skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I didn't really have a problem with Tesla or Autopilot's latest issues until I re-read this sentence:

>Autopilot was not operating as designed and as described to users: specifically, as a driver assistance system that maintains a vehicle's position in lane and adjusts the vehicle's speed to match surrounding traffic.

My problem is with Autopilot's branding - it's called AUTOPILOT.

The name isn't "Maintain Lane Position" or "Cruise Distance" or something boring that describes it better - it has AUTO in the name.

Typical drivers aren't airline pilots who complete thousands of hours in flight training and have heavily regulated schedules. We're just people who are busy and looking for solutions to our problems.

If Tesla doesn't want people to think Autopilot functions as crash avoidance/smart vehicle control/better than humans in all situations or blame Tesla for accidents (whether human or machine is at fault) it should come up with a less sexy name.
How to Partitioning Data for Linear Scalability in Geospatial Queries?
How do you partition geospatial data for horizontal scalability? Seems the best option is less so partitioning and moreso to define geographic regions and then just duplicate the data to query against a region. Otherwise you'll have these weird borders, potentially butting up against the border of 4 tiles for a query, so you would have to query against 4 nodes (for a single geospacial query to get the data from all 4 tiles. I wonder how google places api etc handle this sort of problem.

The other potential solution is to overlap data so a node contains the tiles along its edges from the next and previous nodes as well. Not 100% sure how to handle this, what the best technology is etc.

Any recommendations welcome. I'm probably looking at the problem wrong - eg that a partition key in a columnar database query (eg cassandra) may be the floored lat & long integers getting a column range of the lesser significant digits. But maybe there is another way of looking at the data/problem space?
It also seems like they should control for the demographic subset of riders that own Teslas. It seems possible that affluent car owners have factors at play that affect the likelihood of a fatal accident vis-a-vis the global average.
And even if you don't have the assets, you can self-insure the first few million USD, and use reinsurance for the rest.

That's what insurance companies do for risks with a long tail.

Think of it as buying car insurance with a very high excess. Those can be very cheap.
Orleans is just fantastic.

343 Industries famously used Orleans for Halo 4 backend services infrastructure.
Caitie McCaffrey's presentation can be found here: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/halo-4-orleans

You may be interested in Obit ( https://github.com/orbit/orbit ). It is inspired and based on Orleans, except it's written in Java. Similar concepts and semantics. ( a BioWare project )
Mmm, I'll agree there is a large fanatic user base of DDG here, but I think in relation to this article, the confusion is more the following:

1. It's an older article, from May, and current search results are inconsistent with what RMS was seeing at the time

2. A lot of users (apparently RMS himself initially) misunderstand/misunderstood that DDG doesn't actually crawl on its own, it relies on Bing results, and by extension, they don't understand that the censorship can be inherited; whether this is censorship on the part of DDG or not I am not willing to comment on.

3. Stallman's solution is a sort of half-solution, as someone else pointed out in the comments, insomuch as certain queries that lack keywords from others may not always be instances of censorship, and that determining this would be really difficult. (the example I'll steal from user tagawa is:

"red ford mustang" and "red ford mustang toy",
"wall street 2015" and "wall street 2015 protest",
"photos of jam" and "photos of jam jars", etc.)

That's not so say the fanbase of DDG has never been rabid, but in this instance, I think the confusion and defense is probably applicable - what we see now with DDG is way different than what Stallman saw.
Right. Google has employed a lot of human curators. Though it's little known. Some articles covered it over the years but with little details.
Don't copy and paste code! Instead, use a well maintained library.
He's in.

A larger part of my confusion is that I'm doing some massive revision -- call it a refactoring -- of my worldview. Not an absolute overturning, but tossing off massive amounts of cruft, teasing out the odd bits of real truth, and digging further for more connections.

