skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
"Consider this: If a Toyota driver had standard cruise control set for 70 miles per hour on the highway and failed to take over and reduce speed for a 25 mph turn, would we blame the cruise control for the resulting crash? Relinquishing full control to Autopilot is no different."

That's why Toyota calls is cruise control and not autopilot
It's funny, I can see how being a doctor amplifies paranoia, since you now know of all kinds of horrible afflictions that could strike. I can also see how it reduces worrying since you are a trained medical professional.
Fap Fap Fap :)
First of a three part series?!
"Loads of languages have old functions that could be better with hindsight"

Strawman. C's predecessors did it better with foresight. One of best such systems was built by C's inventors. BCPL author and C inventors deliberately removed safety at OS and language level due to hardware constraints plus personal preferences. Then nobody changed it to avoid work or broken apps. Hindsight aspect has nothing to do with it.

"C isn't going away any time soon, and there's no value in decrying it as a response to being told about a feature that makes it safer!"

Got mixed feelings on when to slam C or help its users out. I agree with you that bashing it at a comment on a safety improvement is probably a bad idea. It might have effect of reducing number of people promoting safer C strategies. I usually ignore, upvote them, or mention stuff like SAFEcode/Softbound depending on what's in comment. I go anti-C when misinformation shows up or on more general topics of safe, efficient apps.
They're unfortunately becoming common in the upper regions of Texas. At least I can verify Austin, TX has had quite a few. Thankfully pesticides take care of these not so little critters.
You are proving my point. Not everything is black and white. Not every slope is slippery. There is room for discussion and compromise. You comparing the people on the other side of the debate to fans of 1984 style totalitarian government gets nothing accomplished just like people on the other side saying you are enabling terrorists gets nothing accomplished.

The only difference is that the other side of the debate is already in power. So if the tech community doesn't even want to discuss this issue, guess which side of the issue will win the debate and decide future encryption law.
I agree with you. But since a clear picture wasn't included, here's our friendly CDC providing the lifecycle dvelopment of this bug[1].

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/chagas/gen_info/vectors/triatom...
They exists, they are called tracks and have trains running on them.

Joking aside, there probably will not be special roads since the cars need to be safe in case the roads fail anyway. And I don't think anyone will be for these new roads that no cars can use so it is also a chicken and egg problem.
Yes. Every Windows API is prefixed with WINAPI, which is a macro for the calling convention.
Well, there's similarity, but I'd call it a ladder of representation. Your compiler represents your code as AST with some metadata and stuff. Lisp compilers do that too. Lisp source is an executable AST without that metadata, and it being executable gives you shortcuts to make the tree smaller (e.g. macros).

Want to see that in action? Look at e.g. the intermediate language between Erlang source and BEAM bytecode - it reads like macroexpanded Lisp code with square brackets instead of parentheses.
My feeling is that none of them caught on because they implemented a good idea, badly.

The way to human friendly languages is not to take the phenomenal power and precision of computer programming languages and slather on a wafer-thin English layer that fuzzes and obscures the underlying complexity. Just because you've fuzzed and obscured the underlying complexity doesn't mean you've made it go away, but in practice you generally have removed huge swathes of the power.

