skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Let me explain this to you.

In the 1980's there was a country wide lockout in India, when the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi tried to introduce general purpose computing in India. Yes, the whole country was shut down in protest to prevent the widespread use of computers. It was assumed hundreds of thousands of people would lose jobs to automation, wages would collapse and India would become a more poorer country.

The computing revolution came to pass and nothing of that sort happened. If anything things got way better, uncountable number of people were lifted out of poverty to middle class. A lot of people who were other wise stuck working as peons, clerks, telephone operators etc kind of jobs were rescued and are now working on more productive jobs.

>>It's simply not possible for most people to do that, regardless of how hard they try.

If you have already decided(and know) that you will fail, regardless of your actions. Why think low of people who try anyway, and probably win?
Every time when North Korea wants to bargain for something, it tests a bomb. Nuclear crisis is the only chip for the DPRK to survive in between the US, Russia and China.
ALL measurements at a quantum level at least!
Agree with you. Twitter is way more easy to skim than FB or LinkedIn.

To be honest, I find the limit of 140 characters as its best feature because it is something that forces me to distill my thoughts in as less words as possible. A kind of exercise.
The optimal content for a post on Medium (which sounds very similar to a 10,000 character limit Twitter) is 7 minutes.

I wonder how pissed Ev will be when his old company steals his new company's idea - especially if Jack Dorsey gets all the credit.

[1]https://medium.com/data-lab/the-optimal-post-is-7-minutes-74...
Your false dichotomy ignores, "people will eventually set off nukes, but can write a program that helps them reason better, which helps write a better reasoning program, which helps build a thinking program, which helps build AI that is smarter than most people, which builds an AI smarter than itself, all the while refining our innate human belief and value systems into clearly codified rules which the AI is kind enough to abide by."
Crap, this could have really saved me over the last month - what's the catch? Have you used something like this? I think my last card had it (calling it "Concierge") but my current bank doesn't mention it anywhere.
this.

And the question is how do we get to that acceptable level. One option is a progressive income tax with a universal basic income, or (equivalently) having the progressive income turn negative at low incomes.
> Who's to say strong AI will even be significantly smarter than us anyway?

By definition of strong AI: AI capable of self-improvement past human levels; the assumption in my post is that it's possible to build strong AI.

> What if humans are almost as smart (obviously there's some room for improvement) as it's physically possible to be? Truth be told we really don't know that much about consciousness or intelligence.

We don't know that much, but we know enough to make reasonable predictions, and from all the available information, it seems rather exceedingly unlikely that humanity is the ultimate unsurpassable plateau of sapient thought. We have approximately zero evidence to support a hypothesis that humanity is anywhere near the physical limits on the capabilities of a mind, and plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis that we're not even close.
Oh, I guess I misparsed this originally. I understood it as "The order imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, and Lumos Labs will be suspended due to its financial condition after paying $2 million".

But, the article as a whole is more intelligible with the meaning "The order imposes a $50 million judgment against Lumos Labs, and the judgment will be suspended due to Lumos Labs' financial condition after it pays $2 million".
It's the same with compulsive issues (substance, sexual, or otherwise). People would much rather not know about these things, professionals included. Bringing them up is a great way to alienate yourself.
Can I have access to your email account? I only want to read everything you don't care about protecting. Promise.
Which brings us to the question, are they truly altruistic?

I haven't seen Gandhi, Mandela or Teresa complain that they didn't make millions out of their work.

Which finally brings us to the answer, these people aren't altruistic, they seem to latch on to whatever job they get, get stuck there, and then try to paint the altruism color to make them feel good. Deep down knowing very well that its the money they desire.
>For starters it's crazy to think that a militia equipped with a stock pile of firearms can overtake a intrusive government with tanks, choppers etc. It's just not realistic.

You mean like every single insurgent force in the middle east in the past few decades?
Eiiti Wada Mechanical Keyboard Community Interview
These aren't supposed to be average requests, they are there to demonstrate how Magic+ can handle even really difficult tasks without easy solutions (order me a pizza).
The Future of Workflows
"This simple point — that America is awash with more guns than ever before, yet we are killing each other with guns at a far lower rate than when we had far fewer guns — undermines the narrative that there is a straightforward, causal relationship between increased gun prevalence and gun homicide."

According to Table 1, firearm homicides dropped to 10,828 in 1999 and have actually gone up since. Which demonstrates that you can get statistics to say what ever you want. I have another simple point, that it is harder to kill someone with your bare hands that with a gun.
The problem with Homejoy, in my opinion, was not price. It was the fact that it made little sense to keep using them after you found a cleaner you liked. As a middle man, they simply did not provide much value.

