skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I can't speak for other schools in the US but I am an undergraduate in the CS department at Stanford, and it's fairly common to have an open-computer test to refer to notes and the textbook. Other students sit around you and it's most likely fear of another student approaching a TA that makes this enforceable.
>If the system is so flimsy that the only thing preventing abuse is a quiz and a doctors certificate, who are the "Actually disabled people with ADHD"?

You're right, the biggest lesson to take from that story is perhaps we should give patients a bit more scrutiny before giving them an ADHD diagnosis. This is still not a 'sweet hack', nor is it laudable behavior.

> However if you're willing to provide the benefit of an office, additional time, adequate cooling and access to reference material to a specific group of people, I say take what the system will happily give you or anyone else who goes through similar motions.

You're right, from a game theory perspective in the long run we should expect 'rational' actors who aren't punished for doing this to do it until we start punishing them for doing it. That is completely orthogonal to the question of whether this is the incentive structure and behavior we actually want. You're basically saying people should push any system as far as they can before the system pushes back. This is what a low-trust society looks like and it's not pretty. One of the major benefits you get living in a 1st world country is the reasonable expectation of good behavior from most people you interact with.

Part of maintaining that is social disapproval of people who are cheating off the charity of others.
> Honestly, it would take less time for you to write it yourself and compare, rather than to try to peek under the hood of a spaghetti mess.

That's not actually the point. The point is reproducibility. If you write your own code and get a different result, why? If the reason is the code then having the other code, no matter how terrible it is, allows you to figure out what the difference is. And then somebody is wrong and you know why and can publish that result.
The software or the code? From a user perspective, the editor is full of bugs and unpleasant surprises.
qmail and djbdns by D. J. Bernstein. But don't take my word for it:

http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/djb
The main difference between a thread and an Erlang actor is that with threads you have to manage resource sharing with locks and with actors you don't share resources. Instead you pass the needed data to each actor through messages. The end result is that it's way easier to manage concurrency through actors rather than threads. It also buys you more features; imagine being able to access all of the actors of a cluster of machines or determining what to do when an actor fails (eg restart it or fail all other actors under the same actor supervisor). I feel that the closest thing to the actor model in the thread world is probably Java's Executor (minus the cool features)

You can do actor model concurrency on Java (and Scala) with the Akka framework (http://http://akka.io). It's a pretty mature one as well. I've been using it for a while now.
What I'm wondering about is the economic justification for charging $15 per article copy. Other than "we can", I mean.
Well, I think Jonathan Blow's Braid is a beautiful thing. Many in here seem to be talking about the beauty of the source code or something related, but I like a simple well executed idea that is beautiful to look at as well. No corners were cut here - I think it is a work of art.
Twitter can predict hurricane damage as well as emergency agencies
Some examples from the book:

> Below the world of worms and burrowing snails we may consider microscopic creatures like the ameba, who oozes along by pushing out lobes or ruffles of his single cell protoplasm and just flowing into them. His locomotion system (often called "ruffling") was only recently elucidated. It works in each lobe something like an advancing jet of jelly that spreads like the crown of a fountain at its forward end, turning outward in all directions, then back in the form of a surrounding cuff that condenses into a sleeve stiff enough to grip the ground until, turning once more in the rear, it liquefies and pours inward through the center. Biologists used to think that a muscle-like squeezing of the sleeve's protoplasm at the hind end pushed the jelly forward like toothpaste out of its tube, but newer evidence strongly indicates that it is the continuous contraction of the jelly at the forward "fountain zone" (where it turns and stiffens) that literally pulls the central stream steadily ahead. So the consensus of opinion now is that the ameba advances somewhat as does an oriental king, by having his carpet swiftly unrolled before him as he walks, then as nimbly rerolled behind for further unrolling ahead.

> Another method of microbe locomotion, up to several hundred times faster but still slow in human terms, is that of flagella or bacilli with tails. Some of them propel themselves by a recently discovered swivel motion, each flagellum lash rotating freely about its axis like the rigid propeller of a small airplane, generally pulling from the front end and changing course by reversing the direction of rotation. So far as I know, this is the only true wheel motion produced by nature before man invented the wheel about 3500 B.C. and it is powered by the equivalent of a reversible microscopic engine, something technological man has not learned how to make even today.