I'd say the sort of thing we see Rust doing here is a better path. It is one of the most demanding, detail-oriented languages there is, but this sort of error details and explanation helps the programmer through that, and what comes out the other side is someone who still has the full power of programming, but far more accessibly.
Every error has a JSON representation, which any tool can receive and display it whatever way it chooses.
In this case, the popular usage of a term used to describe a feature to the general public is the most pertinent meaning of that term.
Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. If you're using an explicit integrator like a Runge–Kutta method such as RK4, then the answer is yes and the algorithms map pretty well onto a GPU. In that way, GPUs have been a huge boon to the scientific computing world. Though, personally, I find them a pain to program. However, if you use an implicit integrator like a backward Euler method, the answer is no because we need to solve a linear system. Yes, if we have a well defined problem it may be possible to design a custom preconditioner based on the physics of the problem that maps really well to a GPU. Those preconditioners take a huge amount of work to develop and, honestly, if you look at the last step of something like a multilevel method, it comes down to a direct factorization. Basically, direct dense and sparse factorizations do not currently map well to a GPU and these factorizations are extremely important to many scientific problems. Specifically, implicit time integrators depend on them to solve the linear systems involved and we need implicit integrators for stiff systems. Outside of integration, there are other situations where GPUs don't work well. In large scale optimization with equality constraints, there are linear systems that need to be solved and, most of the time, we need a direct factorization to solve these systems. That's why reduced spaced methods for things like parameter estimation are so popular. Basically, they're null space algorithms that eliminate the equality constraints by doing an implicit linear system solve using an explicit time integrator, which can map to something like a GPU. This leads to a host of other problems, but at least we can scale, sort of, sometimes.

At the end of the day, most scientific problems based on continuum mechanics need really fast level 1, 2, and 3 BLAS operations. That's mostly enough for simulating physics based on explicit time integrators. For elliptic problems or problems that require implicit time integrators, we need factorizations. Most of the time, we can get away with LU, Choleski, QR, and SVD. Both dense and sparse are required. For optimization with equality constraints, factorizations are also required.

By the way, if anyone wants to figure out how to do faster factorizations, dense and sparse, on whatever new hardware is coming out, that'd have an enormous impact on the scientific community. There are people working on it. There's not a lot of them.
We could have had those same apps sand boxed in the same flash. Only the delivery method would need to change.
This data is worth too much to be fully secure ever imho.

And it's not like it expires. You can change your credit card number, you can change all your leaked passwords, but you can't change your past. Once it's breached it's out there until the end of tech.
I'm surprised by how many people think Unity games are "basically C#". That's like saying Unreal Engine games are coded in Lua. Like Lua, C# is nothing but the scripting language. The Unity game engine that does all of the heavy lifting is coded in C++.
Reverse engineer the Invision interface
"and is therefore working against the public interest."
> I really find it hard to believe that people for whom such an interest in security at the CPU level would buy "retail" processors like you and me have access to.

DJB's interest here is specifically in creating algorithms that work well on general-purpose popular CPUs.
For those of you who have questions on what our plugin does, here is a friendly introduction to Bayesian inference and how that fits to Invrea Scenarios: https://invrea.com/blog/bayes_tutorial.php
The scariest bit from the article: the driver who died was very familiar with the autopilot limitations.
Bayesian Inference in Spreadsheets
absolutely agree. they nailed it by repurposing any js dev as a potential ts user. part of the reason ill be pushing ts soon at my current position.
I find myself thinking about the opening scene of a spaghetti western, where a guy is sleeping on a frame being dragged across an arid landscape by a horse.
The situational awareness of this thing is not good. The author points out that it didn't notice a rapidly approaching car prior to a lane change. The only side-looking sensors Tesla has are ultrasonics, which are too short range.

The Tesla sensor suite is:

- a bumper-level 2D radar, good for not rear-ending cars in front. Not good for obstacles at windshield height. Will detect a car. Might detect a bicycle. Won't detect most pedestrians.

- a forward facing camera using MobileEye software. This 1) recognizes lane lines, 2) tries to range the car ahead by putting a rectangle around the recognized rear end, and 3) reads speed limit signs. It may be able to recognize pedestrians. (Unclear. See [1])

- some ultrasonic sensors which detect obstacles to the side and rear at short range. Mostly useful for parking.

This just isn't enough. Tesla isn't profiling the road, and will drive off a cliff if the lines lead there, as the parent article points out. We had that figured out in the DARPA Grand Challenge a decade ago, where the vehicles didn't need road lines.

Compare Google's system.

