skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I agree that thinking of these things in isolation is not that useful. That understanding how they interrelate is as important if not more important than understanding them in isolation. I also agree that rationality and intuition are not the opposites they are describing them as, the opposite of rational has always been emotional. Intuition plays a part both in rational and emotional decisions, it is orthogonal to that dualism.
Oh yes, you are right. I missed it way up top the list of filters.

I'd love that podcast subscription capability, though listening to it in HTML5 means I can speed up the playback without having to download the audio file first (my podcast app, PocketCast, doesn't let me do this).

A while ago, I was thinking about doing a search engine on top of audio. The startup deepgram seemed to offer interesting tools, but didn't get a chance to play with it:
https://www.deepgram.com/
Are you going to hate him forever because he was wrong about something 10 years ago? Penn and Teller made dozens of episodes of that show and most of them were great. Even if they weren't right about every issue, they encouraged their audience to think critically, Which is more than I can say about anything else on TV.

Penn and Teller are a lot of fun and put on a great show. The political issue they spend the most time on is the TSA.
Godel Escher Bach also touches on this as well as the relationship between the impossibility of absolute formal logic reductionism v holism, and consciousness.
From my reading, they didn't seem to claim that all scientific progress has been slower, just fundamental advancements and theory, c.f.

"...the pace of fundamental innovation, the kinds of theories and engineering practices that will feed the pipeline of future progress, appears, to some observers, including us, to be slowing..."

That's not to say that we haven't accumulated a tremendous amount of knowledge and techniques, but our findings don't seem to be simplifying in a way that makes them easier to understand.
> What's problematic about the "say no to consciousness" case?

It denies the most fundamental fact of human experience, the existence of that experience itself.
I don't consider one every two-three years a lot. I buy one whenever I run out of ink.
Why is that a bad analogy? You can also print out solid black / coloured pages and get rid of the ink before it hits the hardcoded page limit.
Because the description of brain activity does not capture the experience of being an active brain. The scientific picture of the world is odorless, tasteless, colorless, soundless, etc. It's an abstract, mathematical description. But we don't experience the world that way. There is a massive discrepancy between the two. That's consciousness.
Of course like you said Brendan basic values were being questioned. But I think you're taking the comment you're replying to a bit too literal. What it probably meant was that things besides technical points, especially interpersonal ones do actually matter.
You could argue that a lot of people's basic values were compromised by Brendan Eich.

And I think you're right that you should try to keep things as separate as possible.
But that's never 100% possible. Underlying the technical problems there lie social ones. If you tell yourself that you're keeping things purely rational and technological you are lying to yourself. You still need to work with other people to get things done for instance. Even the GNU project is strongly occupied with moral thoughts about their definition of freedom of software. Being the greatest genius doesn't help you one bit if you can't communicate those ideas and get help spreading them.
In addition to the good answers of others: sometimes, pitchers even intentionally throw four balls, throwing the ball meters wide, sometimes behind the batsman's back (the catcher will know such a throw is coming, and move to catch the ball)

That can happen, for instance, if second base is occupied and two men are out. Giving a batsman a free run changes that into a situation with still two men out, but first and second base occupied. With first and second base occupied, if the next batsman hits the ball, all three players have to run; that make it easier to get the third out needed to end the (half-)innings.

It also can be done if the man at bat is a particularly good hitter, and the next ones at strike are deemed less of a danger. For example, with third base occupied, it's highly likely that a good hitter will hit the ball in such a way that the man at third base can score a point; that risk is lower when facing a not-so-good hitter. Therefore, the pitching team would prefer giving away that free run and have the lesser player take a go.
Personal attacks aren't allowed in HN comments. Please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12524538 and marked it off-topic.
In this case, though, we're talking about interfaces; an interface is a pointer plus this bit we're calling a vtable. Pointers, even to different types, absolutely can be compared for equality, can't they? More specifically, i am pretty sure pointers can be compared to see if they are both nil, which is all that would be needed here.
Reason is mostly subconscious like all our mental facilities. That is not a good distinction. That it has good reasoning behind it is the only good distinction.
GOEDKOPE VLIEGTICKETS Vluchten vergelijken doe je op Wherewefly
Gmail will now support CSS media queries
The point I got is this: Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one. Furthermore, it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.
I have no idea what it can possibly mean to be "correct in your ... later treacherous [actions]."

Do you mean: is it possible that the Post is correct that Snowden should not be pardoned? Yes, that's possible. There are reasonable arguments to be advanced against a pardon. IMHO these arguments are wrong, but as I said in my blog post, reasonable people can disagree.

