skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hi.

I work on the YouTube Quality of Experience team. We measure time spent waiting for YouTube videos to load, and things like errors on video playback.

The next time your son has problems where he needs a YouTube monkey, you can give him a link to http://imgur.com/QZqAH2W
If you're willing to pay that price though you might consider going to a more expensive device with transmit too like the HackRF, bladeRF or LimeSDR.
I came to conclusion that torturing Sims is indeed morally wrong. Now it's not that much wrong, because they are not very self-aware, but if they were more self-aware, it would be very wrong. So yeah, killing clones or even virtual replicas willy-nilly is wrong.

On the other hand, I would have no problem with teleportation-via-cloning. I don't have a problem with being unconscious every night, after all (kudos to http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1 for pointing that out to me). Also I have no problem, every day when I go to work, to sit for half an hour in a huge metal structure which is propelled by enormous speed through a tunnel. What if it crashed, and I would be smashed to death? It's pretty much the same question the article asks, what if some incident caused the clone not being recreated successfully? I simply trust the people who built it and maintain it, and I know many people use it with no issues, so why not use it?
After Net Neutrality Win, Emboldened FCC Eyes New Reforms
Wikipedia Request for Comment on Safety of genetically modified crops
Could they be developing some physics aware neural nets, and needed a high performance physics engine, to use for training? /sips his conspiracy tea
I somewhat agree. Since it's only a plug, if the worst that a hacker can do is turn your plug on and off, it's not the end of the world.

But if there is a vulnerability that lets someone use this plug to pivot an attack on the rest of your machines in your network, now it's a big fuckin deal.
Perhaps every robot must be tied to a person, and each person can only own one robot (or some limited amount). Then if a company wants to build up a robot workforce they would have to lease from robot owner/operators.

I imagine a model like owner/operator truck drivers working for large shipping companies. They are paid by how far they drive, but are responsible for their own truck's maintenance. A robot owner/operator would get paid based on how much their robot worked, but would have to keep it in working order and ensure it meets the requirements for the job. The company would save a lot of HR costs if it leased a robot workforce.
That's actually pretty cool! But really same mitigation should just happen on the normal syscall path for an even smaller perf impact.
This sort of reminds me of the movie Sync by Corridor Digital: https://youtu.be/vhjimhX9d5U?t=38s
I see this as security theater. Most web pages don't need to be encrypted. Anything with a form should be, but if you're just viewing static content, there's little point. Yes, it obscures what content you're viewing, slightly. An observer often could figure that out from the file length.

Encrypting everything increases the demand for low-rent SSL certs. Anything below OV (Organization Validated) is junk, and if money is involved, an EV (Extended Validation) cert should be used. Trying to encrypt everything leads to messes such as Cloudflare's MITM certs which name hundreds of unrelated domains. This is a step backwards.
I'm happy that Google and Facebook are discovering fraudulent certs. When they pop up, hopefully those companies aren't prevented from going public with the information.

Are there any end-user tools? When I open twitter.com, I would love for my browser (or my phone if I'm using an app) to tell me that the certificate fingerprint has changed unexpectedly since the last time I visited.
I wouldn't say that India is a "major player" in the satellite launch market yet, considering the reliability record of its rockets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launc...

They're uninsurable for commercial telecom satellite launches. The PSLV is slightly better but also has a much smaller market.
It's an interesting problem, but I don't feel like this page accomplished much besides calling a position he disagreed with a fallacy and using unexplained appeals to emotion.

>To refute this, let’s conduct a thought experiment. Pretend that you can copy a human brain. There are ten copies of me. They are all individually conscious — perfect replicas that only diverge after the point when replication happened. Is it okay to kill five of these copies? No, of course not! Each one is a self-aware, intelligent mind, human in everything but body. The identicalness doesn’t change that.

The things that scare me about death are the ideas that my specific goals would be left unpursued, that my responsibilities would be abandoned, my friends would lose my friendship, and that my memories and experiences would lose their significance upon the world.

If an alien came to Earth with a perfect matter-duplicater (that I have reason to fully trust), duplicated me such that I'm not even sure which is the original, then remembers that he's not allowed to use it on humans, and explains he needs to painlessly euthanize and disassemble one of me, I wouldn't be particularly shaken up by it. Sure, I'd feel I was teased with a cool toy and possibility, but the only injury that has happened is in a way equivalent to a few seconds of memory loss. I've done worse to myself by drinking. There were no big life experiences lost or goals left unpursued.

---

Going a little further... if I were an AI or could somehow copy myself, I imagine I would frequently make short-lived copies to work together with to accomplish my goals. I as my copies would be told that I'm going to be removed in a few days; I think I could handle the idea of knowing the surviving-me is going to be amnesic to my several days of (probably barely)unique experiences in a world much closer to our goals.

