skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I tried to explain, but let me try again. The further discussions go into partisan hell, the more off topic they get. The thread was bad enough already, but yours upped the ante—if it had any mooring to content that wasn't just political battle (e.g. the infosec aspects), you unmoored it. Please don't do that. The way to be a good contributor here is to help threads go away from that end-state, not get further into it.

Generic 'electoral college vs. popular vote' arguments, let alone 'no the Clinton staffer didn't say he would die of climate change yes he did', exemplify what we don't want here.

Edit: you edited your comment to something considerably different after I posted this. That's not a courteous way to react to what someone says. Instead, please post a reply, or somehow demark what you've changed in response to new information.
I beg to differ, as the deaths of its characters have far more impact on first consumption, and that colors the work. If the narrator began the story by announcing which characters would be deceased by its conclusion, then it would be a different story entirely.
I read theory-of-mind pop sci constantly, I'd say Penrose has the vitalist perspective and Kurzweil has the physicalist perspective. Hofstadter is a lovely read too (physicalist).
Watching TV is a low-effort activity. The vast majority of TV (and Netflix and Youtube) is designed specifically not to take any mental power to watch, and it certainly doesn't take any physical power. (Also, watching TV when you have kids is code for watching your kids.)

I'm glad that you've never been in a position where you were under mental stress.
It could if the internet ecosystem wasn't dominated by platforms that concentrate exchange and thus the value created. Linux is very innovative but lacks enough users to endanger the mains OSes of the market.
Depends if you also want to run tests, like one often does in their local machines.
Well, if you believe that despite having no evidence of something unexplained by physics happening in the brain, it's still a religious myth, it doesn't matter the name you give it.

And if you have any piece of evidence, you can be sure the people at the nearest physics dept will love to hear it.
The problem for me isn't that "this is a waste", for me it's "this is demonstrating embarrassingly pretentious immature behavior that puts the FSF in a very unfavorable light".
One thing I rarely see discussed is the possibility that the brain is just too complex to practically reproduce. That is to say, that it is technically possible, but not practical. Evolution had billions of years, working in a massively parallel way to work this out after all. It's possible that the brain is a huge tangled mess of rules and special cases that we will never be able to fully understand and reproduce. Also, even if we are able to produce a basic intelligence, why do we assume it will ever get to the point where it can understand itself well enough to self improve? It's possible there is a threshold we won't be able to get past for self improvement to be possible.
> I can't point to the part of my brain that is "good at neurosurgery", operate on it, and by repeating the procedure make myself the greatest neurosurgeon that has ever lived. Ben Carson tried that, and look what happened to him.

Nice, but does it fall under political ban?
Before You Pay That Ransomware Demand…
All matter is, in principle, a battery. There are no physical laws that prevent near limitless energy storage.
I wonder if an AI would favor a recursive or genetic approach? If it's the latter then an AI could see value in death.
...and outlast the degradation of their own service. In my admittedly limited experience here in Seattle, the quality of cars and drivers has been going down.
Uber is worth 75 Billion dollars and investors lining up for any chance they can get to invest. Its runway is NOT 3 years. It is 30 years.
I still don't see machines as ever being a threat to "humans". Someone get some proof, not just words.
It's amusing how his talk and Stuart Russel's talk [0] -- which end up going opposing ways -- use the "atomic bomb" as an example in fallacious thinking. Stuart's example is about how respected physicists said "impossible to get energy out of atoms" and the very next morning someone published a paper stating how to do it.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBCOMm_ytwM
"The first place victims should look to find out is nomoreransom.org, a site backed by security firms and cybersecurity organizations in 22 countries. Since its launch on July 25, 2016, nomoreransom.org estimates that it has been able to save 6,000 victims of ransomware more than $2 million USD to date. ...

Visit the Crypto Sheriff page at nomoreransom.org, upload one of the files encrypted by the ransomware, and the site will let you know if there is a solution available to unlock all of your files for free."
To some extent, Meetups help. It's not just an opportunity to hear about the latest in a filed that you have an interest in, but also an avenue to meet-and-greet.
Often times, admitting loneliness makes one look "needy" or "desperate" and even less desirable for a friendly relationship. It's almost a catch-22.
He and I were on a panel once! It did not go well.
Let's take a step back and look at the meta-level.