> A different system again is that adopted by ciliates, common in mud and ponds, whose bodies are covered with thousands of rapidly waving hairs called cilia. Up to 20 times a second each cilium (one thousandth of an inch long) makes its stroke, much like a human swimmer's arm action, first reaching gently forward edgewise for minimum resistance, then sweeping rigidly backward broadside for maximum resistance, the beats coordinated in beautiful rhythmic waves of succession, like pistons in an engine or stalks of wheat blowing in the wind. Even some visible animals use ciliated drive, notably two kinds of comb jellyfish the sizes of a gooseberry and a walnut, and often called respectively the "sea gooseberry" and "sea walnut," each of which has eight longitudinal belts of cilia (coordinated by a special balance organ) that steer and propel it like a spherical Caterpillar tractor.
I'm a neural net trained substantially on copyrighted books, music, tv, and movies. Does that mean I'm a derived work, and consequently all works I create are derived works as well?

I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. Since copyright is so vague as to allow that interpretation, that shows how much copyright is incoherent, contradictory, broken, and, ultimately, nonsense.
There's a big difference between the rigor of the question of whether ADHD is a real thing or that of ADHD diagnoses being reliable in practice.

There are huge regional variations to rates of ADHD diagnosis. For example, it's 3.5x higher in North Carolina vs. Nevada. There doesn't seem to be any reason why this would be given that ADHD is believed to be almost entirely genetic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19648195

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4473855/
This analogy doesn't make any sense. Since automobiles were never patterned off anything in biology (they were the improvement of horse drawn carriages), I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the analogy.

I never said there weren't any developments in neural nets, I'm just saying that few ideas have been taken from neuroscience (there certainly have been some ideas, like convolutions). In fact most things (including most tricks in convolutional neural nets in their current state) a neural net does, we know a brain does not do.
IPFS

Just read through the design, it's very simple and extremely modular. It learns the lessons from previous related systems and applies them in the new system.
In the words of Alan Gura, the attorney who successfully argued in D.C. v Heller (the pivotal modern firearms case) -- because banning bullets is a backdoor ban on firearms. Firearms without bullets are no longer firearms, they are simply bludgeons.
I don't understand your point about coughing up $$. I used TaxAct last year and it was fine. There are a bunch of other options, including by hand on paper. My income is all 1099 too.
Greenbull Robot -Make huge profit with your forex account
He is selling exactly what a serious amount of people in this country want. If you don't know that then you don't understand America. Go work in a factory for a year.
Exactly same observation. It's very well written and I have been referring to it quite a lot!
I wouldn't go as far as calling that emodied AI, since the only percept is a camera.
I disagree. I think we need advances in philosophy to truly answer these questions in depth.
There is a large segment of the population (in every country) that responds very well to power figures. The same reason why people in Russia like Putin, and so many other dictators have been quite popular at times. Trump is trying to reach those people by acting like the power person in the race. On the other hand, a big part of the population is also adverse to power figures, myself included. I would never vote for an authoritarian figure and there are many others like me.
From OP: "In Erlang we create very lightweight processes, one per connection and within that process spin up a web server. So we might end up with a few million web-servers with one user each."

I don't see the difference between spawning a thread for each connection in other languages and spawning a process for each connection in Erlang, so I was curious if the word 'process' implied some extra level of insulation. Reading all the comments here it's still not clear to me what benefit is being obtained by having "2 million web servers" rather than 2 million connections.
As well as hitting the edge of the circle at right angles.
Your argument fails intermediate scrutiny, which is the minimal level of scrutiny a constitutionally enumerated right must be held to.

In brief, strict scrutiny is the most stringent level of scrutiny, and rational basis the least stringent. Operating a vehicle on public roads is decidedly a right, but not a constitutionally enumerated one, so it is only held to rational basis. Rational basis scrutiny allows a right to be curtailed it, on a rational level, the curtilage is related to a legitimate government interest.

When strict scrutiny is applied, it means that a much more stringent justification must be met. Not only must it further a legitimate government interest, but it must also be the least restrictive possible means of doing so, and not fundamentally burden the right.

Banning teflon coated bullets does not fundamentally infringe the right, and is narrowly tailored enough that it survives the least restrictive means test. Banning all ammunition cripples the right, fundamentally, and is nowhere near tailored enough to survive heightened levels of scrutiny.
Except that he cannot provide it. Most of his proposals would require to overturn centuries of laws and other American traditions. Promising that is akin to trying to sell the statue of liberty.
Then just make the Word document open access. Someone at Google or Facebook can come up with some machine learning tools to automatically convert these into the proper format and add cross references.
Being a crazy asshole is Trump's strongest suit. Hatred is a powerful motivator.
Too Many Blogs?
the lua vm to, the code is so small but works so well.
It's not equivalent, but it's roughly analogous from the Java programmer's perspective. You would spawn a new process much like you would start a new thread, but the similarities end there.
Can someone more knowledgeable explain why biological systems are considered unsupervised instead of reinforcement based systems?

