skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The long-running space opera comic "Schlock Mercenary" actually has treatments of this topic that are frequently clever (and humorous). As example, here [http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2004-08-23] is an instance of an AI making copies of itself to act as the smart guidance in warship-killing high-energy munitions. If the munition survives impact, it can be refurbished and used again; if not, the AI shard dumps a 'gestalt' of new experiences back to the core before the munition breaks up.

Since the AI copies are crafted by the master AI, they don't generally exhibit divergence from its will or an independent survival instinct.
I'm not joking because I don't know much about the company other than it sounds like it was a large company. (Author says "avoid large companies in his post").

If the people that interviewed him at a large company were unprofessional when he refused THEIR process, that doesn't mean the company is necessarily bad. He doesn't know.

I've never worked at a company, even a small one, where I thought everyone was competent. He had an opportunity to placate them and give the company a chance but he was so set on trying to tell them why their process was flawed and how his was better (look at my github and code).

Part of working at a large company is being able to be tactful and wade through the bullshit, often times dealing with incompetent people or those that do things differently. Maybe large companies aren't for him. They aren't for me either.

But it's not fair to say the company was run by idiots because they tossed a resume back at him when he refused their process. He obviously lacks tact and knows everything while being insecure at the same time (see young punks statement in thread). We also don't know that the interviewers are running the company as you suggest. If it's a large company, they probably aren't.
That's because the certificate is used to determine if the IP address you're connecting to has control of the domain name you expected to visit.

Were the certificate to contain an IP address (or IP addresses), it would need to be updated every time the site started or stopped using a public-facing IP address.
> That is the claim under contention

no, whether or not it is obvious is under contention. I hope no one doubts what I said.

I also never said it's obvious, I said the statement

> if it's divisible by a number, the number must appear in its factorization

isn't true, and wouldn't be claimed.
This reminds of some of the thought experiments in Sam Harris' book Waking Up.

This particular one reminds me of the teleporter example which is in this excerpt: https://www.getflashnotes.com/waking-up-by-sam-harris/ (just control-f for teleporter).

Basically our reasoning about identity is poorly evolved for duplicates. The closest we can come to feeling comfortable with it is going to sleep and waking back up. I think mostly because we're just used to doing that (since otherwise going to sleep and waking back up is similar to dying and coming back slightly different).

Was an interesting book overall - I'd recommend it.
If you feel my comments were dismissive of your work, or your team's work, then I owe you an apology. You're right to be proud of what you've done, it's quite a list of achievements and I can only hope I ever produce work of that quality.
Right now, Lightning is only capable of digital audio
The global complexity would be lower if the mbox format, which IIUC is what makes that quoting necessary, would just die already. We've only had Maildir for about 20 years now.
I get that google has the power to censor, but the examples the author gives... I kind of side with google for most of it.

They need to censor autocomplete, otherwise all sorts of depraved crap will turn up. Like another commenter here said, just start typing "jews/muslims/gays/blacks/whites are..." on DuckDuckGo to see why it's needed.

I get the google maps blacklist too. 99.99999% of people will not need to see the areas that are blacked out. Those that want to see them, probably shouldn't! It's a consumer-level mapping tool, it's for showing your kids some geography and getting directions to your friend's cottage.

I understand why Google obeys foreign governments too. They're a private business, if Pakistan wants to censor youtube, let them. From a Western perspective, we think this is bad, but we don't live in Pakistan to fully understand why they need that control. It's not Google's job to be prescribing to foreign countries how they should operate.

And I get why they blacklist websites and entire domains. Sorry, but co.cc was being abused, it needed to go. Whatever google is doing to fight spam is working, my inbox is clean as a whistle, I literally can't remember the last time I got spam.

Ultimately, my point is that, yes google "censors" things. But I haven't seen them do anything that's terribly "evil", it's generally been under the scope of providing a better user experience.
Mark Zuckerberg covers his laptop camera with tape
You may have the genesis of a startup idea there.

SaaS: Silence as a Service
Z[sqrt(-3)] does not have unique factorization. However, Z[w] does, where w = (-1 + sqrt(-3))/2 denotes a primitive third root of unity.

In particular,

2 * 2 = (-1 + sqrt(-3)) * (-1 - sqrt(-3))

gives two irreducible factorizations of 4 in Z[sqrt(-3)] (you can use norm arguments in Z[w] to show irreducibility). Note that the right hand side can also be written as

(2w) * (2w^2)

however, since w is not in Z[sqrt(-3)], the two factorizations above are distinct in Z[sqrt(-3)]. They become the same factorization in Z[w].