[1] https://electrek.co/2016/06/26/tesla-autopilot-tests-pedestr...
In Sweden our population registry is used for that purpose - for stuff like banks, utilities and even some online shopping you sign up with your personal ID number, and then they pull the address from the government population registry, and then sync changes periodically. Change your address with the registry and it updates nearly everywhere.
I believe there will be another death in a Tesla vehicle with Autopilot enabled within a year. As drivers get more used to using it they will get more complacent. More features and improvements will roll out, requiring almost-but-not-quite complete inattention, which will increase driver's trust in the Autopilot, ironically putting them in more danger from the 1-in-100000 situations that humans handle easily.

Full autonomy is the only safe mode long term.
If you haven't recognized your "old bug friend" during the figuring-out process, maybe the path that lead to the bug was different this time? I.e. you have an old bug in a new context, which is almost like a fresh new bug.

Personally, when I find out / solve something tricky I note down the details in a notes file exactly for cases like this. I'm yet to use it though, because I usually remember the weirder bugs I've seen.
Telemedicine company Call9 hiring senior developers in NY
>Few games care about multicore

Pretty much all console games care about multicore.
In my sport we race for at a time. We typically run a consolation for positions 5-8. Several people said they would rather finish fifth than fourth, as they would rather win the consolation than lose the podium.
The problem isn't autopilot, it's overconfidence in autopilot. The driver who was killed was allegedly watching a movie and speeding when he crashed. Tesla's response is that autopilot is still in beta and people shouldn't rely on it too heavily, oh and by the way here's a story of a man who's Tesla drove him to the hospital after he had abdominal pain. There are plenty of Youtube videos of people screwing around while using autopilot, with a few near misses when autopilot screwed up.

When building a several ton vehicle you need to design for human flaws, and Tesla hasn't. Every other manufacturer with adaptive steering and autopilot-esque features has created attention checkers to ensure the driver doesn't rely too heavily on autopilot. If one of them released a beta autopilot the NHTSA would be on the phone in record time telling them to knock off the foolishness.

Tesla makes very cool cars, and the technologies they and other autonomous car companies are developing will absolutely save lives, but it's stupid to ignore the human factor until you've developed a car that 100% doesn't need a human driver.
While that technically may be a cpu bottleneck, I like to look at it as an implementation bottleneck. I can write a pong game that will be bottlenecked by any cpu if I make it calculate a million digits of pi at the start of each game loop, but it doesn't mean my game is more hardcore than Crysis.
No. That's not what the banks want. The banks want to form a cartel to collectively negotiate with Apple, which effectively means no negotiation at all. They want to strongarm Apple to open up its NFC module to individual banking apps; they won't roll up Apple Pay.
Unsafe levels of toxic chemicals found in drinking water for 6M Americans
How we went from Java to 100% Kotlin
NP hard is defined with reference to a non-deterministic Turing machine which runs in polynomial time.

A quantum computer is not a Turing machine. Yes, it can solve things in polynomial time that a Turing machine cannot do. But that doesn't mean that given problem is/isn't NP hard.
But cruise control only means cruise control because someone decided to call that feature cruise control. I find it harder to blame Tesla for an ambitious phrase rather than drivers that are considering nothing beyond the name of the feature before turning it on.
I think there is an assumption underlying your belief that non-violent movements need complementary violent ones for state recognition: that non-violent movements can't gain majority acceptance by the population (without needing a complement).

I believe they can, furthermore I believe that the state is unable to ignore a majority non-violent movement. One example is the gay rights movement. Once critical mass is reached and culture is changed, politicians change their tune, and laws practically unwrite themselves.

In the case where a minority non-violent movement necessarily stays just that, then yes I think there is a valid tactical argument to be made in having a complementary movement.
I wrote the following a little while ago just after the auto pilot crash was reported. Since then my feelings on auto pilot haven't' changed. it's the future but right now it actually makes things harder due to the uncanny valley situation its currently in.....

If you've never used the Tesla autopilot its a weird feeling.