Magic feels more like Uber to me. You don't use Uber once, then establish personal contact with that one driver, never using Uber again. The value of Uber is that you can get a driver on-demand, at any time, wherever you are; this is not possible if you just have one driver's cell phone number. Similarly, asking Magic to send some flowers to your girlfriend doesn't mean that you'll never have a use for Magic again. It's a middle man that can provide value repeatedly.

Magic's generality is why it might actually stand a chance. For instance, you could probably use it as a makeshift Homejoy, asking for them to find you a cleaner who will come to your place once every two weeks. Once they find you a cleaner, you won't need them for that particular service again, as you'll have personal contact with the cleaner. But because of their generality you'll be able to find many other uses for Magic most likely.
Not interesting enough for 5 postings in a day.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10836988

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10837129

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10841520

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10842164
For a limited time, get up to 95% discount on 17,000+ courses
Accelerating the race to the bottom since 2015!!
Re: the original thread, I was just using "the start of recorded history" as a convenient yardstick for measuring "ancientness" of civilizations. Of course the people and culture existed before that, but without any record it kinds of blends into prehistory.

I'm not suggesting having short history makes Japan inferior or anything like that. It's just a predictable consequence of living on islands across the sea from the culture center. (My own country's history is not much longer, after all.)
he is talking about Garrett Camp's (Expa) Operator https://operator.com
Not only that but the thing is built by guys who really know what they are doing like Bryan Cantrill and other former SUN
top people.
I said to myself that I'd start less HN comments this year with "I'm in a wheelchair and..." but:

I'm in a wheelchair and access to a personal assistant (especially for travel arrangements) would be excellent.

Access to a personal assistant in the departure country and the arrival location (to check just how wheelchair accessible that Days Inn wheelchair-accessible suite really is) would be phenomenal.

There's a business idea there, just that the market is small and difficult to cater for (lots and lots of different needs)

I'm one of the lucky ones and I'm relatively well off, but 100/hour (~$140AUD/hour) is way, way out of my price range.
Can I have access to your Senator's philandering text messages so that I can bribe them to make a vote you don't support?
The kiloton-to-richter-scale conversion for a weapons test is highly dependent on the geology and configuration of the test site.
Is there something wrong with me if I read every new git tutorial I run into even though I usually don't learn anything new? I sometimes learn a new nugget here and there but I think the real reason is that my fundamental understanding improves each time. Different authors have different ways at looking at the meaning of the operations.
> I certainly hope the set of people with access to nuclear weapons would not be the same people building AI, or we'd indeed be quite screwed.

Well, in fact they are, (or would be) the exact same people. But despite that we won't be "screwed".

Or did you think that if strong AI showed up the Governments of the whole world would not rush to have their own?

> what runs on that substrate can emulate anything it likes.

At what speed though? It's not clear that an emulation in a computer would be anywhere near as fast as the actual thing (i.e. a human), so it might not actually be possible to upload people digitally. (If nothing else, the speed of light limits how fast you can run a CPU.) It's also not so obvious that it's even possible to copy a brain, never mind running one.

All your assumptions are predicated on the ability to emulate a human in software, if that's not possible then none of what you wrote about strong AI will happen, instead people will continue to be people and AI will just be another thing to ignore just like we ignore all the marvels we have now.

> The major assumption I'm making is that we can successfully build strong AI (AI capable of self-improvement past human), which seems plausible but not a given.

An even larger assumption is that it's even possible to do that. Never mind can we. Can an intelligence program something smarter than itself? I don't think so. I don't think the AI can, I don't think humans can.

So far the only known method of making a smarter version of something is by random permutation and picking the best one. It's not an accident that all AI used today is by that method. I'm not aware of any that are programmed from first principles.
And, I think it's important to point out: This isn't just a scary story to make people side with you. This actually happened, albeit before the internet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare
Nuclear war would severely harm the nations hit. Russia as a nation for example would all but cease to exist, as their population is extremely tightly clustered in the west; the US by comparison is far more spread out (Russia would have to hit every single US city that they could, in order of population, and that still wouldn't destroy the US, but it would clear out their entire arsenal on just part of one nation).

The desire has always been to make sure everyone is properly afraid of a nuclear war, because of the destruction it would indeed cause. It's desirable for it to be considered off the table entirely, a true last resort response. There is a large gulf between an outcome that destroys all of the relevant cities in the US and ending the human race. The 'mistake' is an intentional over-estimation of how much destruction the whole can cause (Why? To properly cause immense fear, so global nuclear war is thought of as a humanity ending event; and that's probably sane reasoning). Back in reality, only a few nations would be heavily destroyed, and the amount of radiation most of the rest of countries would absorb wouldn't matter in regards to survival.