While it seems intuitive that most individual "intelligent" systems in animals can be seen as unsupervised, isn't life itself driven in a reinforced manner?
Lack of financial support for GPL compliance efforts is also killing the GPL.

https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
LuaJIT is, indeed, a genius masterwork, but it's also very intricate and complex. I'm not entirely sure anyone other than Mike Pall could understand it completely.

On the other hand Lua (The Original™) is also a beautiful bit of programming, and much more approachable. If you've ever wondered what it means when people talk about "Stack-based VMs", reading through the Lua source is an excellent way to learn more.
True life has no rules
I'm sure it's hard to do well. My point is that Trump hasn't done well. The fact that he built a not particularly successful business empire with inherited money doesn't say much about his skills or smarts.

Hiring good people is hard, for sure. Has Trump ever done it?
Ask HN: How do I go about truly “understanding” JavaScript, or any language?
I can do plenty of JS and C programming, but feel like I'm not deeply understanding it. How do I take, say JS, and learn it to the point where it really clicks to the point where I can visualize what's going on under the hood when I write programs?
Google Mirror – I'm elgooG
If you haven't read them yet, I would suggest Isaac Asimov's Robot series, which discusses the implications of hardware-level 'laws' to which robots must abide. His take was that these laws would constrain behavior according to human judgments of harm and benefit. I wonder if there is another way of looking at it, one where AI action is not only constrained by human sensibility, but informed by it.
Some journal forbid doing that.
"they'll issue an executive order to ban one-way encryption outright"

I want to point out the reasons for which that's impossible -- that the executive can't issue an EO that applies to the citizenry at large, and that there aren't any agencies that specifically regulate software companies, but as I can't find a loophole that hasn't been leveraged to render my arguments moot, I can't even convince myself that it couldn't be done.

That said, on paper, executive orders are only applicable within the executive branch. E.g., the president can issue an order that commands his agency chiefs to interpret a law a certain way, or compel them to issue internal commands to change an action that they are otherwise charged with doing, but laws to which the citizenry must comply need be done via Congress.
I have Facebook blocked for the next week (because, you know, productivity). Can someone post LeCun's comment here?
%s/application/publication, can't edit anymore
There's equal opportunity and equal outcome, they propose to tackle the problem with equal outcome. With more women taking degrees in the UK one must ask why they are less seen in STEM based subjects and not try to artificially level the playing field.

My personal opinion is that the issue is a social one, where we are still awaking from a period where women must do certain jobs and men must do others. You don't see many women as bin collectors although they are more than qualified for the job. I think the best place to tackle this stigma is in Primary and Secondary Schools. The results will take a few years to filter up all the way from Primary to University.

Meanwhile, start-ups should be judged equally based on their quality and not discriminated by who is attempting it. There is a ridiculous notion that we can artificially change the end result and somehow that won't lead to issues.
If one were to side with the government, it could be argued that encryption is even more dangerous than guns, because it can be used on a scale that would allow larger numbers of terrorists to organized without the threat of the government being able to track their plans. In that sense, encryption could be argued to lead to more deaths (or at least more horrific ones, see 9/11) than individual gun owners.

To be clear, I am both pro-encryption and "pro-gun". However, spinning the argument to present encryption as a more immediate threat can be done, and quite easily considering the fact that not many people understand it. The argument could even work on pro-gun people!
The Bike Helmet Paradox (2013)
I've thought about writing an "Another World"-style game engine many times myself.
The actual text of the Constitution is "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech", so I guess a first amendment argument comes down to the interpretation of "abridge" -- I would certainly think outlawing speech of a certain nature, i.e. encrypted speech, or authenticated speech, would be abridging that freedom. But I really don't really know how far removed the courts have taken the law from the original text.
Lenovo Tab3 10 price and specifications
DeepMind/AlphaGO founder Demis Hassabis on how AI will shape the future
All computer code can be rephrased in common written (english, perhaps) language. I'm not talking about pseudocode, I mean an actual translation layer from, say, C to english phrasing that specifically describes the computer code to be written.

And at that point it's just speech. I don't mean "like speech", or "something sophisticated people should recognize as speech", or "code is speech" ... I mean, it's just plain old speech. Just very boring, long-winded (and extremely precise) descriptions of computer source code.

So perhaps there will be some pain and perhaps there will be some years before it finally gets to the supreme court, but in the end, it's just speech.

Will they change the 1A ? Would they ?
Shared memory space is one thing. A process has isolated memory. An error in a spawned thread could mess up shared memory, crashing multiple threads. An error in a process can't mess with the memory space of other processes.

Since there's no shared memory, performance characteristics change. Garbage collection is done per process and so "stop the world" doesn't happen, meaning each individual "web server" isn't at the mercy of other requests for performance.

