skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some times it is.

Go look at great pixel art from the 80's and 90's era on an analog CRT.

Overall, modern displays do more and are better in every way. But, I find watching SD media is best on analog SD media.

Or I see a movie in ultra high resolution. Looks like a set. I can see it. But my copy of "How The West Was Won" reissued on Blu Ray is one of the very best I've seen.

This stuff has subtleties that people appreciate.

I find it much easier to go looking for and appreciate art where I see it, and largely ignore the more objective persist of perfection. It's a good thing, but I don't always care.
I'd be interested to know how you got back up and running so quickly.
Honestly, I wish to have smaller instances like m4.medium or even m4.small, because right now I have no other option to use for autoscaling group as m4.large even if it's not more than 80%-90% underutilized.
Or because (1) the mechanisms for enforcement are weak at the state level, (2) because you're not controlling for other factors that increase crime and (3) the fact that massive gun violence has a direct causal link to more gun laws, you could reject the idea of state stats based on their "gun laws" being very meaningful and look at national stats, for example:

http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/gunsnosa.jpg

How about a useful state stat:

http://www.motherjones.com/files/gun-ownership-vs-gun-deaths...
Any time discussion of the DPRK comes up, I inevitably see many people repeating blatant lies about the country.

http://anti-imperialism.com/2014/08/14/western-dprk-propagan...
Yeah, I understood what you were getting at. That's why I was emphasizing the difference between commodity services (like driving a cab) and services that require specialized skill (like being a concierge that can get you into the restaurant, tonight, or a meeting with a celebrity). The former you can "scale" by throwing relatively unskilled people at it. The latter takes training, connections and experience.

Even Tesla isn't a good comparison. Tesla is making cars, the task that invented the assembly line. This more like applying "the Tesla strategy" to the job of a butler.
Science fiction movies are not even remotely a useful model of the outcome of either friendly or unfriendly AI. Skynet or the Matrix are not even close to how bad or how fast an unfriendly AI would be, given that the protagonists of those movies have even the slightest hope. And conversely, no science fiction movie I've ever seen provides any useful depiction of friendly AI; we're not talking about Jarvis or Data here.
1.) yuan devaluation -> (accelerating capital flight + Chinese companies needing to pay more on their dollar denominated debt (more defaults) + decreasing reserves + declining stock market/RE/assets held in yuan) >>> increased export

2.) yuan devaluation -> increased export + more money for business owners (whose money leaves China) + less money for Chinese workers/consumers + no social safety net -> spending is stagnant
See:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/29/bbc-the-voice-i...

Kind of a moot point now seeing as the BBC were outbid for the next series:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34756063
I can't seem to post a reply, so I'll wrap it up here.

I'm criticizing an ecosystem. Yudkowsky-types noodle with weird hypotheticals, others with elitist views get validation. Fantasizing of fixing our current issues with futuristic tech, using it as a yard-stick to criticize ie: a collective black identity from forming a political block, is not explicitly pro-status quo but ends up being so in practice.
For anyone interested in this idea, read "The Evitable Confict", the last short story in "I, robot", written by Asimov.
Depends, there is a tritium booster, essentially a little bit of tritium in the bomb improves the neutron economy. That could be called an H-Bomb, if we are not too pedantic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon
This is an excellent way. You will suddenly feel yourself humbled.
See also: Instagram
The leaders still can lose their lives. Which is pretty much what they care about.
back to the actual topic, I suppose8 it could be done today. (If you're gonna say, 'just wait til our benevolent omnipotent robot overlords show up' then I encourage you to sukkit.) But if you're going to replace human teaches, then you need your computer-aided learning program to know that I (for example)

\ find graphics challenging, but narrative is easy to keep track of.

\* remember events and experiences well, not so much facts and figures.

\* get unproductively competitive over desirable assignments.

And so forth x1,000,000. This is all the stuff that gets glossed over by strong AI proponents, and I think pushes it way out into the 2-300 year timespan the way we're going now.

I think that strong AI most likely to be a materials science breakthrough.
Or, worse, it's a thought-provoking article and you want to reply to a comment but can't.
Joyetech Cuboid
Wait, so the same people you think are unable to handle nuclear weapons, you would assume they would program the AI the way you want?

What makes you think that would happen?

Be logically consistent please, either people will not set off nukes, and also program AI "correctly".

Or they will set off nukes and program AI "wrong".

In either case AI has nothing to do with safety from nukes.

