skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
What an absolute disaster. From what I've seen it was pretty evenly split (although a couple of points towards remain) in all age brackets up to 75+. People who won't be here in a few years when we actually leave have decided the fate of the country. If Scotland can do a deal with the EU to become a member if they can gain independence they'll win that, and the joint-ruling party in Northern Ireland is calling for a border poll as NI, like Scotland, voted remain (and the result is arguably going to have the biggest effect on Ireland).

In my opinion the biggest issue in this campaign has been the propaganda. Already Nigel Farage has been on TV admitting one of the campaigns ads was completely wrong and any one I've seen defending a leave vote simply has the response "we couldn't let things stay the same". On both sides, despite months of campaigning, voters are completely uneducated on the consequences of either decision.
I'd extend the question. Can peace subsist long without a war ...
For an AI assistant, check mycroft. Note that there is a lot more to an AI assistant than speech recognition.

For just speech recognition you can use Kaldi. Its not hard to deploy on your own server. I've been meaning to package it for Ubuntu phones but haven't gotten around to it yet.

Pretty good speech recognition is doable on current mobile hardware. The trained models are large and there is still work ahead shifting the inference to mobile GPUs but it's doable.

It also helps if it's integrated into the OS, if you want it to work invisibly with multiple apps.
Yes, but too many of the EU leaders and elites want to create a United States of Europe, with the Commission/Parliament hybrid as an even more dysfunctional equivalent of Congress (imagine how productive Congress would be if everyone had to speak through an interpreter).

It's actually worse than that though. The EU Parliament doesn't really deserve the name. It can't actually initiate legisliation, so it's meaningless for EUP parties to have any actual policies, so they don't, so there's no formal opposition either, so nobody cares about them and ... therefore ... (phew) turnout in European elections is extremely low. Most people can't even name their MEP, and why should they be able to? That MEP has no power to speak of.
Intergenerational mobility in the very long run: Florence 1427-2011 [pdf]
What? I haven't been stopped on a border a single time while travelling within Schengen.

At the same time, crossing the Channel tunnel or taking the Eurostar means having to get through border control, handing out your passport and sometimes, if they feel like it, having to answer questions on what you're going to do in the UK.

Taking the Eurostar from Brussels to Lille (because it's sometimes cheaper than a regular TGV, or because the timing is better) is even more bothersome because they get double suspicious that you only want to go to France instead of all the way to London.
... and Scotland, Ulster, Flanders, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Verona, Corsica. There are more separatist movements than one might think.
Actually yes, but I am more familiar with UK, US, German and Swiss business/company laws. As I am also considering moving to the US in 2017/2018 (in case Trump is NOT president), an Estonian e-company seems to be a good fit to have a foothold in the EU.
Reverse Engineering the YouTube Algorithm
There are of course lots of principles that European citizens all share. But there are also some principles that they don't. France, for example, is significantly more socialist than the UK.

Unfortunately the EU sees differences as a disease which must be wiped out with always the same prescription: more EU. Literally so. They talk of voting as a "contagion".
Another big difference is Apple starts with how the product should feel and works backwards.

This is tough to reconcile with AI because AI sometimes fails.

When your device doesn't do what you want, it feels bad.

When you read an article about your HooliPhone handing over data to government agencies, it feels bad.

When you go to the Hooli Store to demo a HooliPhone, ask it to show you photos of your dog before her last haircut, and get no results, you feel less enthusiastic about owning a HooliPhone.

The solution Apple uses is to add constraints. Apple doesn't need AI to guess where you want to save a file on iOS because there isn't an exposed file system.

There are some areas where simplification isn't possible, like mapping and voice assistants. These happen to be two of the most widely panned Apple features.

The strategically tricky thing about Google's pivot to AI is that there's a confirmation bias against adding constraints. This may result in impressive demos that just don't feel right in the real world.
Military balance is really about NATO not the EU. If NATO began to dissolve... yeah problems.
The EU's common agricultural policy was actively favoring and subsidizing large EU based multinationals and blocking entry into the market by small scale farmers and producers in developing countries. Seems to me like a huge new market called "the UK" just opened up for genuine and fair trade. So overall, this is probably good for hundreds of millions of people around the world.
Quite the opposite actually. Once you have clearly separated the Inside from the Outside it becomes much easier to blame the Outside. You are making the implicit assumption of "without going too far". But once a racist succeeds in cutting off immigration their perspective on what is considered too far diverges quite sharply. Externalised aggression becomes easier, not more difficult, once the lines are drawn more sharply.
> UK was not part of Schengen. As such, it was always more difficult to go to/from the UK. Foreigners having a Schengen visa (work permit) still need an expensive Visa to go to UK.