But even if one suspends disbelief and concedes for the sake of argument that Snowden should not be pardoned (is that what you meant?) that in no way excuses what the Post did. The Post is not an disinterested observer here, it is an active participant in the events, at best a co-conspirator, and at worst the actual culpable party. The editorial is entirely self-serving, and worse (because this is supposed to be a newspaper) it doesn't acknowledge that it is entirely self-serving. And it is self-serving at the expense of a man who (and there can be no reasonable dispute over this) has taken great personal risk to bring wrong-doing by the government to light.

So no, I don't see any possibility of any kind of redemption here. There are only two possibilities: either the release of the information was a crime that should be punished, or it was not. If the former, then the Post is at least as culpable as Snowden if not more so, and it needs to turn over the people who made the decision to publish for prosecution (or at least advance an argument as to why they should not be prosecuted while Snowden should be -- I can't wait to hear that argument), and it probably needs to close its doors like the News of the World did. On the assumption that releasing the Snowden documents was illegal, what the Post did was much worse than what NoW did.
The thing that your post misses and that most people who criticize Wikipedia miss, is that all stuff written everywhere could be wrong or malicious.

Any book, any blog, anything could be wrong by accident or on purpose. Wikipedia is open enough we can investigate it and readily determine who the malicious or incorrect actors are. Which is far more than any book from antiquity, most blogs and even much professional journalism provides.

Should we trust wikipedia implicitly? Of course not.

Should we trust any single source simplicity? Of course not.
"Human conscious experience is wholly a matter of physical goings-on in the body and in particular the brain."

Is there any proof of this? The while article seems to hinge on this assumption and then go on from there. We can't see or measure consciousness (brain activity yes, consciousness no). We only experience it. The article makes far to many naive assumptions without any proof.
To echo callesgg elsewhere in this thread, my own pet "theory" is that conciousness is a metacomputation, i.e. not just a process of neural reactions to outside events, but reaction to a process of reaction. For example, understanding the need to convey acquired information to another being to the same species eventually led to the development of language. Figuring out that brain forgets information led to the development of storytelling (hoping that someone else will remember) and eventually writing. And so on. Conciousness to me is not black and white but instead a spectrum of traits made possible by thinking about thinking.
Instant.io – Streaming file transfer over WebTorrent
Editorial exists to advocate for the interests of the paper. That's the key.
Ideally you would not want to start from scratch and instead purchase the rights to an old proven printer's design.

Anyone know of who you could approach that would sell this design to you?

Then you could probably get on Kickstarer and say "If we raise X dollars we will purchase the rights of this Y printer and open source all of the components"
Reason will give you the math to build the pyramids.

Irrationality will make you think it is a good idea.
You must be as much on a crusade as he is because you seem to have missed in the fervor that this is an editorial written by Greenwald.
This article doesn't address why they do it. There's a quote from an ad a few decades ago, but the article doesn't answer the question. Interesting read nonetheless.
Frigidere la promotie
Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness it seems quite unwise to assume that it is without any evidence.
This is a good point. As far as I remember Amazon had/has a contract with the CIA for 100s of millions. When the rich own the media there is always a risk that they will hire those that push their agenda. Amazon could greatly profit from government contracts. I wouldn't argue one article proves a conspiracy, but it's so incredibly hypocritical that you have to wonder why WaPo would publish it. Especially when it means future leakers might not want to go to them for fear they will work with the govt to imprison them.
There are problems with our experience of experience. We think consciousness is continuous, but it can be clearly demonstrated that it's fragmentary. Daniel Dennett demonstrates this using alternating images in his TED talks. However, just because our experience of experience doesn't have 100% fidelity, it doesn't follow that our experience doesn't exist. That would be like saying our vision doesn't exist because it doesn't have 100% fidelity. I think Daniel Dennett and many other consciousness deniers make this mistake.

https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on_our_consciousness?l...
I disagree that that's the point of the Editorial Page.
This is always the problem with using price to filter out bad behavior. Scumbags can demand a higher price with another SKU for the same crap.
As long as the average bandwidth isn't a bottleneck, it's not going to matter - at worst, you're just going to need to prefetch (and due to SSD latency, that's likely optimal regardless).
Consciousness is a discrepancy between our ability to accurately model a brain and our experience of being a brain.

I'll settle for that.

It's analogous to: What is Artificial Intelligence? AS is what computers can't do yet.

Edit red to add: to put it another way, consciousness is that part of brain activity the text books don't have a chapter on.

We can only point to what consciousness is not.
Then you're wrong and arguing a definition of 'opinion' that appears in no dictionary of which I am aware. Mine is not a controversial statement within the industry, so I'm rather surprised to run into an argument and pushback outside. What do people think editorials are?

