skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Yes. This is absolutely true. People don't speed around mountain passes on snowy nights. So I'm not clear what your point is.

A better way to frame it is do we want to optimize everything for automobile travel speed and convenience? That's what the US has done for the last 100 years, and the result is poor public transit, unwalkable neighborhoods, urban cycling as extreme sport, and an epidemic of road rage.
> It's not constant. It varies by temperature.

Yeah, so when we will have vacuum cooled below 0K, it will confirm existence of ether.

Yes, I asserting very minority view in physics, but I'm able to back it with video of real experiment. It is not a hand waving.

Let be honest. The quick way to check understanding of something is to ask "why?" few times. People, who dedicates their entire lives to relativistic and/or quantum physics, are not able to answer even to single "why?". It's because of orthodox education.

However, they can downvote.
You need to balance this with the ability to detect malfunctioning sensors. Its not so trivial with that requirement.
It doesn't represent the nullification of science; it only tries to question the basic axiom of physics that the laws of nature are the same everywhere, have always been and will always be. If you drop that axiom, consequences are interesting. If you allow for the ability of future more advanced humans to actually change some observable properties of the universe (like speed of light), then you have to allow for the possibility of past alien civilizations doing just that. And then it may turn out that what we're observing today is a universe that is not in a "virgin" state, but was affected by life in the past already.

This is a legitimate scientific question but - since we have pretty much zero evidence suggesting this has happened, we have to assume we're studying a "virgin" universe. But if physics was somehow manipulated by aliens, science should be capable of eventually figuring this out too - at the very least just because if you have a capability of doing something, then it's easier to notice evidence of someone else doing that thing in the past.
I've seen a similar principle in the Alps. Every town is preceded by a really sharp turn. Works much better than any speed limit sign.
Epistemological point: if from the modern world you dropped in on Christopher Columbus with all your gadgets and tried to explain them, it might sound like magic. If from the modern world you dropped in on a hominid 100k years ago in his cave with all your gadgets and tried to explain them? You'd be a god.

Things that exist outside of our ability to have language to describe them are godlike. (There is an open question about whether the set of such things is irreducible or open to conquest at some point in time)

If the caveman trapped you and tried to figure out what you were up to? Yes, to him it would be physics. However -- this is just another way of saying that he'd have no symbols to grasp your behavior and would be forced to create various mental models that he could share with others.

Donald Rumsfeld famously talked about knowns and unknowns[1]. But there is another dimension of things we have no symbology to begin discussing. There be dragons.

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk
Technically, scientific theories are never proven. They are only supported or contradicted by testable, reproducible hypotheses. As far as I'm aware, there's many more hypotheses supporting evolution theory than there are supporting intelligent design theory.
For this post, we have scraped various signals (e.g. reviews sentiments, online ratings, topics covered in the book, author influence in the field, year of publication, social media signals, etc.) from web for more than 40's Scala books.

We have fed all above signals to a Machine Learning algorithm to compute a score for each book and rank the top ones.
D. All of the above.
You don't even need a hot-air rework station. A normal hot-air gun will work if you give it a nozzle (hose fastener and a thin sheet of metal folded over will work in a jiffy)
Alexa help me I'm hurt
1) I think what is understood about the immune system is really, really over-exaggerated. One specific thing is that a lot of studies regarding antibodies may be messed up by the presence of natively unfolded proteins (which will react with any antibody raised towards beta-sheets and give inaccurate mass estimates on western blot). Every anti-body is promiscuous, it just matters how much.

2) Notice I have no quantification or numbers associated with these ideas. As far as I know, no one has ever spent the time to work this out into a real model that can make precise predictions. Accordingly, consider them wild speculations.

3) According to this sketch of an idea, anything that contributes to identifying and lysing non-self cells should reduce transmission in a given tissue.
Yes, this is part of what is not just good, but great design. It just works, thanks to subconscious influence.

If we'd spend more of our resources on designing such systems that any human instantly gets, I'd assume humanity would be a lot better off.
And? That doesn't change the fact that the government makes up the rest of it. Besides, a not insignificant amount of the private sector's invasion of privacy has been at the behest of the government:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/04/yahoo-sec...
why is anyone downvoting this?, comment author has a point.
Mostly from conversations in CS grad school ~2012 with research professors doing related work, such as in ANN. At that time at least it was commonly discussed in academia. Perhaps a breakthrough has happened since but not one that I'm aware of.

For example, see the sections "Tests for confirming operational AGI" and "Feasibility" in [1], the $100,000 prize requirements in the Loebner prize [2], or "The integration bottleneck" in The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet [3].