Strong AI is not a God, it does not have the ability to do the things you are imagining. Among other problems, what makes you think those things are even possible in the first place? No matter how good the AI, it still has to follow the laws of physics.
The Endless Mini $79 desktop PC stores as much of the Internet as it can
She's a very special friend, and I hadn't done much in the way of thoughtful gifts for her birthday in the last several years. She loves the restaurant and hadn't eaten there in about five years. The restaurant actually burned down shortly after we left the city to move to Seattle :-( We thought we'd never have it again. (I love the restaurant too, so it was kind of a gift for me as well.)

When I learned that the original business had been rebuilt and re-established, I thought I'd put together an extra special surprise for her birthday this year.

What was special about this birthday present was it seemed like an impossible feat, on first impression, and she had no idea how I did it. That's why what Magic did was so magical. Imagine having for your birthday dinner food from your favorite restaurant in the whole wide world, from a restaurant 2000 miles away, that you thought had burned down! Entirely unexpected and quite delicious!
"A "well regulated" militia."

I've never understood this argument. It strikes me (and, apparently, every court that's ever ruled on the matter) as legalistic sophistry of the worst kind.

If the First Amendment read "A well educated legislature, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." you would argue, what... that only the legislature had the right to read books? That only well educated people had the right to read books?

No, you would not, and neither would anyone else, because that would be a nonsensical interpretation.

You are trying to make words mean what you want them to mean, rather than what they actually do mean.
> If you have a moderate amount of disposable income, you can afford to have simple requests filled by Magic+ for $15-$30 (10-20 minutes of personal assistant time) several times a month.

Well, except that--as the grandparent post said--the minimum buy is $1000 for 10 hours. That puts it well outside "casual purchase, might come in handy" and into "must have a specific, long-term use in mind" for the typical middle-class income.
Everything you described is at least theoretically digitizable.
The correlation disappears (when comparing the 50 states, or all countries, or all OECD countries) when you look at all homicides, not just homicides by shooting. In other words, there is no correlation between guns per capita and overall homicide rate.
CNN front page 5 minutes after you posted this: http://i.imgur.com/JtenBY2.jpg

The colon I guess denotes that what is to the right was said by what is to the left. Perhaps thats a tricky way to say it.
Then what's with the "enough nukes to destroy the world x times over" numbers I remember hearing? Have we really disarmed that much? Or were the numbers exaggerated?
Yeah, I guess that's "not unimaginable".
There are many firearms (i.e. receivers) that do not even require CNC machinery. A manually operated milling machine is more than enough. A small charcoal-fired furnace and drill press is enough to make an aluminum cast AR-15 or 1911. No need for the furnace if you're making stamped AK variant receivers. There are many places in the world where you see these sorts of garage workshops. I always wonder whether the anti-gun public is aware of the ease in which people are and will be able to acquire firearms "extra-legally" in the event of outright prohibition or further restrictions. I assume not, but I prefer not to enlighten them lest they attempt to make aluminum cans and hand files illegal as well.
Oh, the Soviet Union, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kim dynasty?

You've heard of those people, I take it.

You're trying to set up a "No True Scotsman" argument. Won't work.
Well, there's m3.medium and the t2.* instances. Any reason why those won't work for you?
Its a response to earlier article http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into... by former Mozilla CTO.
I don't think justifiable homicide such as self-defense should count if you're wanting to answer a question of "should we keep guns or get rid of them"

Obviously having more justifiable homicides with guns is better than gun murders, because it's good people protecting themselves from violent people. I don't think a criminal who died from trying to kill me deserves to be added to a statistic to further an idea that "less guns are better"

Speaking of Trayvon Martin, we'll never really know what went down because we can't get in those two's heads, but I can tell you if I was armed and found myself getting my face beaten into the concrete, not knowing what the person would do next, I think I'd certainly feel justified in using a projectile weapon. If somebody is beating you senseless on a dark night, I don't know about you, but I wouldn't assume they'll just leave you after you black out. They may curb stomp you to death, they may take your gun and kill you, they may take your gun and kill somebody else.
Agree with what you said and I'll underscore the 'especially' clause of your point regarding rational actors. I encourage people to watch Errol Morris' Fog of War which examines the life of Robert McNamara. In the documentary he states that a principle lesson of the Cuban Missile Crisis is that "rationality will not save us".

Rational actors believing they are proceeding in the best interests of their countries can allow a situation to escalate and cause the mutual annihilation of their civilizations. This was the case when John F. Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev were heads of their respective states.

No one should have these weapons.
Updated List of Anti-Science Web Sites
Your house, your rules. Still won't make the stink of all those bodies go away.
Be sure to keep us informed if there's anything out of the ordinary. We're relying on you!
So the microblogging phenomenon is over?
I wasn't the person who took it on a "generic ideological tangent". That would be the person I replied to.
The part i hate is the asymmetry. I don't really care if people know where i am.