It's not a fully self driving car and its obviously not strictly human controlled. Unfortunately it ends up being more mentally taxing to use this hybrid approach than to just drive yourself.

Consider highway driving, with normal human powered mode you are in full control so if you see brake lights a half kilometer up ahead you can disengage the cruise control and react on your own, everyone who has driven is comfortable with this.

With this assisted driving the car doesn't slow down right away, and its not clear if the car just can't see the tail lights lighting up yet or if its decided it doesn't need to react yet and as such you start to second guess the car,

- should I drive or should I leave it to the car?

- what if it turns when I grab the wheel? Will I make things worse by driving?

- does the car even see the object up ahead? How can I tell, its impossible to expect the car to tell you of an object that it cant' even see.

It becomes just more taxing to use the hybrid approach to driving and as such I don't use it at all. I have no doubt that the Tesla auto pilot is safer than driving, but I also have no doubt that it can royally screw up.

I've come to the conclusion that some assisted driving, like auto braking for obstacles that you will imminently hit is good but the kind of assisted driving where it can almost automatically drive for you is not really anywhere near ready, if you follow Tesla's rules on how to use it, it actually makes driving harder:(
like cigarettes?
I wonder if these could (and should?) be wiped out like that plan to wipe out the mosquitoes by releasing sterile ones.
Remembering When 'Melrose Place' Became a Conceptual Art Project
The tongue-in-cheek answer is that they are not designed by SpaceX.

For large passenger airliners, how would that work? Are we supposed to strap LIQUID rockets to them? Precisely balanced around the center of mass? What if one of them fails? What if one of them is ignited when it should not? Who designs those things? How to guarantee structural integrity? Are the attachment points going to be reinforced? What would the FAA say? I could go on and on.

Mind you, there have been planes designed with rocket-assisted take-off in mind. You won't find any designed for landings outside Kerbal Space Program.

They'd need to be liquid fueled because they'd need to be throttled to fulfill all these functions. I am not even asking where the oxygen (or whatever oxidizer) would be stored...
The big challenge at the moment is coverage; getting enough of the cells successfully edited by the gene therapy to make a meaningful difference. There are promising signs in mice, such as the muscular dystrophy study from earlier this year [1], but in general this is still an ongoing battle, without a standard approach.

The coverage issue is why you can't go out and get any one of a hundred edits [2] and expect things to happen as a result. As soon as that is robustly solved, well, gene therapies will be out there in the medical tourism market, starting with telomerase, myostatin, and follistatin, I'd imagine. Most likely the second of those up front since its already fairly robustly proven in humans via antibody therapies. [3]

I would be extraordinarily surprised to find that there were no humans already tinkering with their myostatin balance via genes or antibodies, given the number of people with access to the technology, and the ease with which such a therapy could be assembled.

[1]: http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v26/n5/full/cr201628a.html

[2]: https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2016/06/a-short-list-of-...

[3]: http://news.iupui.edu/releases/2015/12/myostatin-warden-musc...
I don't need to read stories like this to know I will never work at Amazon; having lived in Seattle since the dot-com era, I've heard enough of them from friends and acquaintances. But it's not just the unhappy, dissatisfied former employees who make the place sound bad: I've had a number of friends stick around for years, some of whom even claimed to enjoy it, and their stories still make Amazon sound like a soulless, dystopian meat-grinder.

It's the same in that glassdoor thread you linked: even the people who are trying to recommend Amazon as a good place to work end up making its culture sound aggressive, cutthroat, and inflexible. Not my cup of tea.
Transportation tickets are time sensitive too! Some of my friends do insane amount of travel per year. Apparently, they book their tickets in advance at least 6 months in advance so they can save as the tickets are wickedly cheaper.

Also, see if you can get a discount as a visitor for transportation like the JR Pass in japan.
"ADA" as an acronym is more easily know as "Assistant District Attorney".
A Wardrobe for the Emperor
> Android is under constant attack and there are huge botnets and malware. Just because a particularly bank hasn't been hit doesn't mean that money isn't being stolen.