Many of the more insightful authors I could name simply aren't very well known. Many aren't in the hard sciences, though some (again, Smil delves there) are. Generally I'd point very hard at many of the folks associated with the Santa Fe Institute (Geoffrey West, W. Brian Arthur, David Krakauer, Sander van der Leuuw, J. Doyne Farmer), and others.

Since I'm reassimilating and assessing, a lot's up in the air.

I'd considered a few other names, mostly older -- Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov. I'd give slightly stronger cred to Asimov than Sagan, I think Asimov was more grounded in science, while Sagan tended to get a bit fuzzy. Though I also give Sagan serious credit for his attacks on bullshit and pseudo-science.

To a large extent though I'm mining more distant authors -- the past 250-300 years. Adam Smith (though largely revising my "conventional wisdom" assessment of him), Charles Darwin (quite possibly the most significant scientist of all time), Newton, Aldo Leopold, Howard and Eugene Odum, Alfred Lotke, William Ophuls (though more politics).

It's complicated.
Well, I checked with one of the authors of "Art and Fear", and it turns out that the quality-vs-quantity pottery class is a true story, except it wasn't a ceramics class as written, but a university level photography class! They changed it to pottery in the book because they had too many photography examples already.
Oh, come on... this code is fine. Stop your naysaying.
So a blog post complaining... about using the wrong tool for the job. So next post will be... "How We Replaced Phoenix with Rails".
Amusingly, it seems that he allowed his blog's domain/hosting to lapse. You can find some of it on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110206171653/http://www.mobilem... I've only been able to access a subset of the posts, and I can't find the particular post that really convinced me that he wasn't the example of lobbyist/regulator revolving door that everyone was saying he was.

I wasn't on HN at the time. However, I did post links to his blog on reddit in the relevant threads, my posts linking to his blog just didn't get much traction. They got mildly upvoted and started a few small conversations, but absolutely nothing compared to the witty one-liners and ranting about lobbyists, shills, and Obama being a sellout.
I have always wished that I could as an individual could reinsure my long tail risk. I am happy to take on the risk that I can afford to lose and just let me pass on the risk I can't.
> This is trivially true, any datatype can be encoded as a function.

To elaborate: this is called the church encoding of the data type. Particularly interesting for recursive data types.

The most common example is probably 'foldr' (or 'reduce' in Lisp-parlance) for linked lists.
I don't think it's fair to compare Uk and US figures. In the UK you actually have to make an effort to get a driver's license.
This is totally off-topic, but your point can't be emphasized enough: Both sides of that potential nuclear war went to great lengths not to fire their missiles. Up to and including insubordination by missileers in the silos. Having spent most of my adult life serving in the infantry in various warzones, I have a pet theory about why this happens. The reason we don't start a nuclear war is because that would bring the war from the front lines to grandma's house. War is a thing that plays to the male psyche of being a kind of exciting grand adventure. This may seem hard to believe for those of you that haven't been shot at or shot at other human beings. But after a while, when the urgency of mortal concerns begins to wear off, you can see things for what they really are. I think that war is a very male extension of childhood play. It's exciting until faced with one's own mortality, and indeed nobody thinks they'll be the ones getting blown to pieces. There's a great quote by Winston Churchill about being shot at. But I think nuclear war is such an existential thing that transcends conventional warfare to such a degree that no one wants to "play" with destroying the everything. As proof of my theory, I predict that the person that actually employs more than one-off nuclear weapons (and escalates a conventional war to a full-scale nuclear war) will be widely seen as being a total psychopath, legitimately insane.
Ubuntu forums compromised
> "Every literal in a program is a bug."

But we use plenty of literals in our programs all the time. Eg lambdas are function literals. (And definitions of named functions are just a special case folding binding and a lambda.)
How would it be paid for?
So, basically if you plan to compete with facebook territory as a small startup, then it seems to follow that you either

(1) Have patents / use a react alternative, such as vue (note this is annoying since there is no cross-platform native app version of vue )
(2) Don't have patents / protect your intellectual property in other ways (maybe by publishing a public whitepaper or something) / use React / Bust your ass since facebook can likely implement better and faster than any small team.
I agree with your post. Having said that, autopilot on airplanes is meant to be a "macro," rather than an autonomous flying function (in that they do not replace a human operator; in fact the pilot programs the instructions into the flight computer). Somehow autopilot's meaning was lost in translation, and people interpreted it to mean they don't have to take control when things go wrong. Perhaps the prefix auto- is what's wrong--people think the car will drive itself.