Edit: Another way to think about why Z[sqrt(-3)] doesn't have unique factorization is because it isn't integrally closed[1]--that is, there is a monic polynomial (ie a polynomial with a leading coefficient of 1) with coefficients in Z[sqrt(-3)] that doesn't have roots in Z[sqrt(-3)]. In particular, since w^2 + w + 1 == 0, w is a root of the polynomial x^2 + x + 1, which is monic over Z[sqrt(-3)]. It turns out that any unique factorization domain[2] is integrally closed. Since Z[sqrt(-3)] is not integrally closed, it is not a UFD.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrally_closed_domain

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_factorization_domain
Apple's intention is to go all wireless, audio included. The lightning connector earbud is a stop gap between now and the future when wireless audio is decent. John Gruber actually mentions that.
Well, duh, we replaced the floppy drive because there was a many measurable magnitudes better in every dimension new invention.

It's hilarious how he writes this whole page and misses this crucial bit. He must not have been born when floppy was a thing.

In the meantime, the whole consumer audio space is just so totally and utterly solved. 16 bit, 44kHz (lossless if you must, but frankly MP3 is sufficient) analogue audio is just the ultimate in "good enough" solutions. People peddling 24 bit or 96kHz should be imprisoned for fraud.
> ‘the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’

Even when humans in western world translate from languages like Sanskrit or Japanese they totally fail to understand the context that is so obvious to native speaker of those languages. Japanese quickly understand the Sanskrit word 'Namaste' ("I bow to you") but western scholars tends to replace it as "Hello" which it isn't. Hello (accounts vary) comes from Old High German word halâ, holâ which is a cry to seek attention of a boatman.

When translating a story from say Sanskrit to English, if we replace each instance of Hello with 'I bow to you', the story might becomes less readable for western audience and replacing it with "Hello" might sound consistent but it simply fails to capture the culture from which the word is originated.

My knowledge of Sanskrit is limited but when I first read about `Sage Dirghatamas` who is the father of meditation is often translated by western scholars as "Dirgha-Tamas" => "enveloped in perpetual darkness" => The man was probably blind. To their credit there are several stories that mention Dirgha-Tamas as born blind.

But even as a novice scholar of Sanskrit I was quickly able to see that Drigha-Tamas => "man staring into infinite darkness" => Very Very contemplative man. The "born blind" is mere a metaphor for someone who is very closed to out experiences and focused on his inner experiences.
Gary Vaynerchuk Apologizes: Cannes Party Invite Seeking'Attractive Females Only'
The more pressing question: Are there any systems with good agents that won't immediately be overrun by a large alliance?
This is a great, going to give it a try. the whole attribution /analytics ecosystem is so broken
"Your Honor, I swear the AI told me to do it!"
But they do have those. https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/

Some are technical, some are not. But the ones around the time of major tech changes are the most interesting. For instance, when they implemented "time dilation" a few years back.
Live from the House Floor, House Dem Sit-In on Gun Violence
> It's hilarious how he writes this whole page and misses this crucial bit.

Oh, no, he didn't miss that, but it is a fact that goes against his reasoning
Is he compensated for defending/promoting Apple decisions?
Report: The coding boot camp market is on the rise
one more damn thing to charge
As far as I know the ability to drag your feet is one of the main powers of our elected officials if they disagree with the way things go; they can usually just do nothing until someone gets voted out of office or dies or the political winds change.

Forcing action oftentimes can lead to shortsighted actions which have long term negative effects, I don't know if forcing the hands of people I generally disagree with would result in a better status quo for us all.

eg In the supreme court example the republicans are playing political football with people that could have easily gotten confirmed under a republican president(a stupid game which does nothing but hurt the country), but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all?

The correct action in a democracy to those who refuse to do their jobs in public office is to vote out the people and replace them with people who will move forward, but as polls show people are generally happy with their representation and blame others for their problems.
Running X Windows Apps on the MS Windows Subsystem for Linux
We share your concern. As I said in my comment above -- the Scala and Dotty teams actively work together (we have our roots in the same research group at EPFL) to make sure Scala 2.x evolves towards Dotty and Dotty evolves towards Scala 2.x. Scala 2.12 and 2.13 will have language flags that unlock features being incubated in Dotty that we can already implement, and the Dotty compiler already has a Scala 2 compatibility mode.

We take continuity very seriously. No one wants a Python 3-style transition. In addition to the desire to avoid this, we also have a type system and a community build (think Google Blaze for Scala) that builds > 1MLoC OSS Scala code.
The New Panama Canal: A Risky Bet
Why tax companies for becoming more productive though. Especially considering that international competitors which are not taxed would take their market share. People often don't realize that the company won't necessarily make more money once it starts using robots - in competetive markets, profits approach zero.