Do you have even anecdotal evidence of Android payments being compromised?

> ApplePay is already operating at scale in numerous countries without any incidents. Why wouldn't you trust Apple with an already proven system?

I didn't say I wouldn't trust it, I said I wouldn't trust it more than my banks. My banks have been operating at scale years longer than Apple has. Not the same scale but enough that I'm confident.
It is a lucrative endeavor, and one that remains largely unknown outside the drug agency. DEA units assigned to patrol 15 of the nation’s busiest airports seized more than $209 million in cash from at least 5,200 people over the past decade after concluding the money was linked to drug trafficking, according to Justice Department records. Most of the money was passed on to local police departments that lend officers to assist the drug agency.

Rather than "concluding", it would be more accurate to say "nakedly fantasizing."
Could a human have detected the vehicle? Our only sensor is line of sight optical (with a few mirrors) and near misses when merging are very common.
And not to mention that "soft" warnings not included to the list would essentially have the same problem as `-Wall` vs. `-Weverything`. wink
find and hire an expert who you get on with to guide your self-study.
x86 CPUs use MESIF or MOESI, not MESI. Those protocols don't require round trips to main memory.
I'd say its hard because sometimes the errors human make would require a solution comparable to embedding a human-level AI in the compiler. That missing semicolon causing cascade of errors - sometimes it's easy to tell you missed one, sometimes it isn't. Consider following C++ code:

int foo = 2
bar = 3;

Am I missing a semicolon there? Or maybe a comma? You could probably guess it based on whether or not "bar" exists in the lexical scope during compilation, but then again, maybe I want to shadow it with a "more local" definition?

The point is - you can make suggestions based on probabilities, and maybe it is a good idea to integrate a compiler with a linter. But to actually get error messages that make sense, your compiler would have to understand what you mean.
I suspect that much of the demand for more bandwidth is really a demand for lower latency. It's not that there's a real need for 1Gb/s to the user. It's that the latency is too long under load.
Some delay is being inserted by middle boxes near the end user with dumb FIFO queuing. This is sometimes called "bufferbloat", but it's not about how much RAM you have in the router, it's about big FIFO queues.

Just prioritizing empty ACKs in the upstream direction can help a lot. If you can't watch video while uploading a file, that's the problem.
>An autopilot is a system used to control the trajectory of a vehicle without constant 'hands-on' control by a human operator being required. Autopilots do not replace a human operator, but assist them in controlling the vehicle, allowing them to focus on broader aspects of operation, such as monitoring the trajectory, weather and systems

Autopilot doesn't mean fully autonomous. It was never that originally in aviation either, basicLly just controlling altitude and speed. I'd say Tesla's use of "autopilot" is pretty spot on.
I don't buy it. Apple is just painful to negotiate with and the banks want an at least semi-even table to play at.

This conflict isn't unbalanced. The same access is being sought on both sides. The banks want their ~10M ish iPhone users to have access to payments on their phones. Apple wants the same ~10M ish users to have access to payments on their phones. Both sides want something of equal value, it simply seems like Apple wants it all and isn't willing to give anything up.
I'm a big fan of Ange Albertini's work with this kind of stuff - https://github.com/corkami/

There's a talk called "Funky File Formats" but there's (fittingly) multiple versions of it so you're best off searching for it.
well that's true, I'm a little fishbowled because I work in devops, so my conversations are constrained to technical matters which don't require (if your team is any good) trust in anything but the code you review and accept.

I restrict conversations about jobs, raises and things that require convincing to face to face encounters, but those are intermittent and not a daily or even weekly occurrence.

since the majority of my conversations are:
hey, X needs to be done on Y, or build a mesos cluster on Z, or we're having intermittent connection issues on demo. It makes sense to have everything written down for reference, jira helps too, but getting the business side to create tickets is harder than it looks.

overall maybe it's more of a role based issue.