Automobiles contain the prefix auto- yet nobody assumes the car is self-driving. Most people understand it to mean gears don't need to be changed manually (not applicable to Tesla since it's single gear and gains full torque).
Telling is that this letter uses the term "driver assistance system" multiple times. I wonder if that's how they'll market it, or if that phrasing is reserved for PR damage control. (They also use the phrasing, "a death that had taken place in one of its vehicles" as opposed to the common "fatal crash")
That 'ufo' knows about the name expression problem at all betrays that they are very aware of that work in the FP community.
A Wait-Free Stack
Agreed. It should be called "CoPilot"
"sprinkle javascript" ...LMAO
Good tooling (think something along the lines of Hoogle) can help here.
here was an interesting proposal for a solution in C++
https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/CPP/C-PP-Con-2014/0007-Acce...
Assuming you're right about the guesses for those parameters, we could go a little further. Let's define

data Directionality = Clockwise | Anticlockwise

data AngularInterval = {
beginAngle :: Double,
endAngle :: Double,
directionality :: Directionality
}

... and then we're down to three parameters, all of different types (so no opportunity for mistakes, assuming static checking) and who knows, you might even have other uses for AngularInterval.
Exactly, this is a failure of marketing, not technology. Somebody in Tesla made a decision to prioritize "building a brand" and "making a sale" over "accurately communicating product limitations to customers". At a certain point it doesn't matter what you put in the manual or in the fine-print, you've got to ensure the customer has the correct mental model about what they are (or aren't) buying.

To clarify, I'm not saying Tesla made a dumb or unforgivable misstep (there will always be a dumber customers) but if they're going to do a (literal) post-mortem, they need to acknowledge that their branding is a factor.
In a language like Haskell you wouldn't want to prove the absence of recursion, but that all recursions in the program fit into a handful of patterns. (Eg 'structural-recursion' or 'tail-recursion'.)

Some type systems are strong enough to put that kind of analysis / constraints directly into the language. (Haskell might already be strong enough with GADTs and other language extensions enabled.)

In any case, the Addendum at the end of the blog post provide a different perspective on the problem you mentioned.
> it has AUTO in the name.

So does autocorrect, but I don't see people complaining that banging on the keyboard doesn't produce sonnets.

This whole "auto" thing is ridiculous.

By the way, it's an automobile and has been for a while ... where's the expectation that it will drive itself? Should we not call them automobiles anymore, in case someone gets the wrong impression? This is silly.
I wasn't clear, I meant more towards law and control. Each with their own agenda and waves of stupidity.
Not sure why I got downvoted. I was legitimately interested.
It's true. Personally, I took that to be a bit tongue in cheek. I would compare it to "GOTO Considered Harmful"-- where the author wants you to imagine a world without such a technique in order to expand your abilities. (Even though there are probably edge cases where such usage is justifiable.)
Not all control-flow primitives are necessary.

Eg Haskell and Scheme get by without 'while' and 'goto'.

Haskell would do just fine without a built-in 'if': you can define 'if' as a function via pattern matching.

Given that perspective, the article would be a call to use more expressive types than Booleans to match on---and in lots of cases not to match at all, but provide what would be the result of the match as an argument to the function.
A Wait-Free Queue as Fast as Fetch-And-Add [pdf]
> In Submissions

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

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The original post by canonical was discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12101918
Also, if you do take the finance metaphor, going into debt is not good by itself. It's the investments you make with that debt that are good, and potentially outweigh the burden of debt. (And can be cheaper than equity financing.)