In the naive sense, there is a lot of value in knowing location. Restraining orders, for example, could become effective. "How did your cell phone get to the bank that was robbed if you weren't there?" stuff like that. Furthermore, politicians pander. being able to answer how many people showed up for that protest is valuable. what were their demographics? Perhaps this is an issue that matters.

But the asymmetry is horrible. You want real time access to my location? ok, but make the location public for the police. and NSA employees. and senators. Having a record, that's made public after a few weeks or months seems pretty reasonable to me. Having a record that's secret and controlled by a handful of powerful people, which is what i think we have now, is much more frightening.
It might even cause a news organization to write the first two sentences of its article about that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter suggests more widespread effects as at least a plausible scenario, though not by any means a certain one.

That aside, widespread radiation would ruin significantly larger areas (nuclear test sites intentionally avoid areas and conditions that would allow the spread of fallout, whereas bombardment would not); destruction of numerous functions of society and common services would kill many more.

Whether some subset of humanity would survive or not, this at the very least seems like a scenario well worth preventing.
Bret Victor – Inventing on Principle
We don’t care that you “hustle”
How to tackle the React ecosystem
The FBI's 'Unprecedented' Hacking Campaign Targeted Over a Thousand Computers
Mind posting your medical records and tax returns? Once we see them, we can let you know what else we would like to see.
Thanks for posting that.
I think you're missing the point re: Blyth's comment. (I probably should have explained more about my reason for in for including it)

It doesn't matter if a theory is correct when "nobody knows what that sentence means!"

Blyth isn't dismissing the concept of time inconsistency - he's pointing out that models that rely on people making "rational" decisions are total junk if nobody actually understands the required concepts. Models that assume people would change their behavior because of time inconsistency should never have been considered in the first place because most people don't know what the term even means.

In a similar manner, I'm suggesting that while it would be nice if we could set up "markets" that self correct or allow problems to be handled locally, this might not be possible in practice.
I'm not sure how common knowledge this is, but Oracle is quietly going after any company of any significant size which uses Java in their software at all. It's not just the embedded stuff either; simply using Java in enterprise software is enough to bring them running with their team of lawyers threatening a lawsuit. These suits are being settled at large sums without raising any external indication that this is going on. It's not the big guys or the startups that have to worry, it's the mid-sized companies that know a long, protracted lawsuit with Oracle will not end well for them.
That seems like a bit of a stretch.

Who's to say strong AI will even be significantly smarter than us anyway? 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.
None of this data includes accidents, or other effects like a more armed populace means a more armed police force and the every escalation of violence that entails.

The real comparison is not among states with pours borders, but from the US to other western nations with outright bans. Chicago for example is in a strict gun law state but is right next to Indian with lax laws. There is no border enforcement at the state level so it seams dubious that the Illinois laws have any effect. Our rate is about 3.8 times the rate of the UK and its hard to see at a macro level what other than the ubiquity of firearms is the difference.
Agreed, that is a lot if true, the MIT article[0] gave a 3 billion number and also mentions that the latest valuation was determined by Fidelity not some silicon valley VC firm. This all leads me to stick with the assertion that I would not lump the three in any way.

0: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/541006/peter-thiel-back...
I use Debian on my old Thinkpad T61 beater. I use it for everything. Coding, browsing and multimedia. I am no power user so it kind of just works. My wife is using Debian on desktop as well and for years now has been no-fuss-it-just-works...so I recommend Debian.
The other side to that is that if you appeal, and lose, you can come off worse. So even though a criminal record is "something", depending where the lawyers feel your chances are, it may be best going along with it.
I'm not sure a binder and rolodex scales very well. I'm willing to be convinced.

Have you ever worked with a really great Grand Budapest Hotel style concierge? They really can do pretty interesting things, if you tip well and are willing to pay. But, you gotta go to that hotel and talk to that one guy. The software scales that person.
All these complex licences (GPL2, GPL3, LGPL, Least GPL, etc) do nothing except create confusion about which license to use. I have found a simple solution that allows me to focus on my work and not on the legalese; I just use the MIT license.
>...The biggest problem with America is that the government can not be trusted to follow the rules, their own rules.