The real problem with automation is that it might (or not) increase the inequality in the value of human labour. The solution is income redistribution.
Your comment made me recall this classic comic: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/1

I personally try to resolve this quandary in my head by defining my consciousness not as a single state at an instant in time, but rather a pattern over a time continuity - just as mass and matter occupies a continuum of space instead of a single point.
Hi everyone, Corey here from Eve. We've been in the trenches for a while, so I've been working to document a backlog of progress.

A lot has changed even in the ~3 months since the work in this post occurred, so it's not reflective of where we are now. But I'll stick around here to answer any questions relevant to this post or Eve in general.

Edit: I wasn't anticipating this would be on HN today, but it is, so here is part 2 with the rest of the story: http://incidentalcomplexity.com/2016/06/22/mar2/
Red Hat acquires API management company 3scale, will open-source the code
My understanding is for intranet, you could use Let's Encrypt. For example, if I own .foo.com, and i want my intranet to be .internal.foo.com I need to make *.internal.foo.com in the DNS in order to verify I own .internal.foo.com, correct? But then doesn't that expose my 'internal' network? Hope there is a different way to solve this problem.
On some level I think it actually is binary.

If I'm paying for content, but that content also has tons of ads I feel like the provider is double dipping. Charging me to access the content and making money from advertising.

If the content is distributed for free (as over the air TV originally was) then I understand the advertising supported model.

If I'm being charged for it then I think ads are not acceptable under any circumstance.

Consumers are sensitive to pricing relative to free, but when you're charging for both I suspect most would pay extra for no advertising.
Were that the case, robot CEOs would quickly become the norm. Just in case.
This whole discussion sheds a bit of light on the inevitable difficulties one encounters when attempting to remain unflinchingly dedicated to a purely materialistic philosophical worldview.

(IMHO)
I was initially confused thinking "how would they get the NAT information from my home router.. from the ISP?", then I remembered some providers do NAT at their level now. Sucked when AT&T did it - made it impossible to view the entry-level IP cameras we had remotely (well, I could have set up a VPN...)
One's position in space-time is an inextricable component of "the self". Even in theory, a perfectly replicated individual has already fundamentally diverged from the original just by virtue of its existence as a duplicate (since duplication implies a distinct position in space-time). Ultimately, what I'm saying is that the idea of a "perfect duplicate" is something of a contradiction, and any theory of mind that attempts to define one's "homunculus" in terms of a physical brain state is in some ways moot because although our human senses might indicate that we are dealing with two identical individuals we are actually dealing with two fundamentally distinct beings, despite the apparent similarities.
What definition are you used to seeing? I'm a Smalltalk'er, OO has been since its creation, about objects communicating via messages while hiding their implementation details so different implementations can be swapped in, i.e. late binding, polymorphism, and encapsulation, that's rather the entire point of OO.
Yes, and if we actually had a way to disassemble and reassemble humans, the reassembled beings would tell you that the experiment works and their consciousness goes back to their first memories as a child. But the disassembled person would have been destroyed and therefore unable to share their opinion on the matter.
That is, the DNC is supposed to be about promoting the chosen candidate to the American people, not actively picking one.

Neither the DNC or any other political party is obligated to hold elections at all. They're perfectly free to nominate a candidate by fiat if they want to. Clearly, as a matter of marketing, they want to be as inclusive as possible and not appear to be picking favorites. But that's purely a PR consideration, not a moral one. As a practical matter, one of the intermediate goals for anyone running for high office is to make sure they have a lot of supporters in the party infrastructure. Only in the general elections do "the American people decide the direction of their government." The parties are free to do as they wish, democratically or not.
Until it is sentient, it's just a hammer with pre-programmed response. After that, it can define itself.
"Should the analog headphone jack remain on our devices forever? If you think so, you can stop reading."

Better remove our legacy analog hearing while we're at it...
In Germany by law every car needs to inspected every two years by the TÜV. Cars are highly regulated in terms of what modifications you may perform on them and anything even slightly significant requires approval.

If you want to sell a car at decent value or you're leasing it, you're practically required to also perform the inspections offered by manufacturers.

When well-maintained and regularly serviced is the norm, it's inevitably going to influence your design.
> 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.

Some really cool HTML and JS functionality will only work over HTTPS.

> Yes, it obscures what content you're viewing, slightly. An observer often could figure that out from the file length.

If you have an attacker than can identify content solely from its length, you have bigger problems than an SSL cert can solve.

> 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 do not see the problem. All those domain owners consciously choose to have Cloudflare host their stuff. The cert might be a few KB bigger, but who cares?
Aren't the root authorities in browsers/OSes just a means of short cutting the chain of trust validation by eliminating the need to validate the chain up to a single root?

