skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is a problem that we can fix just by throwing data at it. Now that it's possible for any app to know what routes people actually take, we can do even better. It's possible to generate cost functions based on what people actually do.

This would fix a lot of different types of problems. First: issues like the ones raised in the article. The killer "roads" have never had drivers successfully complete them, so they should have infinite cost.

It would handle construction. If the traffic in a route suddenly falls to zero, or suddenly goes from zero to lots, the cost functions can be updated to reroute.

It would handle dangerous neighborhoods. Route 31 was the most direct route between my first apartment and Pennsylvania. I once followed MapQuest directions on this route, and it turns out that it takes you through the part of Trenton that makes it one of the top-20 most dangerous cities in the nation (at the time). Nobody really drives this way, so it could route people via safer roads.

The problem here is that the companies that already have good databases are probably going to keep them secret, in case they figure out a way to turn that data into more ad revenue
Whatever they want it to.
For your ordinary average everyday normal well-supported language, stick with the IDE.

But suppose you're working with some random language that nobody's ever heard of. It's some tool-, product- or site-specific thing. If you're very lucky, there's some ropey Scintilla-based text edit widget that lets you work with one file at a time. If you're not, there's quite literally fuck all. When you search on Google, there's 0 useful results (until you get to page 9, and there's 1 single post from somebody, on some random forum for general blarney, ranting about how they're doing some contract work and using this stupid language and it's terrible because there's no tools and they're stuck using notepad and their life sucks).

If you've got an IDE, now you're sort of stuck. Maybe you can find a language it supports that's a bit like, and then you've got syntax highlighting - sort of - and autoindent - maybe. But you have to do code browsing by grep, effectively, and you've got 0 in the way of code completion.

With emacs on the other hand you can relatively easily code up some language-specific support for syntax highlighting (takes 5 minutes) and autoindent (5 minutes for something basic, maybe 1-2 hours if you want to get fancy). Add some imenu regexps (5 minutes) and you've got code browsing from within a file. Put your imenu regexps into Exuberant Ctags (15 minutes), and you've got cross-file code browsing. Code completion... well... yeah... it's not perfect, but if you squint a bit, dabbrev (2 minutes if you need to tweak your syntax categories) is fine.

I've never failed to turn a time/effort/hassle profit from doing this.
Honestly, no, but I'm glad we reached a point of mutual understanding.
You can't. The reason you can use macros so easily in LISP is because of homoiconicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homoiconicity

Your macros will break all over the place in languages that don't have this property.
1980s :)

EMACS is from the 1970s, GNU Emacs 1980s...
A Tale of Three Pricing Models
Your experience appears to be limited.
Is the Era of Great Famines Over?
That's by and large what I've seen in Atlanta as well.
They is the courts, and the criteria sound like they come from precedent, so I want to know what cases created that precedent to know how it should be interpreted.
Seems criminally barbaric to me.

I wonder if contraband in the prison decreased, or if the prison guards were happy to meet demand without having to compete with inmate relatives. I would suspect the latter.

A friend of a friend of mine is a prison guard. He is a morally upstanding guy (the type of person you would want to be a prison guard). he hates the job and wants to leave but nobody in the security industry will employ him because they (rightfully so) consider prison guards to be tainted by corruption.
This seems like a nice and useful method, but the conclusions of the paper seem problematic, specifically that the resulting visualizations are more "effective" and higher "quality" than t-SNE (or anything else for that matter). Can that aspect of a visualization method be judged by only showing a few examples, without any tests of how people actually use or benefit from it?
That and podbay occasionally do the trick, but not always.
Mermaid looks great, thanks for the reference.
With driver-less cars I don't think I've read an article or heard a podcast that deals with the subject and doesn't talk about the its possible impacts.
I don't see how that rectifies the essential grievance. A Walmart ~ < 2 miles away is substantially similar to a Walmart 10 miles away for all intents and purposes. And, as I mentioned in my post, even if it were 0.25 mi away, there are all kinds of artifices in suburbia that commonly stop one walking there.
> I wouldn't say it's begging the question. Of course evil is an illusion in an atheistic viewpoint.

Well, fair enough. If someone who doesn't believe in evils asks and a theist provides the Augustinian answer (evil is the absence of good), then we should all be enlightened, appreciate each other, and move on. But much more often, the people asking do believe in some sort of evil (rape warfare, slavery, child abuse, genocide, etc.) and don't realize the premise of the question is flawed. Again, it may be for reasons of aesthetics and emotion, but it's hard to make the case that there is nothing objectively evil. It's at least as dissatisfying as claiming that God exists and allows the same evils to happen.