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

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loebner_Prize

[3]: http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-real-reasons-we-dont-have-agi-...
> This is actually incorrect. Pilot wave theory gives a deterministic explanation of phenomenon that the standard model treats as frequentist random events.

That's a remarkably incorrect statement. Let's see:

* The "standard model" is a quantum field theory and has essentially nothing to do with this discussion.

* Standard quantum mechanism says nothing about frequentist vs Bayesian interpretations of anything.

* Standard quantum mechanism is a deterministic theory, too. Take a look at the Schrödinger equation: it's deterministic.

Determinism is tricky. Suppose you have a particle doing its thing (going through double slits or whatever) and then you measure its position. In standard QM, you have two choices: you use the Born rule (or a fancier version -- I like the POVM formalism) and get a distribution of outcomes and a new post-measurement wavefunction, or you can include the measurement apparatus in your system and you end up with many worlds. In PWT, I think you have two similar choices. You can start with a distribution of your (hidden) initial condition and get an resulting distribution over the outcomes (which will be the same as the Born rule distribution if you calculate it correctly). If you do this, you still need to model decoherence, and I believe it looks at least as artificial as the standard QM case. Alternatively, you could presumably add degrees of freedom and more hidden variables to describe the measurement apparatus and you end up with an IMO extremely messy version of many worlds.

<aside>My personal view is that standard QM with many worlds is the best theory we have. If you start with the many worlds hypothesis and assume that it's totally impractical to devise an experiment that actually detects coherence between large-scale states, you can ignore this coherence, average it out, recover the Born rule, etc, as an approximation. IOW I think that decoherence is a limitation of our ability to build crazy experiments rather than a fundamental property of the universe.</aside>
right, I too can make assertions with no evidence to back them up.

If that's really your bar, then we don't have much more to discuss.
There are certain aspects that are proven beyond a doubt, such as microevolution. But to say that all of life is proven to have undergone both biological and chemical evolution because some microbes were seen evolving in a lab is a bit optimistic in my view.

Take the example of DGRNs (mentioned in my previous comment). It is proven that even a slight change in the structure of a GRN completely breaks embryonic development. In other words, if a random mutation is introduced during gene development, the embryo will simply die. So how do entirely new species form if embryonic development is basically impossible? The same applies to protein evolution.

I would be more accepting of chemical evolution if the time scale we were considering was much longer. Many people have computed the approximate probabilities required to get a functioning protein from random mutations, and it turns out that it simply isn't feasible given the age of the universe, and this planet.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

― C.S. Lewis
Just remember not to put a gmail account as the recovery email for that app store account or you might still get nuked.
I agree, evolution is more fleshed out than ID. The issue however is how neo-Darwinists have been selling evolution as a complete package. It is not a complete theory, not by a long shot. There is a lot of work to be done before we can say that evolution is undeniably the reason behind the formation of all lifeforms.

On top that, there has been a harsh dismissal of ID theorists by the evolution community, even though ID has been correctly pointing out significant flaws with evolution. For example, there was an incident a while back of a journal editor being severely reprimanded for accepting to publish a paper that slightly mentioned ID.

Of course, ID itself hasn't been providing alternative hypotheses to evolution that are, well, testable. It's important to note that ID theory in and of itself is not pushing for "God", but rather an intelligent entity in general. So for instance, ID would agree with the idea of the whole "universe simulation theory".
> then yes, some people would have to take it as medicine and never stop.

Which is a problem since it would probably be a monoclonal antibody and those are the most expensive drugs to make. Like hundreds of thousands or even millions per year expensive (depending on what dose is needed).

If it really does cost millions per year the US couldn't afford it - it would cost over a trillion per year to treat everyone in the US, and more than 40 trillion to treat everyone (and that's just for the medicine).

(For comparison total healthcare spending in the US is 3 trillion.)

So better hope that either the price goes down, or that it only requires a limited course of treatment. Can you imagine a cure for HIV, and we can't afford it?
It's Oberth effect, basically? :).

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/01/q-how-does-the-ober...

By the way, I only know about it because I played KSP a lot ;).
Personally, I prefer the second one.

It's more concise and still provide the braces safety.
The Whys and Hows of Repurposing Content (and Where to Publish)
We (https://tensorflight.com) are working on utilizing deep learning for detecting trees the most affected by drought in aerial images collected by UAVs, among other things. We detected several hundred K trees last week.

Contact me (kozikow@tensorflight.com) if you want to get involved in any capacity (either as client, partner or coworker).

Disclaimer: I am a cofounder.
The problem isn't the Internet, where the problem lies is with the devices connected at either end.
Damn! "... the Trump team has not somehow made European-Americans more racist and xenophobic. ..."
Is there some objective sense in which conservation of momentum is more fundamental than conservation of energy in a different reference frame? Since either can be derived from the other, how do you determine which is "actually a consequence" of which? (I ask out of genuine curiosity)
Microsoft probably offered them a really sweet deal (read: tons of Azure credits), in exchange for the press/marketing.