So there's maybe a chance AI is extremely dangerous (as in wipes humanity out), and there's a chance that AI might not be dangerous. There are arguments between how likely each choice is. But the more important fact is that since there's so much at stake (all of humanity), we should likely be really really really sure about things.

For example, let's say you live in a house and you've got your kids and your grandkids and all your lovely pets living here. Let's say there's this mystery device that when you press it, there's a small chance that it could be extremely bad. You'd want to make sure it's OK right? Right?!

I agree that we probably don't need to devote ALL of our resources to make sure it's OK, as we can devote some resources to problems that are actually hurting us right now like diseases, etc. But there are a lot of people in the AI community who think that it may be dangerous. It is rational that we'd want to be absolutely sure that it's safe once we AI happens.

We should take the approach of being DEFAULT cautious when talking about any technological breakthrough that have changes that we cannot reverse.
ClusterHQ, an early player in the container ecosystem, calls it quits
Very cool.

I tried many approaches (although I didn't finish any implementation besides the first one, the worst) on idea sharing and feedback. This is probably a little better than the best I've thought in all these years.

Oh, it looks like Wayback Machine has my first attempt at this thing stored: http://web.archive.org/web/20130814135339/http://www.ideacra...
That's debatable. For me, typing "gr <expression>" (my abbreviation for recursive grep) is quite fast and convenient.
Any idea how does GCE handles PD drives underneath your K8? Is it network-attacched storage? Are those NVMe drives I wonder?
I'm not sure I understand why you're under the impression that you need a 3rd party application for that, as far as I know it's possible with just GitLab and Mattermost. If there are any confusing docs we need to improve I'd be happy to do so :)

Build failures can be sent to Mattermost using our Pipeline webhooks described here: http://docs.gitlab.com/ce/web_hooks/web_hooks.html#pipeline-...

And then the Incoming Webhooks in Mattermost described here: https://docs.mattermost.com/developer/webhooks-incoming.html
Famo.Us is back – launches “Instant Apps”
the fbi is a branch of government, not "the government"

and yes, they did get a judge to side with them, but to side with such a ruling because "the government" is a disservice to justice.. as there is much more to the rule of law then blind obedience to a single ruling.
The political ban ended two days after it started.
McDonalds, KFC etc who invest millions in researching process improvements, beg to differ on the strictly better service.

Part of that is down to the fact the person that takes your order also helps clean when not busy, smiles at your kid, ejects unruly customers and upsells to supersize more persuasively than a flashing red box (which was a large part of my original point)

But part of that is also down to the fact that the average person is really bad at using a human-machine interface (and that ain't gonna be improved in a busy commercial environment by voice-recognition technology any time soon)

I mean, I see a lot more automated kiosks in supermarkets than I used to. Usually I use them in preference to human kiosks. Many other people have precisely the opposite preference, and they have money to spend too. Overall, the kiosks increase the throughput of the store, but that's because there are more of them due to their smaller footprint than the checkout counters they replace. In the hands of the average person trying to use the system they're certainly not more efficient than a competent checkout operative, and require a human for every few machines to deal with their idiosyncrasies and frequent failings, and manage the queue.

And the automats, which are a far better human/machine interface than some talking touch screen connected to the kitchen because you literally see the freshly-made fast food, put money in the slot and open to receive it? They've been around for a century now, long before Ray Kroc and Colonel Sanders got into the industry, and they've repeatedly failed.
Title may be more readable with the word "Intelligence" first, not Intel, just to avoid confusion with the company (Intel), not e.g. The Company (CIA)
Exactly. The "Terminator" scenario of a rogue malfunctioning AI is a silly distraction from the real AI threat, which is military AIs that don't malfunction. They will give their human masters practically unlimited power over everyone else. And AI is not
the only technology with the potential to worsen inequality in the world.
Maybe I'm miscalibrated on what's considered "pop sci" - but anything sensationalizing those EEG experiments or debunking "free will" shouldn't count IMO. That garbage nobody should be reading.
As to the first claim. It seems Mississippi has the highest poverty rate at 21.9%. California is at 16.4%.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty...
I feel the problem is the fact there is 100 billionaires in he first place, no one gets rich on their own. Gates et al, are clever, but didn't get where they are totally independently without others support, so they should give back.

Also, some of these billionaires are running companies that are great at tax avoidance, probably most of them. Now what? They get to pick and choose where they get to spend there/invest money? I don't buy it.