Some will claim it would cause nuclear winter, destroy the global food and fresh water supply etc. It wouldn't come close to causing that. Nearly the entire planet would remain fundamentally just fine (the nukes would be focused on urban areas anyway). We know for a fact that large numbers of nuclear detonations (eg 178 in 1962) don't just magically spread globally and start killing everyone via destroying the food supply or other similar mass outcome events. Specific small areas of the planet would not be fine of course, they would be completely destroyed. An extremely small percentage of arable land could be destroyed, even if it was specifically targeted. Within less than a century you'd never know a global nuclear war occurred as far as obvious signs in nature are concerned, outside of the specific areas that were hit.
Reviews of Arduino Starter Kits
Yes, Ivy Mike was in 1952.
Jumping in and having spent time in all those countries (I'm in China right now), I think Japan does have some uniqueness as a country that, until the Allied occupation which didn't last long, never was under a Western form of government or ideology (colonialism, communism, or Christianity / Islam).

Thus they retain some traditional forms that tend to get destroyed when a country is colonized or goes under a Western ideology.

Beyond that, I don't disagree with you but worth keeping in mind.
(1939) Here's, Heller(2008)[1]: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

[1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
Ask HN: Near Cliff, Job Threatened: Need Advice
Working for CA startup with an equity package, and near the cliff. Owner threatens my position.

What are the options? Kow tow? Should hire counsel to review my contact in case of termination?

Looking for best return on investment. Thank you.
I feel like I know even less after reading this piece.

It has an obvious bias - it purports to talk about gun violence, but then only talks about murders.

When talking about the dangers of having a gun in the home it does not attempt to tally injuries - which would be a sentinel event indicating imminent risk of death.

> Public health scholars have continued to research from a place of hostility to firearms.

Public health scholars are also hostile to viruses and bacteria. Public health scholars are also interested in promoting health of prostitutes and prison inmates. Guns don't make people healthier

To be clear, I don't think guns can be outlawed in America, so I don't think working towards that is a good use of political capital.
Counterpoint: wikipedia shows a formula that puts it at 44kT[1]. However there is a note that it can vary greatly depending on the fraction of energy that is converted to seismic waves (this formula assumes 0.5%);

That being said, 44kT is still way below what one would expect for a fusion bomb, and low even for a boosted fission bomb.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_magnitude_scale#Nuclear...
It's not a dichotomy (which is an "either this or that"), it's a both. Both options can happen, and so can yours.

Or in other words AI has nothing to do with nukes since what AI does has no bearing on if nukes will be set off.
This fairy tale about "non-violent drug crime" is interesting because it tries to get us to forget how many violent criminals are locked up THANKFULLY due to the only charge that stuck to them, e.g. their 9th felony possession charge while armed with a loaded gun. People would have us all believe that these peaceful minorities are locked up because the cops stopped them on their way to church, found a little "medicine" on them and put them away for 20 years and left his kids orphaned. It's just nonsense. So many people get leniency in the cases of repeated drug offenses. Honestly, what is a society supposed to do with people who repeatedly break laws?

In major cities a frightening number of homicides go unsolved. Though I can't say I'm a fan of the drug war, there is value in locking up criminals that just haven't been caught doing their most violent acts. Any time somebody brings up the non-violent drug imprisonment, and the socio-econmic downward spiral, yes it's true there are a small number of people who have been railroaded who could be raising their sons and daughters, but we also need the clear image of the killer who lucky for us got pinched because he made a different mistake. All the cops in the room know he killed his cousin but everyone in the project last year was too scared to rat him out. The prosecutor is going to push the longest sentence they can get for the laws broken just so that guy can't victimize somebody else's kid.
Erm, "Mutually Assured Destruction" sort of requires the destruction to be assured mutually, by definition.

There's no way they can destroy America. In the most lucky(??) case, they might be able to destroy a city or two before getting wiped out.

I doubt they could destroy even South Korea. (Sure, they can kill millions, but South Korea is kinda democratic enough to survive that, and you can bet my ass that the North Korean regime will be wiped out.)
>younger people that are tired of pure digital and want something more organic and different

Which I actually sort of appreciate (in my less cynical moments). Though, if it's just that they've never shot anything on film, I'm sure they have friends or co-workers with old still cameras gathering dust. Borrow one, shoot a roll of film, send it off to be processed, and the urge will probably have gone away by the time you get your prints back. You can get those prints scanned too if you like.
Brilliant article! so nice to see someone explain so well why people hate going to interviews!
All the reports along these lines seem to stem from what this prosecutor has said. It would be more credible if other officials or trial participants weighed in.