I share your frustration and I understand that trying manage levels of trust a tough problem compounded by the fact that a user's expectations are fluid.
blogspam, original source: https://www.coursereport.com/reports/2016-coding-bootcamp-ma...

> Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is something I've thought about frequently, and I completely agree. The "purpose" of my existence would be maintained, so why would I care which one you choose?

We all do this without thought on a daily basis with files on our filesystem. A particular document encodes a set of information; if we duplicate that document, we now have two identical copies of the same information. By the original author's argument, they are unique and distinct, because they occupy different blocks on our storage medium! But common sense makes it clear that which one we delete doesn't matter, because they serve the same purpose - provided that we preserve at least one copy.

(To those that argue that the file system metaphor is flawed, because consciousness is "different" or "special" in some way, I reference the inverse of Clarke's Third Law: Any sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from technology.)

Now, if those documents continue to evolve and change over time, such that they no longer match, now you are left with a version control problem, and one that seems to be nigh-impossible to solve with a consciousness. In my opinion, this is a situation worth avoiding if we can, as it becomes very sticky very quickly, since the uniqueness of the experiences produces an infinite gradient that makes deciding on an appropriate cutoff of termination very difficult.

As for the continuity of thought, we certainly don't see falling asleep at the end of the day as the "death" of our current consciousness, or waking up in the morning as the "birth" of our new consciousness, despite the (perceived) discontinuity. So why would your source or target self perceive it that way?

Fortunately, regardless of how you feel about the whole "continuity of thought" argument, the solution is very simple - users would simply not be required to make use of these new products/services. Don't want to get faxed to Mars? No problem! Users are not currently required to make copies of files, or transmit files, or make backups of files, after all.

Anyway, that was longer than I had intended. Hopefully someone finds that somewhat interesting, although I suppose it's really all moot anyway until we're even remotely close to the technology required to implement this.
Spaceflight Industries Raises $18M from Mithril Capital Management
... and that is different from Scala how?
> but how do you distinguish that from legit dragging your feet/filibustering political appointees that are actually bad for us all?

I don't think you can. For every instance of "dragging your feet", you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is preventing something that is "actually bad for us all". And you will find people who believe this claim.

And for every instance of preventing something actually bad, you will find people who claim, loudly and sincerely, that it is merely foot dragging, and you will find people who believe this claim.
> This is pretty ridiculous. I don't expect people having an opinion on child sex trafficking and talking about biases those article authors have to disclose whether they were abused as children, and are thus biased etc.

That's not analogous. This is not about pre-emptive disclosure of bias. It is about disclosing the author's bias without disclosing your own, which constitutes dishonestly representing yourself as an uninterested party while maligning the author for pushing an agenda. It's unfair at best, and intentionally deceptive at worst.

An analogous situation would be like this: someone reads an article about child sex trafficking and criticizes it because of the author's bias, without mentioning their own relevant bias.

What you did is analogous: you criticized an author for having an anti-Google bias, without mentioning that you work at Google.
There wasn't any Internet wit in there. The problem stems from current livestock farming practices. Fixing that problem is far easier than trying to create lab grown meat, and in the end will be healthier as it doesn't require a change in our biological system.

Do you really believe our body's are going to process 'fake meat' as 'real meat'? I am highly skeptical of that aspect as well. Furthermore, you have taken the very natural element of food out of the picture by growing meat in a lab, this is a very primal element that technology has forgotten.

Plus food is not complicated. Humans have made it complicated over the last 50-60 years. Food has been a basic necessity of life, yet most struggle with every aspect related to food, from acquiring it to cooking it.

Don't get me wrong I see this type of innovation has being very important to long-term space travel or planet colonization but for everyday human consumption I view this as a waste of time and energy.
> I'm not even sure which is the original

> I wouldn't be particularly shaken up by it

You are begging the question. Who is "I" in this case, when there are two beings in existence? You are presuming that "you" exists as a singular thing, even when there are two physical bodies. But that is no longer true the moment that you are cloned. There are now two separate entities that diverge slowly, as even a slight difference in location will mean different inputs to your senses and different events occurring that change your respective paths.
So now audio will be controlled by a company or copyrighted/patented protocol. This is really what they are after. If they could charge for the light streaming from your screen, they would. I can see Apple offering a dongle to let you plug in a normal headset and charging $30 for it. More crap to carry, more refuse in the landfills. If Apple really cared about the environment they would keep the audio jack in place. It's allows something with an earphone with 3 wires to plug in that gives awesome sound quality out (usually). How can you get more simple and elegant than that?