It's lots of little things like that.
From hashtable (https://github.com/srdja/Collections-C/blob/master/src/hasht...)

> HashTableConf htc;

Hold short, that structure is allocated from the stack and not via malloc? I'd expect that one to blow up after the second call to hashtable_new.

edit: seems like htc is immutable and the values copied over in hashtable_new_conf, but that's downright scary in case one forgets this semantic and accidentally uses htc for something.
Well, not only that, autoconf and automake files themselves can set a minimum version.

For the problem case of "my version was old, but still executed, and produced a build system that wouldn't build", this has already been handled for a long long time.

But yeah, either autoreconf or explicit autogen.sh works.
Yes. They should.

It is in the best interests of humanity to make the knowledge obtained through research available to anyone looking for that knowledge. There is a clear consensus among scientists that the current publishing model is at best inexpedient and at worst hostile to that end.

Most people are asking what good the current publishing model provides, but I think to answer that question we need to ask: "compared to what?" It seems clear to me that the current model is better than having no publishing mechanism at all, but I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that the "none" model is the only alternative.

I think that if we sat down today and thought up a new publishing model from scratch, we would be able to outdo the status quo on just about every "good" people have mentioned here, as well as provide features that the current model is incapable of. I think it is highly likely that we could make a system that ran on donated resources alone.

Some things we might want/have in a "from scratch" model:

1. Direct access to data-as-in-a-database instead of data-as-a-graph-in-a-PDF

2. Blockchain-based reputation system for scientists

3. P2P storage and sharing of scientific data

4. Tiers of scientific information, e.g. an informal forum-of-science, semi-formal wiki-of-science, and formal publications

5. Automated peer review process

6. A better and more consistent authoring tool for scientists
Statement from a Slashdot post about the AlphaGo victory: "We know now that we don't need any big new breakthroughs to get to true AI"
That is completely, utterly, ridiculously wrong.
As I've said in previous statements: most of human and animal learning is unsupervised learning. If intelligence was a cake, unsupervised learning would be the cake, supervised learning would be the icing on the cake, and reinforcement learning would be the cherry on the cake. We know how to make the icing and the cherry, but we don't know how to make the cake.
We need to solve the unsupervised learning problem before we can even think of getting to true AI. And that's just an obstacle we know about. What about all the ones we don't know about?
I'm not sure why you connect that behaviour to empathy. There are two simple rules here that apply to almost every possible situation, as well as the one you presented. They aren't even connected to human emotions. That's pure economy.

1. Minimise work (plugging into socket has lower cost / effort than what you described)

2. Minimise irreversible changes (or cost of reversing them)

There are so many people with low empathy who are useful, I don't think this is an issue until someone needs a personal companion rather than general purpose AI.
Sounds to me like there's an opportunity to propel biology forward by teaching some biologists how to manage their code in a way that won't cost large amounts of productivity.
You're not presenting any kind of defense for your claims. You're saying things like they're obvious truths, when they're obviously not for the sake of this discussion.
There is an objective, but it may not be exactly as you reason about it. There's a great video that made the rounds last year about building a neural net that plays Super Mario World, that may help visualize what's going on - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qv6UVOQ0F44

There's also a great snippet in the currently-ongoing AlphaGo videos that explains that when AlphaGo plays in ways that you may not expect, it's because it's strictly worried about _winning_ (even by the slimmest margin) with the greatest probability, and not necessarily by winning handily, like a human might.
Too bad TJ stopped writing JS and started writing Go.
I don't know what the accepted jurisprudence is on this, but there are interpretations of the 5th amendment saying that the protection only extends to the authorities being unable to legally compel you to reveal that you can decrypt the data (and, by extension, that you have some level of knowledge of or responsibility for it). That is, if they can somehow prove that the data is yours, a court can order you to decrypt it.
If you don't want to create a list of rules for every conceivable situation, the AI will need to have some understanding human emotions and desires

My roomba does a good job vacuuming around table legs. Also sofa legs. Also stationary human legs. Also lamps. Also random poles sticking out of the floor. I imagine it would even do a good job vacuuming around a stalactite that made it to the floor. Are you saying someone programmed every one of these situations into it? Or does it instead have some understanding of human emotions? Either way, I'm surprised because it was so cheap I figured it has some generalizable built-in rules that applied to some categories of inputs, the infinite possible instances/variations of members of these categories not having to be enumerated. :)
Not really. The Republicans were for pervasive surveillance and for the national security state for a long time before Obama, and they remain that way now. They may use details of the present controversy to take partisan political shots at the Obama Administration, but, as a party, there's probably more support for government power in this area in the Republican Party than in the Democratic Party.