Amazon is pretty stingy with those kinds of things, so they are very Jeff Bezos when it comes to startup credits and the like.

The "open" name is telling, OpenAI's work should be agnostic of platform, and they shouldn't be pitching others' proprietary systems in public like this.
Because it's by far bringing in the most cash for the government: http://www.lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/90

California should get by far the biggest say in everything because of this. Divide the electoral collage up by GDP instead of population and see what the colors look like.
> my ancestors were scottish but i don't identify that way -- i'm a white dude, that's my lived experience in the american context. a lot of things i do, my speech patterns, many of my hobbies, are, maybe not exclusive, but perhaps more common among other white people -- i'd speculatively call that white culture.

That's because white people found it advantageous to make it that way.

My ethnicity, Indian-American, is definitely not white, but as far as I can tell that's just an accident of melanin. In things I do, in my speech patterns, in my hobbies, in my choice of church denomination, in my choice of neighborhood, in the groups I fit in with in grade school, in the music I listen to, etc., I'm extremely close to white, much more so than to black or Hispanic. If I didn't look down at my skin, my lived experience would be that I'm just as white. (I've had conversations about race with friends of Indian and other Asian descent in which the entire table has forgotten that we're not actually white.) If it weren't for the melanin problem, I am positive that "white people," the institution, would gladly grab us along for the ride, just as they did with the Irish and the Polish and so forth. (And, possibly, if it weren't for the fact that having us as a model minority makes it easier to oppress the non-model minorities without looking like you hate minorities in general.)

And I'm rather worried about whether someone will one day figure out a term other than "white" to mean this alliance of not-black-not-Hispanic people, and Indian-Americans ans Asian-Americans will buy into it.
Not really a book but I recently stumbled across a Korean drama on Hulu, called "W" that I thought was pretty thought provoking in this type of train of thought, IMO.
If you build a road through downtown the same way you build a superhighway, people are going to drive on it at superhighway speeds, which is unsafe for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers because downtown has more intersections and interactions between modes of travel and directions of travel.

You can try to fix that by posting a low limit and ticketing. However, that only works while enforcement is high. It's much simpler to build the road to encourage appropriate speed, which means narrowing the lanes. You can still have a wide shoulder for avoidance of debris or stalled vehicles: It helps to have it well marked so drivers don't feel it's part of their lane.

It's not jaywalking to cross the street at unmarked intersections, but it can be dangerous when drivers are traveling faster than speeds where humans are good at estimating, or where there is poor visibility due to turns in the road or vegetation or whatever.

Also, since the author is writing about Florida, age and humidity are factors.

For highways where high speed is appropriate, wide lanes are too.
> If pedestrians are getting hit by cars one of two things has happened: the pedestrian jaywalked or a driver didn't stop when required -- both cases which have nothing to do with lane width.

The driver will be able to stop when required when they're driving slower, which they certainly will do when the streets are designed to make them drive slower.

>if the problem is excessive speed, then traffic enforcement is the problem.

This is the solution that we've already tried for decades that doesn't work. When you make it more effective with solutions such as speed cameras, people decry it as a cash grab and they elect politicians that promise to remove them.
I know I am not controlling for road conditions, car conditions, traffic signals conditions and culture of respect to traffic laws, but... in Brazil, IIRC, the lanes are 10 feet (3 meters) and we are world champions for road fatalities per vehicle-km (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...)

It does not disproof the OP, but it is good evidence that lanes width is not the most important factor. But I honestly don't know if all other more important factors are fairly good in the USA.

edit: I was checking brazilian regulations and it lane width is defined on a rage from ~8 to 12 feet, depending on the "class" of the road (from small, unused roads in small towns, passing through regular traffic heavy urban roads to interestual highways with heavy trucks).
We agree on that, my point is that C++ does it via libraries, Rust does it by hiding unsafe blocks behind interfaces (aka libraries).

Time will tell which approach is ultimately superior (if either one of them is actually better), but until the it isn't clear that the Rust approach is statistically better than the C++ approach.

Ultimately the advantage Rust has is the ability to possibly provide better 3rd party tooling that will enable developers to make the right decisions more often than C++ does. Consider a tool that runs on code checkin that spits out a report of all sites where code that manipulates state that could affect an unsafe block was changed/written so that developers could then have a very focused peer review of the code to ensure the safe code doesn't put the state in such a spot that it causes problems.