UK opting out of Schengen has nothing to do with it, EU citizens are visa-exempted and I as a European have traveled to the UK many times without a visa.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11966653 and marked it off-topic.
The problem is not productivity growth it's resource allocation.

Markets only optimize for good market performance. Since we do nothing to stop all the non-market game playing (mainly regulatory capture, monopolies & advertising), our markets have been optimizing for firms best able to corrupt the process.

Why make an ISP that delivers good speeds at a low cost when you can bribe local government to make you the only supplier?

Why make good smartphone hardware when you can bundle a package of hardware, software and BRANDING! And charge vastly more?

Why sell access to information people want when you can sell access to marketing information on peoples searches helping pervert the information people use for their decisions?

The people in charge are too busy enriching themselves inside the existing system and as a result some huge fraction of the population is working to directly harm the interests of everyone else.
> New services cannibalize time from old services. If I come up with a new way to use worker’s time, by necessity it must subtract from the time they spend doing something else

This is not universally true. It is possible for technology to allow one service worker to service more people simultaneously. Consider the increased productivity of tech. support workers due to the introduction of asynchronous communication like chat as opposed to voice.
It's actually true. Travel to/from the UK requires a passport check, travel between Schengen countries does not.
That silver lining is the sun waiting to come back to give you skin-cancer.
The central bank is printing tons of money and continuously pumping it into the economy. Americans don't feel the effects of that as everyone uses American dollars. So it's almost as if the central bank is creating gold, which is suppose to be a finite quantity. It does nothing.

At the end of the day corporations must borrow that money and corporations are sitting on tons of their own money, they don't want more money to hire employees. They don't know what to do with the money they have. They can make goods, but no one will buy them at the levels of profit they need. So they just sit on the money.

When the fact is the economy is efficient and they should be making goods even if they are not profitable, i.e. at cost... just to create employment, give people money, with which they can buy things. But that's not how the profit motive works. The management consultants and management theory have pushed this idea in their heads, and they are sticking to it, that they need to create profit always. Shareholders demand it! But profit is hard to come buy these days. So they sit around and do nothing instead. Jobs don't get created, people are starved for money and that vicious cycle ensues and consumption goes down.
The idea is to replace "calling a function" with "sending a message".

Traditionally a function call is fixed at compile time (with some exceptions such as function pointers). In C a function is just an address; if we want to call foo(), we must have that function available at address &foo. C++ added flexibility by allowing there to be multiple functions called foo() with and a set of vtables[1] that store the actual (C-style) address. Other variations exist, but all of these traditional styles map function calls to specific code that runs every time the function is called.

Message change all of that. Instead of vtables (or similar)

obj = create_foo()

# instead of calling foo's bar() function directly, e.g.
foo_bar(obj)
# or perhaps
obj.bar()

... we send a message by name of the function we want to call to the object itself

obj = create_foo()
obj.send_message("bar")

# if function args are needed, include them as an array
obj.send_message("baz", [42, "quux"])

The idea is that while the message can be effectively the same as a function call, it doesn't have to be. In a proper OO language, this message sending is handled automagically by the syntax.

# instead of handling the messages directly, e.g.
obj.send_message("bar")
# the language does that for you when you call
obj.bar()
# in some languages, these are equivalent

In many cases the "foo" class above will handle the message "bar" by running the appropriate function, but that isn't required. For example, in ruby when no function exists for a given message, the raw message is send to the #method_missing function.

class Foo
def method_missing(name, *args, &block)
puts "#{self.inspect} I was sent message #{name.inspect} with args #{args.inspect}"
end
end

>> obj = Foo.new
=> #<Foo>
>> obj.bar()
#<Foo> I was sent message :bar with args []
=> nil
>> obj.any_name_we_want()
#<Foo> I was sent message :any_name_we_want with args []
=> nil
>> obj.any_name_we_want("args", "are", "optional")
#<Foo> I was sent message :any_name_we_want with args ["args", "are", "optional"]

Thinking of "obj.method()" as a message instead of only a function is much more flexible.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_method_table
Status quo is always good? Looks like there might be disasters waiting elsewhere.

For example, La Stampa: "A recent poll found that 48 per cent of Italians would leave the EU if given the chance to vote in their own referendum."
> Robo-Recruiting

In my opinion, unless the new hires are going to work with robots, this is not going to work as they expect. And, this seems more like a cost-cutting solution than becoming “school agnostic".
Your economy can boom with all the citizens suffering. For example, if average wages go down, and the rich get richer, the overall economy grows, but is of little consequence to most people.