The thought processes around this question typically boil down to what matters more: morality or observation. There are some who assume objective good and evil are irrefutable and can fairly cleanly proceed to thinking that something is behind all that. And there are people who assume that physical matter is the only way to prove the existence of things, and so all immaterial things (good, evil, God) are illusions unless we can use matter to somehow measure them.
The Tech [0], even though it's hosted on mit.edu, is technically independent of the university:

http://tech.mit.edu/about/

[0] http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N61/swartz.html
At least for me the change log is one of the first items I read when looking to try new software.

It often tells quite a lot about how involved the developers are, what direction the project is heading to, or how mature it is overall.
So am I. In fact, I wish more people were able to work on research. Treating a desire for a comfortable living as the problem rather than an objective to be fulfilled is what keeps us from getting more and better researchers.

Also keep in mind that his generation's options were much better. The academic job market was a lot friendlier back then.
Technology is great, but there should be graceful fallbacks.
Correct me, if I am wrong. InfluxDb is written in Golang and not Java as the table 1 mentions in the paper.
> ...decision and the confidence will be wildly wrong...

Isn't "confidence" measuring the internal state of the net, the probability based on classes known to the net? In that case the answer can be wrong, but "confidence" is never wrong.
Realistically, this is exactly how they would go about trying to stop Drumpf. Plausible deniability and all that jazz.

In fact, decisions which Facebook makes this election season will impact the result regardless of the intentionality behind those decisions. Even something as mundane as the mix between links and images impacts different candidates disparately.
Thanks for sharing your experience. Have you noticed improvements in the different issues you wrote about?

I think they have improved in those you raise in point 4.2 of your post. For example, I tried downloading their software (from https://installer.id.ee) and got redirected to the Mac App Store to download from there.
They did a good job, unless they just copied the CSS directly.
Thoughts about the utility of schools to serve this function? We are already teaching humans very simple to very advanced tasks and we do so millions of times a day. Is the fact that tasks/knowledge are being structured for paced human learning irrelevant for this purpose?
That people mostly still believe Facebook is innocuous is exactly the problem. https://aeon.co/essays/how-the-internet-flips-elections-and-...
Well I try to use the right tool for the job, and it's important that code can be understood easily when it's read by other developers. But I think the 10 years with Lisp argument needs to be better justified. :)
"No “u”, (and no “o” or “i”) so accidental profanity cannot happen."

h0ly fvcking sh1t!

It's a good try, and making all the letters lowercase makes the numbers as vowels less legible. But if you're creating random strings you will create profanity and slurs.
Given the right to a lawyer and the inevitability of technical complications with a proprietary system, I have to wonder if this is even constitutional.
How to Create a Swarm CDN for Free with WebTorrent
Can you explain how it works without a "uk business account"? I've done researches this week and didn't find any answers. e.g. can I use my personal basic French bank account?

--

Not sure also how you get out the money from your company to make you a salary. In France we have 2 forms of company for starting a personal business and with both you can use your personal account so basically company income = your salary. I read that with a limited company you can't do that.
Omg now can someone please fix the apex domain?

I don't want to live in a world where I can't like formal verification and modern website design
And PCIe Gen 3 is limited to 16GB/s, which is the real bottleneck between the CPU and GPU... if you can use all 16 lanes. Most GPGPU set ups with multiple GPUs only are able to use 4 or 8 lanes each, so you then are stuck with multiple 4 or 8GB/s bottlenecks.
You're missing the point. "Too attenuated" presumably does have case law, as do things like "substantially related to a compelling government interest" or "probable cause". Those have magnificent, overflowing volumes of decisions enumerating whether they apply to particular circumstances. And yet, oddly enough, it works better to reason backwards from the desired conclusion in a particular case to the most convincing reasoning that could support it, than the reverse.
Is it truly incompressible, or just enough for practical uses?
Show HN: The Best PDF Downloader and Reader
This isn't a visit. This is an enhanced phone call.
Twitter Bars Intelligence Agencies from Using Analytics Service
I often feel like "learning Go" is deceptively a few steps deep. When one learns Chess you effectively can get to the tactical aspect as soon as you know how the pieces move. When you "learn Go" at the first level you understand the rules and their basic consequences, but you still don't quite know "how the pieces move". This is natural since no rule dictates these things in Go—they're something you learn as handed down from thousands of years of people playing it.

But once you get the "how the pieces move" of Go—essentially, the Haeng-ma and maybe the basic opening algorithm, you can quickly dig in to the really rich tactical and strategic levels just as you can with Chess.
Tomb Raider for Linux
That's fairly shallow to base a decision to use an OS on.

All kidding aside though, it seriously is. It's not a bad piece of software.
Officials fooling the politicians with fingers-crossed-behind-back weasel words. Wantonly creating "exemptions" for themselves to disobey clear laws. All while knowingly hurting individuals and damaging communities for a few scraps of extorted money.

The level of Evil here (yes with the cap) has reached cartoon villain proportions.

