, and in academia the only way to get jobs), other supervisors just look for cheap work for their own project (~robots). I have a friend from the US who worked full-time for 7 years on her PhD and published only one paper! The rest was work on the supervisor's stuff. I would've switched supervisor after 2 years at the latest (but hindsight, 20/20, yaddayadda)
Do you believe God communicates with you?
I don't understand why Republicans automatically deserve respect from the 'liberal' intellectuals? If I disagree with someone on basic axioms of our society (climate change is real, xenophobia is bad, etc.) I'm not going to get much traction in other topics.

I agree with his other points though: liberal bias in science is a great danger and needs to be removed.
I haven't used Android, but culturally it seems like iOS developers try to deliver as much as they can with the permissions you give them. A voice recording app would probably just refuse to function without microphone access, but a video app will typically simply record a silent video if you give camera access but deny microphone access.

I don't know if this is enforced by Apple's review process or whether it's an emergent custom.
1) Some of the extant cars cede control to the human driver if things get too difficult. This is a problem because people will context switch away from driving and there is no way to get them back in the game in 100ms when the car needs help.

2) Engine failure is not a big deal, it just means coast to a stop on the side of the road with hazard lights on. Blowouts are a little trickier. But what about unusual stuff like hitting a deer? A wheel falling off? Or another car drifting into the side of our car on the expressway? Those are tricky but not truly rare. This is an area where implementors will need to compete yet purchasers will have a very incomplete view of the relative performance of cars on the market (it's not a single number like HP).

3) Hitting a pole instead of a person is an easy choice. Yet one that many humans would not be able to make quickly enough. I think autonomous cars will outperform human drivers in "moral" decision making quite early on.
i do my development on windows and my servers are ubuntu. I have had no such problems running.

You need to install the proper prereqs for node-gyp, but those are clearly explained on the node-gyp docs.
What're a few good examples of "true, crazy visionaries"? The only ones I can think of were academics: Ted Nelson with Project Xanadu, Douglas Engelbart with his Mother of All Demos, etc.

You could say Jobs and Wozniak had to be "true, crazy visionaries" to implement Xerox PARC's research in the form of a relatively-cheap desktop microcomputer, but I don't think that's quite right; seeing the potential in a working prototype is a lot easier than having the vision required to build that prototype in the first place.
> This basic privacy/security feature has been in iOS since forever.

IOs originally had no permission system at all.

> talk to me when Android gets this basic feature in 6.0.

Half a year ago.
Goldman Sachs: What If I Told You [pdf]
The converse is true also.
What the hell are you talking about?

Scientists do not believe in parallel universes, dark matter and all the other stuff you mentioned.
They hypothesize about them, then they try to formulate theories and then they try to test these
theories, by means of experiments.

When they do get to perform comprehensive experiments then, depending on the results, finally know what the
truth is.

Not so much the same as with the beardy invisible man living in the sky now is it?
in the meantime I found this
https://togetherjs.com/

which looks very good so far