They have this opinion for a reason and were willing to bite a source to advance it. Follow the reason.
I am firmly in the DRY camp with a very important caveats:

1- Do no generalize so you can factor out like code too early. The first time just write it. The second time write it again even if only minimally different. The third time is a judgement call. By the fourth time you see the proper abstraction, something that might have been much different if you were to have refactored early on.

Corollary to #1- Don't run ahead of yourself making all these placeholder functions, interfaces, and abstract classes with the expectation that you would have had to refactor this way later. Unless you done versions of your project a dozen times (even then, sometimes I don't even do it), you are most likely going to be wrong.

2- Don't refactor out single lines unless there a lot going on on that line or you have the experience to know (don't lie to yourself either) that this will be an important and growing line.

3- Sometimes performance can trump. And sometimes you do know this ahead of time, especially if performance is correctness as it is on some projects with very tight constraints.

Besides that. I freaking hate seeing similar code everywhere, blowing up my instruction cache, making changes difficult. Please stop it.
> It denies the most fundamental fact of human experience, the existence of that experience itself.

How does "saying no to consciousness" deny "the existence of the human experience"? If you were talking about brain denial, then I would have to agree. It seems fully possible for the brain to continue to do interesting things even if "consciousness" turns out to be false. Thankfully it's nonfalsifiable apparently....
Thank you for your advice. "friendships are false" by that I mean; that my "friends" only need and ask for my help wen in deep trouble, and I don't feel they are asking the way as a favor. For some reason my "friends" seem fake.
Aesthetics were also an issue 20 years ago (wow, I'm old) in 1996 resulting in the FCC adopting OTARD rules to prevent HOAs from restricting the newer/smaller satellite dishes. If so for DirectTV dishes, so too for ham.

https://www.fcc.gov/media/over-air-reception-devices-rule

"The rule applies to individuals who place antennas that meet size limitations on property that they own or rent and that is within their exclusive use or control, including condominium owners and cooperative owners, and tenants who have an area where they have exclusive use, such as a balcony or patio, in which to install the antenna. The rule applies to townhomes and manufactured homes, as well as to single family homes."

OTARD = Over The Air Reception Devices
Please buy a copy of my fantasy book entitled "The Enlightenment of the Far North" by Freja Stille on lulu.com -9.99USD Support an independent author. Thanks

http://www.lulu.com/shop/freja-stille/the-enlightenment-of-t...
So the way you see this --- and let's just stipulate whatever needs to be stipulated to keep this simple --- regardless of the genuinely held opinions of the Editorial Page editors about clemency for Snowden, their paper's previous role in the Snowden story obligates them not to relate those opinions in an editorial?

Maybe another way to put this is: is there an editorial they could have written that would advance their opinion about clemency and not been treacherous?
> Just because we can't figure out a physical picture of consciousness doesn't mean there isn't one.

didn't Descartes try to explain this hundreds of years ago?

> it is the physical part that is the big mystery, rather than the consciousness part.

you say tomato, i say tomato. seems like the author is trying to mince words or use people's connotations of these words to start an argument.
The evidence is that consciousness is tied to the physical somehow (via brains at least). What this means, we haven't been able to figure out. Or at least, there is no consensus.
I'm sorry, what's your point? I'm challenging his argument, not his reporting.
In the UK, we mostly eat back bacon rather than the streaky bacon which predominates in the US, and it is usually packaged like this:

https://www.ocado.com/productImages/637/63740011_0_640x640.j...

There's no artful hiding, but the label covers the fatty tail.

Sometimes, fancy bacon is shingle-packed, but the top isn't covered:

https://www.ocado.com/productImages/145/14531011_0_640x640.j...

Even if it's streaky:

https://www.ocado.com/productImages/265/26532011_0_640x640.j...

I'd be interested to know if this is because of UK (or EU!) food packaging regulations, or if it's just local custom.
Doesn't seem to work. I regularly get sick eating here, and I've had my worst bout of food poisoning ever (week long). I never had food poisoning before in my life. I never eat anywhere below A either.
One person delivering to many people will be more efficient than many people making the trip to the store in their own cars.
I'd assume it's just an unsigned number with 0xFF... representing -1. So counting would go (assuming 8 bits)

0xFC SSIZE_MAX - 2
0xFD SSIZE_MAX - 1
0xFE SIZE_MAX
0xFF -1

That makes more sense to me than a bias that the compiler would have to know about.
It's written in a very Humbertian style (and you can't read "Dear gentlewomen of the jury. Do not attempt to judge things you probably never even understood." and not think of Humbert's own self-defense). So I like to believe dschiptsov's point is not so straightforward as it seems...
This is already solved on bigger scale -- RCS. You can develop, merge, blame, diff slightly different filesets, but not lineranges. Look, we already have both 'just functions' and dry-vs-complexity problem unsolved.
There's no way such an editorial could fail to be hypocritical unless it said, We're returning our Pulitzer and firing our news team that worked on the story. Otherwise they've received benefit from what they themselves are arguing was an illegal and irresponsible act.