Going back to programming: debt-fuelled programming should buy you something, eg speed to market, and is not a good in itself.
Windows 7 Starter 32 Bit ISO Download Free with Activator
Isn't the plane's auto-pilot pretty much a pilot assistance system designed to keep the plane at the specified altitude and follow a straight line (heading bug on older systems, GPS coordinates in the flight plan on modern ones)?

It's not designed for collision avoidance, runway taxiing, emergency situations, short/soft field landings or departures. It's occasionally used for normal landings (according to https://www.quora.com/How-often-are-commercial-flights-lande...) but it doesn't seem prevalent.
پکیج تور مشهد ورود ۳۱ تیر ۹۵ – تور مشهد تیر ۹۵
Also autopilot can only be used in certain scenarios (freeway driving). Are hours driven by autopilot in this ideal environment being compared with millions of hours spent driving in non-autopilot-eligible roads/conditions?
http://sci-hub.bz slash 10.1038/nature18626 may help here.

Oh god, a chord plot. There's a harbinger of bogosity if ever there was one. Still...

Interferon gamma is a pretty interesting part of the IFN cascade. Immune mechanisms control so, so much more than what foreign crap in your body gets attacked. Tumor suppression, clearance of aging adult stem cells, turnover of blood -- without our robust immune systems we, as a species and as mammals, simply would not exist.

The human genome is about 45% repetitive elements, many of them ancient retroviruses that integrated into the germ cells of our primate ancestors. Somewhat amazingly, not only does the innate immune system guard against their mobilization, but also their presence in the major histcompatibility complex (MHC, the "self/nonself" ID card) has seemingly been co-opted to increase the diversity available to the immune system itself. Repeats are used as a trigger to clear stem cells that are past their "sell by" date long before they can turn into cancers, at least as long as certain safeguards are active. Once the safeguards are defeated, it gets grim fast.

The immune system is at least as complicated as the brain. It is the result of eons of evolutionary arms race, and it is both fearsome and glorious.
I think that because its a virtual actor with different characteristics that regular well known actors it might be a good idea to call or differently to avoid confusion.
The SC4-HSM is user-programmable, and it has a display, which offers security benefits. See the FAQ for details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_clause_grammar -- parsing in Prolog. As usual with Wikipedia on technical topics it looks like a poor introduction, sorry.

Reasoning about performance is quite possible; there's good advice in Richard O'Keefe's The Craft of Prolog.

[Edit: fixed the book title, thanks to a friendly correction. The Practice of Prolog is a different book, also good, but less relevant.]
Such as nacl/secretbox for encryption instead of rolling your own AES-GCM

https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/crypto/nacl/secretbox
In Haskell, realizing that data flow and control flow are of the same spirit and that data structures are control structures is one of the key epiphanies to be had.

This article mentions 'if' and 'Boolean'. Loops and lists are another example. (And for the same reason that most languages make such extensive use of loops, Haskell programs can often have a lot of lists.)
It started with Gopher, IIRC: "Surf the Internet." I recall having a GIF of the gopher mascot with those words.[0] It was sometime between 1992 and 1995; I'm fairly sure it was before Netscape. The Jargon File[1] doesn't mention Gopher, specifically, but 1995 is just after Netscape was released.

[0] This PDF of an article by P. Frana (p.31) is the only reference I can find to this image[2] I clearly remember. https://instructure-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/account_1770000...

[1] http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/surf.html

[2] https://imgur.com/EHYdgMG
This. I know that the "10 years" was just an example, and I don't have the relevant data on home remodels, but 10 years on average in the US seems ridiculously fast to me. I would guess that the average is more like 30-40 for those doing renovations, and like parent says, many aren't renovating.
I would like to point out that I'm not American and am well travelled, but yes I am from the "evil" West. I've been to Muslim Countries, I have a rough feel for how the people think.

I understand there was a world before the internet and there will be a world without it. Not sure what your point was.