When countries grow powerful, they begin to forget about the "socio" part of socioeconomics, and just look at dollars.
What is weird is that english is the de facto language throughout the EU. There is so much integration that the new regulation will have to effectively re-establish the rights lost by brexit. UK will have to essentially become switzerland. I cannot see it being differently without people from both sides literally rioting.
FRAYOKIT NEWS: 4 KILLED, NINE OTHERS SERIOUSLY INJURED IN LAGOS AUTO CRASH
MAS Goes Big on Fintech
As defined in both RFC 1945 and 2616 (that is, as always has been defined): "The GET method means retrieve whatever information (in the form of an entity) is identified by the Request-URI."

The thing is that there's no difference between abstract and concrete semantics in terms of definition of what is a function or message and what is not. You can send a message or call a function with very concrete semantics ("please, check if that file exists") or with something very abstract ("please, execute a job").

The real difference of the message and function definitions is how they are executed. With message you pass the information on what do you expect to be done to the underlying infrastructure, which has to find the actual code to complete the delivery. With functions you are supposed to know, what exactly code you are calling.

In modern world the discussion about these differences in context of OOP classes does not make much sense: virtual methods of interfaces do their job as well for local invocations (JVM in Java world or VMT in C++ does the binding job), so it does not matter whether you call them messages (which may be right, considering dynamic nature of the call) or functions (again, it's correct, because as in C++ case there's no special mediator passing the call and in Java JVM is practically invisible to application programmer). The cases, when message delivery does not coincide with invocation of single method are rare and normally solved with application level architecture (design patterns like Facade are good example of the solution).

What's more important, IMHO, is that this talk about importance of messages is no more relevant to current problems of object-oriented programming. I do not think today we are really concerned about object interactions, rather we have to fight the enormous complexity of big projects, finding better ways of generalization (by means of more expressive languages and metamodels) and API contract clarification and enforcement (by elimination of side effects and correct handling of corner cases).
Bah. Thats the kumbaya message the champagne left have been pushing for several decades at this point, while the finance right have been fleecing everyone under the guise of "one market".
There are a couple advantages to the EU system that I can think of:

* Workers can (in theory) move around the EU depending on the demand for them in the different regions.

* Lower bureaucratic cost.
It's highly unlikely that Jeremy Corbyn would remain as the leader of the Labour either since there seems to be an outrage amongst Labour MP's due to the overwhelming number of their core constituencies voting to leave.
The low turnout in Scotland and the lack of major involvement from the SNP during the final weeks almost seems like both the SNP and the Labour at least partially just wanted to sit and watch the world burn.
It seemed that both of them looked at a possible BrExit as a way to get what their want - a Labour Government and a push for another Scottish independence referendum.
To me this is really mind boggling I don't even want to start to estimate how much people including myself (a non-EU/EEA resident of London) would stand to lose over the coming months.
People underestimated just how effective the propaganda and the cheap shots that the pro-BrExit camp spread over the past few weeks were, the EU and every sane political party in the UK should've been up in arms against it and sadly they weren't.
This is just the first crack in the iceberg the full shockwave hasn't hit yet this will fracture the British economy and society for years to come and will have global ramifications.
And while I don't really enjoy of taking a personal jab at you this attitude of hey at least we got rid of Cameron like there was or is an actual sane alternative is exactly how we got here.
Too many people on the left used this referendum not to cast their actual wishes but to settle political scores hoping if they'll set the field ablaze a better and leftier government would eventually come out standing, it won't, and even if by some miracle it eventually will you would be paying the price for the next 30 years.
The UK has forgotten how things were when it was the "sick man of europe" it sure is on it's way for a harsh reminder now.
> (just imagine what would happen if Bulgarian Uber drivers using Romanian-registered vehicles started to offer rides in Paris.)

That's what already happens now, in a way. My brother (I'm from Romania) used to be a farmer his whole life until his early 30s, when our accession and integration into the EU made it very hard for him to live from working his land. That's when he switched jobs and became an international truck driver, because his cows' milk could not compete with the rest of the milk coming from the other EU countries. Right now he's on his way to France, from where he'd probably carry some stuff to the Czech Republic. That's how a single market should work: a Romanian driver working for a Romanian company carrying stuff from France to the Czech, the same as it happens in the States.

What's happening with Uber in Paris and the other big French cities is an economic anachronism.
Was the US an european colony? With people speaking French, English, Spanish and Portuguese? I guess it was a mix and match of many human being that decided to be free : no more, no less. Freedom was the driver, not the enemy.

Also maybe you should consider the actual state of US : What's the percentage of english/spanish people speaking? What about Catholics/Jews/Muslim? Should we expect an USbreak ?

Saying that, I do not believe that we need a common enemy to be united. There is better values and challenges for all of us : environment, peace, love. Europe will stand strong, refine its vision to the current context. After a few years, UK we be back and we will all make love peacefully in a better environment.