In a world where everyone or all AIs could do the above, I imagine the minds who did the above would become much more successful in nearly all endeavors. Choosing not to do so would be choosing to fail, unless the strategy was made illegal. I struggle to fault the strategy morally given that it would be something done by a single consenting individual to themselves, though it does still sound a little weird to my instincts about how survival is supposed to work. If we encountered otherwise similar aliens which already worked that way, would we judge them, or only consider it an abomination when humans did it to themselves?

I'm a bit disappointed that I haven't seen much sci-fi explore concepts like this.
Pill mimics process behind anti-aging benefits of caloric restriction
To your first point - as you increase the number of parameters in a model you (quickly) begin to suffer from the curse of dimensionality. In a crude sense, the data requirement for a similar level of confidence is exponential in the number of parameters, so it can be difficult to use a high-dimensional model to understand a problem, even with a billion (or trillion...) observations. The best one can hope for is that, if there is a simple relationship hidden in the data, your high-dimensional model captures that relationship in a way that is amenable to extraction - I presume this is what you are saying in your third paragraph.

To your second point - I agree. I too do not reject that there is utility in constructing models that make no effort to match the form of the underlying reality. However, the fact remains that in such cases it is very difficult to use your model to gain deeper understanding, and as such these models simply aren't useful for a lot of science in their current form, precisely because they don't tell you anything about reality. Now if someone were to devise a way of extracting "intelligent", (meaning, sensible given existing understanding) simplified relationships from high-dimensional models, that might be a different matter...
A false analogy - we weren't using floppies with multiple different kinds of devices. If non-standard headphone connections were clearly better, we'd already have lots of them in the wild, and you could neglect that old-fashioned 3.5mm hole in your smartphone. But consumers aren't clamoring for that, as they'd like to be able to use the headphones they already have with their phones, laptops, and other audio devices.
2D game for android, C++, Qt, not in active development, diagrams and shit. What the fuck?
Nailed it, but my concerns about manipulation extend farther than criminal abuse. It's more about privacy to me.
Thanks! By the way, when you say "you can download the human genome", presumably this is the genome of a specific individual whose DNA was sequenced? What person is that?
> A false analogy - we weren't using floppies with multiple different kinds of devices.

General purpose computers, digital cameras, electronic (musical) keyboards and other instruments, ...
How do they even define a robot? Is an asea automatic welder a robot? A pick-and-place unit?

I'd be more than happy to postpone this question until the robots ask to be recognized as persons, until then the robots that I see are more like powertools able to do repetitive jobs with a high repeat accuracy. They are not 'persons' in any way that I recognize (but that may change, we are simply too far away from that to spend time on this right now).
Layman here...Is it possible life could likely live in the emptiness space as well then?
It's not just that people don't want to write about it, it's that people don't want to read it either.

You'd never see a post on the front page of HN about how IoT device X was well designed and is generally secure, but you see (and will continue to see) them top out about how awful they are.

Just look at this thread. Half the answers to "what are some good IoT devices" is "lol there aren't any"... The HN crowd doesn't want good IoT devices, they want to make fun of bad ones.
Phones without headphone jacks are phones with DRM for audio
It seems that barriers to entry in hardware innovation are getting higher and higher due to high risk industrial efforts. In the meantime barriers to entry in software are getting lower and lower due to improvement of toolings in both software and hardware.

On the other hand due to the exponential growth of software dependency, "bad ideas" in software development are getting harder and harder to remove and the social cost of "green field" software innovation is also getting higher and higher.

How do we solve these issues in the coming future?
> Dotty is not in conflict with Scala, like Valhalla is not in conflict with Java.

from the linked thread that takes about 1/100 of the time to read as you've written casting doubt on the Scala to Dotty transition ;-)
I count 20 of them.
There is a great book written 20 years ago by Steve Grand called "Creation: Life and how to make it"[1] it basically uses the game Creatures[2] as the testing environment for creating Artificial Life. There are some great thoughts in that book also about how science needs more cross disciplinary experts to connect the dot's between insights in one field and apply it to others.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Creation-Life-Make-Steve-Grand/dp/067...

[2] http://creatures.wikia.com/wiki/Creatures
Most likely a typo in the title.
Sorry, but your comment is literally all wrong.
I need a lightsaber to keep my jungle of a yard under control. Would a light-flail do the trick?
Fresh water represents an energy issue, not a materials issue. There's no shortage of H2O molecules, it's the fact that isolating them requires energy that is the issue. If you use some fresh water to get a net gain of energy, you aren't really "spending" the water.