I believe in wealth, just not this radical wealth separation .
I agree with the first sentence, but I'd like to note that there are practical (though weak) approximations of AIXI that preserve some of its properties, and while not turing-complete, prove to be more performant when compared to other RL approaches on Vetta benchmark. See [1].

Also there is a turing-complete implementation of OOPS, a search procedure related to AIXI that can solve toy problems, programmed by none other than Jurgen Schmidthuber 10 years ago [2]

Even more important: there is a breadth of RL theory built around MDPs and POMDPs. There are asymptotical, convergence, bounded regret, on-policy/off-policy results, etc. Modern practical Deep RL agents (the ones DeepMind is researching) are developed on the same RL theory and inherit many of these results.

From my POV it looks unfavorable to researchers that produced these results over decades of work when the comment's grandfather (and grand-grandfather) write that there is no definition and theory about AI, and that AI is like alchemy.

1. https://www.jair.org/media/3125/live-3125-5397-jair.pdf
2. http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/oops.html
> Almost everyone is rallying around tokio.

Sure - just as everyone "rallies" around EventMachine in Ruby.

This discussion has been going on for almost 3 years now.

It's great that tokio is making community headwinds, Twisted, Gevent, Celluloid, EventMachine all did too.

The problem is, they've never reached critical mass, and their respective languages refused to bless them as "official."

> What evidence do you have of this?

The issue is inter-library compatibility.

https://github.com/tailhook/rotor

https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio

Totally incompatible, even though they build on the same low level library.

https://github.com/mitsuhiko/redis-rs

Oh wow, a great redis library - objectively the most popular. Completely incompatible with all of the above AIO implementations.

Let's take it to the extreme:

- Incompatible memcached client implementations:
- https://github.com/aisk/rust-memcache (sync)
- https://github.com/zonyitoo/memcached-rs (sync)
- https://github.com/samphippen/decachedmem (tokio, partially implemented)

- Incompatible redis client implementations:
- https://github.com/tokio-rs/tokio-redis (async via tokio)
- https://github.com/mitsuhiko/redis-rs (sync)
- https://github.com/AsoSunag/redis-client

- Incompatible HTTP client implementations:
- https://github.com/matt2xu/async-http-client/ (tokio, new)
- https://gitlab.com/imp/requests-rs.git (hyper, sync)
- https://crates.io/crates/reqwest (hyper)
- https://crates.io/crates/request

The list goes on.

There are countless libraries implemented with synchronous I/O, there are countless (good) popular libraries implemented with non-Tokio-based concurrency primitives.

Let me just say it: I really, really like Rust.

But I cannot feasibly use it for network/server-related tasks until a single solution is blessed by the Rust team.

The "let's let the community handle standardizing async IO and concurrency" approach has _never_ worked in the somewhat brief history of programming languages.

A blessed solution though? - Erlang, Golang, Node/JS* All work flawlessly.

I would use Rust full-time for every server-related task if I could, but I've been observing for 3 years and unfortunately haven't seen much development after the abandonment of builtin green threading.

*- codestyles sometimes incompatible, but there was _never_ a litany of sync libraries or otherwise fundamentally incompatible systems.
My eyes! Is there a more readable scan anywhere?
After reading some of principles.com what you say seems even more plausible.

I get the feeling his wife never asked if she looked fat. Or he always made the mistake of saying yes. Talk about missing out on reality.
That's certainly one way to interpret "pure Python" but many people use that phrase to describe code that is using only builtins and standard library as opposed to community-supplied C extensions.
It's not necessarily false. The quote you took seems to be referring to the homeless in California.

The Giving Pledge requires that the money be given to philanthropy, which may improve the lives of others around the world, rather than Californians.
Birth of the Microphone: How Sound Became Signal
The person you responded to included "medicare/medicaid" in their list of government services. They each cost over half a trillion dollars per year.
They shut down because they couldn't secure series B funding. It's likely that they couldn't both make next payroll and also deal with severance and shutdown costs. Hard to hold on for a few more weeks if you can't actually pay anyone.
Is this a genuine question, or are you trying to be blasé about employing the Socratic Method on HN?
I feel like this essay is missing a key point around defining intelligence. Machines can be trained to emulate intelligence, but machines are not themselves intelligent.

Our neural nets can drive cars, convert speech to text, recognize images, and maybe even carry on a conversation.

But there's no light behind the eyes. It's all synthetic. It's an emulation which mimes intelligence through the brute force of observing billions of inputs and their associated outputs.