We probably need a constitutional amendment (the current interpretation of the 8th doesn't seem to be cutting it) detailing prisoners' rights and a separate federal oversight organisation to enforce it. States seem to have been goofing at this for quite some time now and seem powerless to stop it.
You're saying that cases are decided by the judges' views, a not uncommon position. However, there are limits to how far this goes: if a case is clearly against precedent and the judge is made aware of that, they'll usually not deviate.

If you disagree, feel free to present reasoning or evidence: mere assertion won't help.
the actual operating environment presented by the kernel and the image loader for user-space software on linux is very, very stable.

The guarantees that Windows makes about backwards-compatibility go far beyond just the image-loader and syscalls. For comparison, the glibc backwards-compatibility story is... messier. https://www.kernel.org/pub/software/libs/glibc/hjl/compat/
You can do what you want in your own home, but you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way that follows your choice of religious texts. I can understand that it's important to take religious views of prisoners into account but if you're just some random person not involved with the prisoner then you'll have to lump it I'm afraid. As it should be.
It is a greater good to have the freedom to do evil than to be constrained to where it is impossible. Would you prefer an all-powerful, super-totalitarian government that made it impossible for anyone to commit a crime, or would you prefer the freedom that also allows the possibility of crime?
The book Complications, by Atul Gawande is a fantastic account of medicine as an imperfect science that I would recommend to anyone interested in the field.

Things like this make me hopeful about perfecting medicine and surgery to avoid common human mistakes--even if that is still decades away.
FTA: there are 200,000 people employed in Xintang, making 300M jeans/year. That's an average of 1500 jeans/employee. Assuming an average wage of 30K/employee, that's $20/jean extra. Surely not a bank-breaking sum? Jeans vary in prices from about $30 - $300, so an additional $20/jean isn't outside the realm of possibility.
Demis Hassabis, Yann LeCun and Jürgen Schmidhuber Debate the Singularity
This is an technology update of the landline extortion racket
that Sercurus has has in place.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/may...

There's also another extortion racket to send money:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/30/prison-bankers-fami...
Video is a bit of a caricature, but unfortunately with only a little poking around one can find examples of similar behavior and views held online. :(
...which depression will then be artificially extended for years by populist New Deal policies. (taxes, massive subsidies, Social Security / basic income)
I don't think you get to say "just design a universe such that X" without actually producing one. In this context, that's a circular argument, since the possibility of such a universe is precisely what we're debating. And lots of things that look reasonable turn out to have inconsistencies buried deep inside. If you're not familiar with computability, "write a program that figures out if another program will run forever" sounds possible at first. You can make specific counterexamples to my argument, but just saying "it must be possible" illuminates nothing.

Anyway, I'll try to do better. Basically, in a universe in which "evil" is physically impossible, you may have "free will" in some sense to choose which good, but you cannot choose whether to do good, because all possible choices are "good". It's specifically freedom to choose good or evil that's the key ingredient in "good" being a meaningful concept, or at least it's consistent to so assume. You're back to the pretty clockwork.

I don't know if it's possible to construct a bulletproof argument here. Shaky foundations are an occupational hazard of metaphysics, for both sides. Saying "well, he's God so he should be able to figure it out" works just as well as "he's God and couldn't do it, ergo it's inconsistent". The best we can do is show our positions are consistent under some set of assumptions.
Ads Evolve into New Forms as Media Landscape Shifts
> "you can't demand that the state runs justice in a way"

> "As it should be."

"You can't say how things ought to be run, but i can."
Nothing wrong with using the arrow keys. I can't even remember how long I've been using Emacs and still use the arrow keys.
If needle break or misalignment in sewing, it become a defective. Same as there are defective PCB in the manufacturing.
But I bet in the private sector they won't have to answer any awkward questions about 'so how exactly did you acquire that IP and how could you lose the source code and logs?'
> Same could be said about science. Correct? We are making stories out of randomness? And it's laws only have meaning in a learned context? Are you arguing semantics?

No, that's not it.

If you only ever need to talk about the world with in-group peers and you never need to do any science, you can absolutely get by with an arbitrary story. But there are many instances where it becomes essential whether facts were pieced together into a story, or whether the story came first and facts are invented to fit it.

Imagine two groups of people getting placed on two different planets without any knowledge about anything. They don't have any books, any cultural knowledge, nothing. Now give them a couple thousand of years and compare what knowledge they have amassed.

They both have access to the same universe, so they can make the same observations and figure out the same things about the mechanisms governing it. They both likely figure out how quantum physics works and discover relativity, because those are discoverable facts that apply anywhere. It doesn't matter what the philosophical outlook of the people doing this research is, as long as they constrain themselves to the facts they will come to the same conclusions.