The natural next response is to move the goal posts and start talking about carbon dioxide or something, but I suggest resisting that and actually thinking about the real issues for a moment. True as that may be, it's a separate issue.

Contrast this with helium, which we really are running out of in a way that, if not necessarily "irrevocable", is certainly going to be much harder to get around if we use it all up.
Sometimes I am just amazed at the ingenuity of people to work around a problem... legalities aside, this is almost a public service.
I see what you did there! Potential! Ahahaha!
This doesn't deserve the label "fallacy"; the only thing I got is that the author disagrees about the implications of restarting a mind somewhere else. Well, great, but you need to explain substantively why you think that is, not simply disagree with it.

But even then, you should only label the flawed premise -- the one you're refuting to make this point -- as the fallacy, not the conclusion.

What's worse, the author's disagreement has to deal with the (almost) established "consciousness branching" that happens all the time. If you accept the universality of the Schrödinger equation, then your body is branching into different parts of the wavefunction, yet (each of) you obviously internally perceive it as the same consciousness.
>mom, grandmother, girlfriend,

But MEN can update things themselves, right.?
In a freedom of the press case like this one, I think it's completely fair to consider it unresolved until the appeals are exhausted, given that there are Constitutional issues at stake.

Secondly, when the ACLU funds litigation, they are usually pretty darned public about it. I didn't see Thiel running around advertising that he was backing Hulk Hogan for any high-minded, principled purpose.
Thoughts on privilege
The no-cloning theorem together with chaos theory suggests that cloning is fundamentally impossible. Mostly people will respond to this by saying "the brain isn't a quantum computer", which is almost certainly true, but what is actually required for mind uploading is "the brain's behavior is not influenced by quantum phenomena at all", which is even more certainly false.

Yet we're still obsessed with mind uploading. Why?

I guess it's because, while we accept that life seems to have some "atman", a sense of identity, and quantum mechanics allows this in a very weak sense, it makes no sense that our perceptions would be at all influenced by quantum mechanics. Using the no-cloning theorem to resolve the problem of mind uploading seems like cheating, and we're all pretty sure that souls don't exist, so we tend to think that anyone who looks for something like a soul in fundamental physics must be pushing an agenda. But this latter reasoning is a fallacy; the well is poisoned when anyone who suggests that quantum mechanics might derail computational neuroscience must believe in some weird magical revisionism of ESP or hypercomputations occurring in the brain or whatever.

But there's an easier culprit hiding in plain sight: the tendency of people to talk more about things they think they can understand, than things where they run a serious risk of being proven flat wrong. I could be flat wrong (but this is not my first rodeo); many posters in this thread as well as the blogger cannot. Loss aversion strikes again.
As cool as restoring the power supplies in their original condition is, it might be a lot easier at least temporarily to replace them with modern 5V and 12V units. Also a great deal less damage risk to the electronics on the PCBs which is what's truly rare and irreplaceable. Then you can repair and test the 'old' power supplies at your leisure and put them back into use if full authenticity is required.
Ask HN: How do I get a customer to upgrade their software?
My last post talked about a SAAS idea. I have already implemented it before for a client. I've now spoken to this client and received their valuable feedback about the application. Overall, they really like it and it helps their business be more efficient.

I want to try and convert them to a paid monthly subscription model. The advantages of this for them is: new features, bug fixes, don't have to worry about hosting, etc. Should I offer them a free trial to get my first customer?
http://www.polyservice.nl/PU-Giethars-PS-115-p-16232.html

(In dutch, sorry, but you'll be able to find similar stuff all over the world)
Why is being 'sentient' (a vague term) a requirement for something to have rights?
Alex Epstien, who is widely despised, has written, in _The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels_ that to withhold cheap abundant energy, and the technology it enables, from the world's emerging populations is immoral and fundamentally anti-human. Supported by people who think this Earth would be a much better place if Man never set his filthy foot upon it.
Watch Lionel Messi’s Beautiful, Record-Breaking Free Kick
LE uses the Public Suffix List to decide what's a "domain". Their really-low rate limits have caused a flood of applications which are overwhelming the PSL's maintainers.

https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/dyndns-no-ip-managed-dns...
When dnautics says "different environment" he's not talking about the global environment, he's talking about the environment around the cell. A minimal viable cell should be able to survive on water, some dissolved gasses, and an energy source like glucose. Bacteria that have even smaller genomes are doing that by stealing components from other lifeforms.

I'm not exactly sure what went wrong, but I think you're really misunderstanding something dnautics said.
(unorganized list)

Kinda, but most of it has been through trial and error with a few read-throughs of Illinois FOIA. I have a pro bono lawyer who can help out every now and then, but he tends to be very busy so it's not the best source of information.