Long live to Europe.
Poland (mentioned above your comment) is against to euroarmy.
When I read this I imagine the type of 'leave' voters : old grannies and grandpa's who lived all their lives in a rat hole and doing their backyard. 75% of the youth voted stay. This just shows the huge gap of information that the youth has and the same not used information by the old generations
So the net "winner" for financial services might be Germany? If I were looking for a new financial head office, I would be inclined to locate it in the EU's largest and most stable economy, right?
False, absolutely false. DailyMail reader?
One thing which excited me about the EU was, that the peoples of Europe unified without a war or an enemy at hand. That would be an incredibly good sign for humanity and give hope to some future, where the globe isn't split into entirely separate nations.
Median wages up, economic inequality down, investments in social stability programs (retirement, healthcare, education) up.

In the US, those are all going the opposite directions.
If you're originally from Germany, you will be forced to leave the UK anyway. In a sense, getting people like you out of the country was a big part of the whole Brexit proposition...
Giving people freedom of self determination was in. At least for oppressed people.

And it seems like UK people exercised that freedom.
The problem is that the EU countries have a long history of fighting against each other and their cultural differences are too big to keep them together. There isn't the sentimental feeling of America in the EU, people don't feel themselves as European and since the current situation in EU is bad, the feeling of being independent has grown a lot.
With a single vote, England just screwed us all
It's 5% for Europe on average, but for Germany and the Netherlands it's much higher (15% for the Netherlands). No politician in his right mind is going to risk that to spite the British.
Jumping into conversation with pre-existing lists of talking points is tedious and destroys real discourse. It's always predictable and ideologically driven; it has nothing to do with listening to what someone else has to say, considering it, and responding with something relevant. Those two processes may look similar on the surface but they're fundamentally incompatible, and the one we want here is thoughtful conversation.
> Why make an ISP that delivers good speeds at a low cost when you can bribe local government to make you the only supplier?

Because Google Fiber will come along and eat your lunch. Hopefully anyway.

> Why make good smartphone hardware when you can bundle a package of hardware, software and BRANDING! And charge vastly more?

Apple does that, and they make a fine business out of it. But Android, who doesn't, is overwhelmingly the market leader.

> Why sell access to information people want when you can sell access to marketing information on peoples searches helping pervert the information people use for their decisions?

Are you implying that all advertising necessarily perverts decision making? Indeed, 'brand' advertising arguably does. But a lot of advertising is just about making people who want it aware of your product. If you have a need and I make a product that meets that need, and you see an ad for my product, we are both better off now, aren't we?
The policies don't have to change. It's not like the UK severs all the connections with everyone. Multinationals will stay and ensure the new policies and trade treaties allow them to continue.
Many US companies open a branch in London to enter the EU. It will be interesting to watch whether it does continue or if they choose another EU country.
After I read this I've installed Opera mobile and it's now my default browser. The ad blocker runs pretty well, along with a customized hosts file mapping advertisers' domains to localhost. Too bad DuckDuckGo is only available as a search engine in Opera Mini beta. Looking forward to get rid of Google search.
I appreciate the response and admit I didn't really consider the scenario you explained (retaliation). Thank you.

But could you explain why you say it's only a few people? I guess it all hinges on what is meant by "a few" and "peaceful".

Because according to Pew Research, the number of Muslims worldwide that support death for apostasy is very high - hundreds of millions[1]. This is not a fringe/extremist/radical minority. Major, rich, countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE have severe penalties for religious-based "crimes" or sexuality. Even in the UK, the percentages are in the double-digits for those that support violence against cartoonists, or death to apostates. The views and numbers on homosexuality are likewise appalling and indefensible.

You mention Prop 8 but sort of draw the opposite conclusion. The Mozilla CEO supported Prop 8, and he was cast out. Mormons got some bad rep due to their involvement with it. But these countries do far, far, worse, and our leaders don't condemn them?

Maybe you're right that professing there's no problem is the best tactic. But it's going to look very insincere, perhaps outright dishonest, to many people.

1: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religi...

- Perhaps the research is wrong. I'd love to hear that these numbers are total fabrications. But all I've seen when I look is a lot of handwaving about interpretations and No True Scotsman arguments.
You make it sound as if we are living the dawn of Nation-states. We live in a globalized world. Nations are now trading areas. EU is well positioned as one, (if it ever manages to become productive). No nation is an island in this world (including britain). UK will now have to re-pick its allies, and pick them carefully. I can see the pieces of commonwealth that are left in europe denouncing their british past (Gibraltar is a start).
Well, the UK has always been a country that I had in view when thinking about working abroad. I think I can cross that off my list now. On the other hand, there is Ireland, wich I think will get a boom of tech companies migrating from the UK. And there is the possibility of an independent Scotland in the near future.