My point was, with it, it should be free, open and without bias. I imagine your household conversations would be rather different if political/religious leaders were in your house and watching every conversation about freedom you have.

Out of interest, why do you like Chinese way of life?

Also, for some context, where are you from?
And Haskell uses operator sections: (==0) would be similar to { it == 0 }. Alas, the section syntax get a bit cumbersome when you want to compose two or more of them, like in this translation of your example:

filter ((0==) . (%2)) [1, 2, 3, 4]
I've found New York State figures.[1] But they don't have a breakdown by fatal/nonfatal. Like the UK data, they show much lower accident rates on divided, limited access highways.

California has a fatality rate of 0.94 per 100 million miles traveled.[2] That's lower than the US average. But it's not broken down by freeway/non freeway. (You can request a login to query the database directly and download data, and it might be possible to compute freeway accident rates.)

[1] https://www.dot.ny.gov/divisions/operating/osss/highway-repo...
[2] https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services-informatio...
Another problem with the name is that autopilots in planes and ships do exactly what the pilot programmed them to do, e.g. hold a certain course. The Tesla autopilot on the other hand tries to intelligently react to the subset of the environment which it see through it sensors, which makes it more unpredictable. I assume that pilots don't have to monitor the behaviour of the autopilot itself, whereas in a Tesla you have to do that and be ready to interfere any second. That doesn't really reduce the workload for the driver, so people just trust the system instead.
Removing light bulbs from retail market and enforcing mercury based CFLs - that was the latest act of such a cartel. Good the the paradigm shift to LED was quicker and different then they hoped. Now Philips, GE and OSRAM are a shadow of its former self, and little players in the LED industry. And Asian build LED are of a often of a higher quality and last longer. (well probably all LEDs are built there anyway, even the one from OSRAM that whats to sell that part of the company) And Asian built traditional light bulb are available and last longer than the older cartel build bulbs.
Eh.... The extent that Chicago's mayor's office has gone to prevent me from getting their phone records comes pretty damn close.. I seriously, seriously doubt there are only a few situations like these.
Honestly, I don't know what you're talking about. Civil service has a very specific meaning to me, am obligated to do it as a male Swiss.
Not saying you're speeding FUD, but do you have any sources discussing CPUs (or GPUs) lasting only a few years? In my experience, desktop, server, and mobile CPUs work fine after 10 years, and I'd expect the same of current tech.
Is there such a thing as the universally acknowledged definition of "car safety"? When you start combining the word "statistically" and "safe", I feel that the statement loses its scientific rigor. To me "safe" is a very vague term and it's mostly used in a subjective context. It makes me wonder if their assumption was really valid when they were testing this feature.
The only arrogant one here is you. You blame the EU for Islam's obvious problems. "If the EU helped us it wouldn't have been like that". No, the EU is not here to help you. The EU is here to help itself. It acts only in self-interest as everybody should. If you can't get your shit together, you have only yourself to blame.
I like how on Hacker News, Elon Musk gets all the credit when Tesla is awesome, but "Somebody in Tesla made a decision" when people die.

Musk made the call. He might not have proposed it, but given how involved he is with the marketing and PR aspect of Tesla, there's no way he didn't OK the decision to call it Autopilot.
2.8B startup gets all of its daily meetings done in 10 minutes
I have tried. Two things get in the way quickly, and that's even just expressing thing, not even looking at performance yet:

* Python standard library functions, especially the ones on dicts, mutate and don't return the new dictionary.
* Python's syntax for creating functions is awkward: lambdas are cumbersome, and so are the operator package and eg functools.partial; there's no really convenient way to compose functions.
The "auto" in "autopilot" stands for automatic, not autonomous. Autopilot systems have existed for decades, and they've always referred to systems that automate the most tedious parts of operating a vehicle, while still requiring a human operator to handle new/unexpected situations.
What's the difference between multiple return values and returning a tuple?

(Apart from that languages with multiple return values tend to have some special syntax for binding only the first few members of the returned tuple?)