If you ever feel a request wasn't interpreted properly, or you can prove that requests aren't fulfilled properly, instead of suing, you can go through the attorney general route. I tried it once, but it took six months. It worked, though.

muckrock.com might be a good choice to go to. I find their pay-for-FOIA to be complete bullshit and only adds to the perceived difficulties of FOIA.

There are communities that focus on FOIA that you can work with. In Chicago, there are two that I know of - Open Gov Hacknight is the most well known.

If you ever need any help, just shoot me a message in the email on my page and I can give some pointers, or at least point you in the right direction. I always love to help out!

Edit: For what it's worth, this is the video that got me thinking seriously about these things. I don't agree with every point he made, but the start-at-the-city point he makes is something I dearly believe in. I mention it here, since it might help build motivation, which is a useful resource to tap.

https://www.ted.com/talks/eric_liu_why_ordinary_people_need_...
> InMobi was subject to a $4 million civil penalty, which was lowered to $950,000 "based on the company's financial condition," the FTC said in a statement issued Wednesday, without elaborating.

Why should the penalty be reduced based upon InMobi's finances? If the fine bankrupts them, all the better!

Edit: Honestly, I don't know why companies can't be fined based upon a percentage of revenue taken over, say, the past year. A fine of 10% yearly revenue would actually make these bastards sit up and pay attention.
Seattle’s growing pains inspire ‘Amazocalypse’ kids’ book
Here is the actual draft:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//...

It's just a report to the European Parliament, and as far as I can tell was never discussed, voted on, nor did it go anywhere. However it did generate 10+ pages of Google search results for articles of the "what are those crazy Europeans up to now" kind. It's another curved banana story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm).
Yes, registering is so easy I end up registering from each device and promptly forget the account name and password instead of trying to remember my account. Also adds a bit of isolation against tracking.
I don't think it's really indefinitely. Sun-synchronous orbits are usually 600-800km up, and atmospheric drag makes orbits at that altitude decay eventually. It'll probably take decades before it's gone, but it's not stuck up there forever.

Another big debris incident was the 2009 collision of an Iridium satellite and a dead Russian communications satellite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_satellite_collision

When you think about the volumes involved, it's pretty amazingly bad luck that they managed to bump into each other. These were fairly low and the debris is deorbiting reasonably rapidly, so it's not as big of a deal.
For those confused like myself, this is about Eve, an excel-like development environment from the person who brought you LightTable. This is not about Eve Online.
no, it is a consensus sequence determined by sequencing the genomes of several individuals. i do not know how many individuals were sequenced for hg38, but hg37 was derived from 13 individuals according to [1].

genomic regions with higher variability between individuals are annotated separately and are not represented in the main chromosomal sequence, but can be aligned to it as such.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_genome
What if the robot becomes CEO?
Also, the "U" stands for Unmanned. "Manned UAVs" is like the opposite of RAS Syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAS_syndrome
I don't understand why the author of the article believes that it's impossible to clone consciousness.

If you made an exact copy of yourself, then you would be able to control both bodies simultaneously and you would also receive sensory feedback from both bodies at the same time.

The main caveat is that these sensory experiences will be partitioned across the two bodies - You (your consciousness) will receive sensory information from both bodies simultaneously but you won't be able to synchronize that information across the partition (unless you made both of your bodies talk to each other).

Just imagine that all creatures on earth were born with only half a body split down the middle; one eye, one ear, one nostril, one arm, etc... As (half) a human, you would probably think that two half-bodies sharing a single mind is impossible... Maybe, as (full) humans, when we think about two bodies sharing a single mind, we also fall into the same psychological trap.

It's true that comparing two half-bodies vs two full-bodies isn't a perfect comparison because in real life, the right and left halves of our brains are connected and do exchange some information... But studies show that some people have been able to live with only half a brain (or half of the brain severely damaged) - Both hemispheres do experience a certain level of isolation (partition) from each other; so a lot of the information is not actually shared across both hemispheres and yet you still experience it. So this does lend some credence to the notion that a single consciousness (or at least a part of that single consciousness) CAN exist across a physical partition.

So the two-body scenario is just a slightly more extreme version of the two-halves scenario which we all subjectively experience on a daily basis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_integer#Definition

This might help.
We don't have to live like barbarians
You know you're the same person as yesterday because without you, there is no knowing. A clone is no more you than an identical twin is you. What makes you you is the ability to ask the question in the first place. If you were dead, there would be no question.
Goalbook (YC/IK12 11) is hiring Full-stack Engineers – Change K-12 education
Thanks. It didn't help that they were talking about moons and planets.
The classic question, if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, do the air molecules still vibrate?