I think in this way Rust may eventually be shown to be better than C++, but then again, maybe not.
Only 7 months for the entire world...yeah, let's not get too excited.
> It's not unusual for an engineer in charge of a service to help resolve a customer an issue.

This is not related to Google Cloud, but to GSuite: Or, if you get an engineer on the phone, through the support number, they just insult you, and hang up on you, as has happened to me once (back when the free tier of GSuite was still a thing).
It's not being forgotten. It was never widely known to begin with. Intellectual elites still know it, and if anything they've probably been growing relative to the entire population.

I feel like at best one could argue that those elites have less influence on the deciders of the world (at least those that are not part of them).
Anyone ever read 2010? I thought the 2010 was way more interesting and filled with a lot more sci-fi "facts" than 2001.
L.A. isn't only problematic because it's inconsistent with theory, but also because it's inconsistent with experimental evidence. Michelson & Morley debunked it pretty thoroughly without having to invoke quantum or relativity IMHO.
I use the html5 video speed control extension in Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/html5-video-speed-...

Mainly to play Vimeo videos at 2x speed since Vimeo refuses to put the feature in the player.
No one said it would take us to the next galaxy.

I just said it was a "big" deal. And it is. $1 trillion dollars. At least as newsworthy as most HN headlines.
We also have this in the US: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

(Drawing voting districts to make them advantageous to one party or the other depending on who gets to draw the lines)

We really need to move to popular vote instead of all these games.
Yes.

It will. And it does.

Massachusetts roads are infamously lined with trees, rocks, and all sorts of other barriers that make it a very bad idea to drive carelessly. Drive like an idiot and you'll send a body shop owner's kid to college.

However, that steep price for careless drivers makes life a lot safer for those of us biking or walking in MA.
Conan Visits YouTube's VR Lab
The Pokémon Trainer Club registration was down for days and days. Most people had no choice if they wanted to play.
America loves sport, and the national sport is politics. Red team vs blue team, only one can win, us vs them, rah rah go team.
I hear CEO of a software company pays pretty well.

More to the point, I was pretty intrigued at the difference in pay rate for golang programmers vs php programmers.
Yep. Traffic fatalities increased after clearing the sides of intersections to remove obstacles.

If your field of vision is covered with trees, you drive much slower. If you feel like you're driving on an open road, you drive much faster.

Obviously there are some cases where the increase in safety outweighs the increase in recklessness, but not all cases.
What should I hit you up offline about?
> FWIW, most other Americans support you
> and share your shock and outrage.

It's nice to have faith in humanity and everything, but "half" is more accurate than "most"
There appears to be ten of them?
Whole article in a sentence:

"These possibilities might seem wholly untestable, because part of the conceit is that sufficiently advanced life will not just be unrecognizable as such, but will blend completely into the fabric of what we’ve thought of as nature. But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that—at crazy as it sounds—might fit the requirements."

Meh :-)
Who remembers (or even saw) the awesome 'Monkey'[1][2] that drilled the following into every kid who watched it:

> Tathagata Buddha, the Father Buddha, said, "With our thoughts, we make the world."

1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_(TV_series)

2 https://youtu.be/hXgeqhZFzBg
systemd?
Sofm leesin
The open question abut the universe here is where did all that missing antimatter go? Because we can't find it so far. EmDrive could hint at an answer, but on the other hand it also could not. We need to figure out what's going on with the drive (and whether it really isn't an error) to be sure.

> compare our attempts at creating fusion with the 'solutions' that nature has come up with

Well, if you just want to have a nature-like fusion, we've figured that out in the 40s and made it work in the 50s ;).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#History

Our attempts at fusion are now focused on getting useful energy out of it without incinerating everything around the reactor.
I came upon stoicism in the Andreas Eschbachs - "the Last of his kind" (great book by the way). Its really quite a fascinating worldview- not at all the "depressed punching bag" of the universe as it looks from the outside.
It might be overselling Arthur C. Clarke, who is largely known for strange stuff like 2001. Three body has a much more salient blend of pure hard sci fi and human drama. Maybe an Orson Scott Card? It is kind of a newer style.
Scientists are building a telescope to seek another Earth – and you can help
We're disagreeing about the meanings of style vs. standards here. I'm using style in the commonly accepted sense, e.g. "hair stylist", "stylish", "all style and no substance."

Maximum function lengths and cyclomatic complexity are important but I'd put those under standards.

Lisp gives you a lot of flexibility regarding how you do things, but once you choose a way, that constrains how your code should be laid out, i.e. its style. EMACS indents code in the accepted Lisp style. It doesn't define it. It implements it.

Saying you should avoid eval at run time is a coding standard, not style.
You've been fed too much propaganda. Do a detox.
the exception, not the rule.