But if you compare their religions, if they have them, they will likely be very different. One of them may have an Abrahamic-like creation myth. One might be closer to Buddhism. They might come up with completely different ideas we can't even conceive of. This happens because in the absence of facts you can just make up arbitrary stuff. And when they meet, each one will think their own religion is obvious and inescapable, but to the other one those arguments will sound like the complete non-sequiturs they actually are.

In fact, you can observe the same thing on this planet. If a Hindu, a Christian, and an atheist on today's Earth want to exchange information, they have do it with a factual framework, because cultural/religious conventions and definitions are not transferable across these boundaries. When two biologists are talking about adaptation mechanisms, it's not fruitful if one uses stone age scripture as a reasoning tool.

You asked if laws only have meaning in a learned context. Of course we mostly get to learn from other people, that's how knowledge works in the face of a very limited lifespan, resources, and capabilities. But it still matters where that knowledge originally came from, it's still significant if those laws actually reflect how the universe works or if it's just made up stuff that is in conflict with observable reality.
I took some time to think about this because it started off as a feeling and not a list of reasons.

For me it's mostly centered around control structures - if, for, switch, case (scala's pattern matching). Clojure's control structures are syntactically composed of ()'s and []'s. Scala's aren't. They are a coded into the language's grammar[1][2]. Clojure's ns forms parallel Scala's package and import statements, but are again Clojure's are syntactically composed of ()'s and []'s. I know it's a relatively small point, but control structures make up a significant portion of programs.

As a side note, I took a look at a Clojure grammar also specified for antlr[3]. My initial thought would be that Clojure's grammar would be appreciably smaller. It is, but not by as much as I was expecting. There are a lot of very little additions to the reader that add up [4][5][6].

[1] - Scala's syntax http://www.scala-lang.org/files/archive/spec/2.11/13-syntax-...

[2] - Examples https://github.com/lrlucena/grammars-v4/blob/master/scala/sc...

[3] - https://github.com/laurentpetit/ccw/blob/3738a4fd768bcb03996...

[4] - http://clojure.org/reference/reader#macrochars

[5] - https://yobriefca.se/blog/2014/05/19/the-weird-and-wonderful...

[6] - See "Special Characters" http://clojure.org/api/cheatsheet
Just because God can't imagine an existence outside herself doesn't mean it doesn't exist. She assumes she is the original cause but is unable to test the hypothesis.
Isn't science all about understanding causes? It seems funny that scientifically minded people turn to Hume only when we're talking about God.
When I worked on mapping software, we actually had a few options for calculating angles and distances. If points were near enough, we'd use a flat Earth approximation to speed up the calculations.
OK, so given that the general populous is now starting to acknowledge this abuse of power... how do we fix it? All three branches of governance are falling outside the public's control and people no longer vote with a long-term and open mind. How do we get people to step down the vitriol and work with each other towards the common good?
> The fact that he didn't means he's either not omnipotent or not omnibenevolent (a contradiction for those who ascribe both properties to god).

This doesn't really follow. We are creative so we could come up with infinite amounts of nonsense questions that are really logical paradoxes and not real objections. Why can't God create something so heavy that he can't move it? The question of why a loving God allows evil is in that same category if you believe:
- love requires free will
- free will requires choices
- meaningful choices require evil to be an available choice

There are probably other formulations of how love requires the option of rejection and how evil follows from there. But the point is that they turn the contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence into a paradox in the same category as "could God grow a mustache so great that he himself could not shave it?"

It stands to reason, then that the job of the objectors is to show that it's possible to love meaningfully without free will, really. And if you don't believe in objective morality, it's hard to argue what love is and isn't.

Or do I misunderstand and you care to elaborate?
1) AP exams can be taken independent of whether you've taken the class. A high school freshman can take any AP exam.

2) It's common in competitive high schools for students to start taking AP classes in junior year (or even sophomore year), so top colleges definitely do see AP scores for most of the top 30% of students applying.

For me, AP credit was huge. It let me skip calculus in college and a bunch of other very time-consuming classes (foreign language, etc.). Instead, it cleared up my schedule so by the end of college I was able to take multiple graduate CS classes.
Well, at some point, all objects are just a blob of bytes.
Isn't "confidence" measuring the internal state of the net

I don't quite follow your meaning but no, that's not quite how I think about it.

If x is the input image and C is the class selected by the classifier we expect the confidence to be representative of the conditional probability P( C | x ). There is theory that shows this to be true given certain assumptions, but as is very often the case in this field the extent to which those assumptions are valid is rarely clear. So if the net outputs a confidence of 0.9999 we expect there to be only 1 chance in 10000 that the true class is something other than C. If we test the net and find such a confidence associated with an incorrect classification more frequently than predicted then we can say that the confidence is objectively incorrect.
They in fact suck in his opinion.

Well, yes. And you, too, can have a blog!
What is the cause of the existence of a universe in which emergent phenomena can arise spontaneously?