The omitted evidence he raised seem to me to fall under 2 categories:

1. Evidence that was very ambiguous (eg. the accused calling the victim's cellphone... suspicious until you remember he was doing business with her)

2. Physical evidence closely related to physical evidence that was included. My problem here is that if you think some of the physical evidence was tampered with or planted, then there's no reason to believe the other evidence is authentic. And if you don't believe it was planted, then you don't need any other evidence.
It is amazing that self-driving cars are so big a business that customized third-party products are selling, but a fully self-driving car has never shipped to a customer yet. It reminds me of web startups in the way that the business is big before revenue.
Yeah, that sounds like a bomb going off.
CoffeeSender
Use CoffeeSender to send anyone a coffee online. The recipient instantly receives an email with a custom message and a link to $5 (redeemable via PayPal, Square Cash, or debit card) which they can use to buy coffee at Dunkin' Donuts, Philz Coffee, Peet's Coffee, Caribou Coffee, or ANY coffee shop they'd like.
The numbers were exaggerated. Even at the peak we never had the ability to kill anything but a fraction of the humans on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_revolts_in_the_United_...
have you considered a B2B offering? I'd love to have somebody do what you do but with the software / hardware vendors that I deal with at work.
>>I personally do not care about privacy. I see no reason why I should.

When late 19th century Germany started recording census data, a clerk made the suggestion that they should also record each person's religion. No one objected. What could be the harm, right? They were already collecting age, gender, occupation, etc. so they might as well collect one more thing.

Half a century later, the Nazis were able to use those same historical census records to identify whose grandparents were Jewish, and therefore who must be Jewish, which greatly aided in rounding up those people.

So imagine: a piece of information commonly believed to be harmless to reveal about oneself became the primary method that facilitated one of the greatest atrocities in human history.

The lesson here is that tomorrow's government may turn out to be very different than today's. Information you willingly reveal about yourself today, or don't mind others (such as the government) finding out about you, may be used against you, your children or their children.

That is why privacy is supremely important.
Travel Hacking 101
I'll admit that I'm a complete novice on this subject but I think Transcendence did a halfway decent job of showing some possible applications of friendly AI. That said, I don't think I'd constitute the conflation of any human mind and supercomputing as friendly.
Someone can want multiple things. But all else being equal, the one who only wants money has an advantage over the one who wants money and feel-goodies, an honorable job, etc.

(Incidentally, it's not always the people complaining, it's activists on their behalf. Also, even if you would continue to work for a low amount because of altruistic reasons, there's still rational value in complaining insofar as you expect the complaining to result in a higher salary. But the rational sell-interest in asking for more money doesn't have any bearing on the ethical question of "should they get more money", and for that, we should remember that they chose the lower money position because of fringe benefits that higher paid positions didn't have.

Note further that this only applies to the reference class of "teachers, nurses, academia, science, childcare etc" that can plausibly be said to forgo greater value jobs for altruistic reasons. For someone that can't land a well-paying job because they aren't skilled enough, we need a separate analysis. But the argument OP tries to make that what they produce is still valuable to society wouldn't go through as easily; you could still say "everyone is valuable" or some such thing, but it has less power.)
> No one should have these weapons.

But North Korea not having them is so much more important that even mentioning other countries in the same discussion is ludicrous.
Why not round everywhere? Wouldn't this resolve the issue?
What happens if the rest of the world decides to strike first with e.g. a massive wave of conventional missiles and bombers, combined with a ton of defensive mines air-dropped into the DMZ?

Would it be enough to take out North Korea's nuclear capability and cripple troop encampments on the DMZ enough that they can't immediately launch a massive counterattack on South Korea?
Conversely nuclear weapons are probably the most significant reason the US and USSR never had a direct military conflict in Europe.

Absent the risk of escalation, I find it unlikely that the various crises wouldn't have escalated too, at least, the take over of west Berlin (and thus probably a subsequent land war in west Germany).
Wow. Thanks for posting, I had no idea about any of that. I mean, I knew NK was a serious human rights offender, but when hearing specifics really hit home how bad it is. Atrocious.
Animals containing human cells
If Jeffrey Lewis says it's "definitely not a successful staged device" (meaning a fission primary and thermonuclear secondary) you can take that to the bank.

https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/68457996242311987...
This extends beyond this altruism argument.

>>But all else being equal, the one who only wants money has an advantage over the one who wants money and feel-goodies

A guy 'X' who is frugal, saves and invests is going to be richer than a guy 'Y' who might be earning the same(but making financial decisions), in the same job, after a few years.

Priorities matter. At the end one must learn to be happy with their decisions.
Software engineering school desk setup, any feedback?