If the members of the editorial board who feel this way had quit, they would then be in a position to express their opinion in another venue without hypocrisy.

Anyway, it's a sad day for American journalism. They've guaranteed that the Post will never again be offered leaked material. I will be very surprised if they don't lose some of their newspeople over this.
Another Person Has Reportedly Died Due to a Tesla Autopilot Failure
I've been on the other end, with a nearby diner's grease vent getting off-calibrated and thus noisy and basically ruining my life, and the owner and city insisting it's perfectly fine. I'm not alone as people have filed lawsuits over this.
DMCA takedowns mean nothing to a site that has no safe harbor privileges anyway. IANAL, and I still know at least that much.
The author is stating that physicalism (formerly materialism) is true, however, physics fails to fully capture what it is to be physical, because it doesn't not include our experience of said physical world.

Basically, our conceptual understanding is lacking. But dualists or idealists might say the same thing, so ...
Is your customer the journalist or the original paper?
I'm Canadian and in grade 2, we took some kind of test that gave me the gifted label. Woo. I suspect it was just a simple IQ test of some sort. They eventually skipped me a grade as a result.

Not even remotely autistic though.
Elon Musk wanted a race. Now he has one
I'm reminded of "The technology involved in making something properly invisible is so mind-bogglingly complex that 999,999,999 times out of a billion it's simpler just to take the thing away and do without it." There are things I'd like to build, but a printer is so likely to work badly that I'd probably just not print stuff instead of trying.
If he just made large windows out of the same double walled polycarbonate panels, wouldn't they collect just as much heat from the sun during the day? The problem with windows however is they don't insulate as well. Perhaps just doubling up or tripling their thickness would achieve the same result in the end, and be much simpler. What am I failing to understand?
So instead of music being on a platform, music is the platform?
The markup is the same on food. It's just that people only order one main dish each but can order several drinks, and it's altogether another additional revenue source that you need.
20% equity in a company and the same pay as you would make at Google?

One or the other. But not 0.02% and half the pay...
Maybe so, but please don't post dismissive swipes to HN. It degrades conversation quality and encourages the habit of rejecting new work or new ideas.

It's true that most new work and new ideas won't amount to anything. But those that will, almost never look like they will when they're incipient. So if we don't want to trample on new things of great potential value, we have to adjust our response to all new things, including the ones that seem lame. It takes a certain discipline to practice that suspension of judgment, and we're hoping to cultivate that quality here.
I know my question seemed vague, and lacked information. I never thought about it that way. I will try my best to focus on what is ahead and work out a definite plan to follow.

Thank you.
Now developers can fight bugs literally.
Seahawks game online
Because "consciousness" and "subjective experience" are essentially two different words for the same thing.

Some people try to define "consciousness" as something other than "subjective experience" but doing so is really just evading the "hard question".
Can anyone recommend a good Soho printer at this point?
I have come to the same conclusion, but I have some ideas how to back it up. My only concern with packaging it up as a theory is that probably few would take me seriously because I don't have any neuroscience and psychology background.
But what about DVORAK!?
So?

A rising tide raises all ships.
Allen Institute publishes highest resolution map of the human brain to date
HTML also defines extremely flexible error recovery that is de-facto required. There's no way a browser's getting away without it when the competition allows such documents, and there's so much legacy content around.

I wouldn't expect huge perf increases, but there are a few minor non-local effects such as self-closing tags that imply more branches than strictly necessary. It's not going to add up to much of anything, that's for sure. A simpler spec might, however, leave more complexity-budget for clever optimizations, but that's pretty speculative. The kind of thing I'm thinking about here is that when the language is fairly restrictive, you can consider using SIMD operations to match content cleverly; e.g. you might find the closing quote of an attribute four-chars at a time. Those kind of tricks require interplay decoding and parsing and are typically way to complicated in all but the simplest of cases.

In any case, this is drifting off topic: perf is not a primary reason to aim for simplicity, it's just a possible windfall.
All the proof you need is the existence of psychoactive chemicals, the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation, evidence from fMRI studies, and the selective personality alterations that occur in cases of localized brain damage.
Haskell doesn't necessarily capture by value or by reference since you cannot distinguish between the two when all values are immutable.
> Basically, our conceptual understanding is lacking. But dualists or idealists might say the same thing, so ...

my point exactly. :) i'm not sure whose eyes the author is trying to open.
But how does this explain the direct subjective experience that we have through our senses (also called the hard problem)?