Isn't that the problem with all governments? Like they say "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty”
They changed it. When I wrote my post it literally said "N. KOREA TESTS H-BOMB".
Swiss in CSS – Homage to the International Typographic Style
The idea of nuclear winter is a myth? Large volcanic eruptions have thrown up enough material that stayed aloft long enough to have significant climate effects. Krakatoa had the yield of about 4 Tsar Bombas and affected the global climate significantly for ~5 years. The worldwide nuclear stockpile is significantly larger. I guess it depends on how that is detonated, though, airburst vs. under material to be tossed up.
Can't do that every Bitcoin post on HN as too little time. Instead, I included some of the terms to Google in that and other comments here. Googling such things, especially with "pdf," is how I found the work. Following the references and related work sections helps, too.

Doing their homework for them just ain't productive. Not people riding a fad that is.

Note: A quick Google in response to one comment here led me to two, new papers with one having pretty awesome properties. Just goes to show how easy it is.
It's charming to remember that there was an era when you could document half your commands with "works as expected."
Since when is it a contentious issue to kill in legitimate self-defense, with a firearm or not?
That is completely false.
Here's a North Korean prison camp survivor's testimony from 2003. Try to read it without vomiting. This is the country you think should have nuclear weapons: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3071464/ns/us_news-only/t/survivor...
#Then #people #would #just #write #really #long #tweets #like #this.
From the perspective of political philosophy, I see no problem with you not caring about keeping your own personal information private. But that's very different than you proposing a government program that will forcefully prevent other people who do want to maintain control over their personal information from doing so.

To phrase it differently, in a world where individuals have perfect control over their personal information, so can still post any of your own personal information to the Internet if you want it to be public. It's basically the difference between saying "I'm not personally a Muslim" and "I think practicing Islam should be illegal."
Not to nickel and dime, because I appreciate your response. I had a hard time getting FedEx's rate calculator to show up on my Mac...

Still, UPS at 5lb from NY to SF Next Day Air Early is still $150+.

If I'm overnighting a meal it's probably not going to be a $25/head dinner. I'll go out and enjoy that but it's not an 'across the country' experience. It's not even a steak from a non-steakhouse. Here, it's a chicken alfredo with no appetizer or sides.

2-4 people is going to be more than 5lb after you load up on dry ice.

Anyway - like you said, I'm also erring on the higher side of "what, to me, would make a meal worthwhile to ship like that". But hey, we had a civil discussion about it. Yay us.
Based on the number of negative reviews on glassdoor, it could also be a former employee.
That is a very long article...

The point seems to be that while there's been a lot of criticism of snark (too much negativity), smarm (too much positivity) is also bad.

It seems to me that the way he describes them, snark and smarm are pretty similar: snark is being smug (acting unnecessarily superior) about someone else doing something wrong in judgment (like being ignorant or making a bad decision), while smarm is being smug about someone else doing something morally wrong.

I would probably mostly agree with the idea that smarm is bad, although I'm not sure I would have spent 30 pages on it.

He defends snark as criticism of smarm, but I think it's important to note that while criticism or negativity itself isn't necessarily wrong, it's the smugness that makes it bad. I'd probably describe smugness as criticism mainly for looking good to your ingroup, and for making your target feel bad.

For instance, I can imagine a good teacher criticizing me, but I can't imagine a good teacher being smug about it. Being smug seems correlated with impure motives, which decreases the accuracy and diminishes the trustworthiness of the criticism, to me.
What is your point? The parent made no error in his language. The inferred meaning of 'standard deviation' in this context is 'standard deviation for distribution'. The parent referred to an improvement of 3-4 IQ points, not standard deviations.
How to create a bot to automate workflows in Slack with Botkit
> Wait, so the same people you think are unable to handle nuclear weapons, you would assume they would program the AI the way you want?

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.

> In either case AI has nothing to do with safety from nukes.

> Strong AI is not a God, it does not have the ability to do the things you are imagining. Among other problems, what makes you think those things are even possible in the first place? No matter how good the AI, it still has to follow the laws of physics.

The laws of physics would govern the computational substrate on which everything else runs; what runs on that substrate can emulate anything it likes. 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.
Oh, a basic criticism of modeling assumptions is orderly. Though, your particular example of people not changing their behavior because they're unfamiliar with a specific terminology is absolutely baffling. The phenomenon exists regardless of whether people are familiar with the lexicon.

Whether or not it's possible to set up markets that self-correct is a different matter. They already do to various degrees even in current hampered regimes, modulo business cycles. Though, we must extend the same skepticism towards state attempts at equilibration if we are to be consistent. But far too much doubt becomes an analytical nihilism.
And they're more than welcome to trade their own privacy, although I think it's unwise. The trouble is when they trade my privacy.
From failing high school calculus to acing engineering math