What it decisively cannot do, is something that it never saw before, except by mistake.

Wake me when none of this is true?
There are also nearer-term threats (although I'd likely disagree on many specifics), but I don't see how that erases longer-term threats. One nuclear bomb being able to destroy your city now doesn't mean that ten thousand can't destroy your whole country ten years down the line.
Even more nuts:

> On more than one occasion, all hacker-related clothing was also thrown in the trash.

Watch out! Don't wear that 1337 hackerz t-shirt! That sounds like a case of paranoia that someone ought to see a professional about.
Yes, please do file an issue with what you encounter, because I can't reproduce it.
>This article explicitly endorses argument ad hominem

That's because it's very effective in practice.

In the real world (which is not a pure game of logical reasoning only played by equals and fully intelligent beings without hidden agendas), the argument ad hominem can be a very powerful way to cut through BS, even if you can't explain why they are BS by pure reason alone.

E.g. say a person A with IQ 110 talks with a person B of IQ 140. The second person makes a very convincing argument for why the first person should do something for them. Logically it is faultless as far as person A can see. But if the person A knows that person B is shady, has fooled people in the past, has this or that private interest in the thing happening, etc, then he might use an "argument ad hominem" to reject B's proposal. And he would be better of for it.

The "argument ad hominem" is even more useful in another very common scenario: when we don't have time to evaluate every argument we hear, but we know some basic facts about the person making the argument. The "argument ad hominem" helps us short out potentially seedy, exploitative, etc. arguments fast.

Sure, it also gives false negatives, but empirically a lot of people have found that it gives more true negatives/positives (that is, if they want to act on something someone says, without delving into it finely, the fastest effective criterion would be to go with whether they trust the person).

This is not only because we don't have the time to fully analyze all arguments/proposals/etc we hear and need to find some shortcuts (even if they are imperfect), but also because we don't have all the details to make our decisions (even if we have a comprehensive argument from the other person, there can be tons of stuff left out that will also be needed to evaluate it).
> the future trait itself could become part of libcore

_Please_ make this so.

> still far too early

I've waited 3 years, more time probably couldn't hurt.
By definition, A business model is the way in which a company generates revenue and makes a profit from company operations[1].

Fraud is definitely a business model for companies such as LifeLock, Signifyd, etc. These companies only exist because of the fraud that exists today.

[1]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businessmodel.asp
Moore's Law (on a single CPU core) effectively ended around 2009. Our programming idioms for parallel processing are still so crude, hardly anyone can write maintainable parallelized code for anything but toy problems. Until we can restart Moore's Law again, this is all academic.

http://www.globalnerdy.com/2007/09/07/multicore-musings/
I'm curious how you guys build features for EE. Is it a completely separate Rails project you handle manually to keep base features in sync with the community edition?

EE is open source but requires a license. Do you just trust companies won't download the source code and run it. Do you have heartbeat code injected somewhere to ping servers that are running EE to homebase?

I'm thinking of starting a project, charge money but also open-source it. Curious what your strategies are, especially since the project is still greenfield.

Thanks!
> Technological progress allows concentration of power in the one who holds the capital, as he will be the main one to benefit from a more efficient capital

I do not think that is true. The consumers of all goods and services also benefit from technological progress, because they become cheaper, more widely available, higher quality (different ways of saying the same thing).

Technological progress in the last ~200 years has radically improved the lives of everyone, most significantly by freeing them from being subsistence farmers and clothes-makers. Even though most people today do not own a lot of capital, the cost of living well has come down so substantially that even poor people today arguably have much better quality of life than historical kings. For example, the majority of US households below the poverty line own an automobile, have multiple televisions with cable TV, a refrigerator, air conditioning, mobile phones, etc. [1] Despite owning no capital, the life of even those in poverty is astronomically better off than 200 years ago.

Are you familiar with the trope where poor people from the distant past would wear clothes until they literally turned into rags? The reason that happened is because clothing was ridiculously expensive compared to today. There was an article about this on Hacker News about two years ago called "The $3500 Shirt - A History Lesson in Economics" [2]. To summarize, in the pre-industrial age, a single shirt required so much labor that its cost was on the order of $3500 - $4000 in modern dollars. Buying a single piece of clothing could cost you multiple months' wages.

> Back in the pre-industrial days, the making of thread, cloth, and clothing ate up all the time that a woman wasn't spending cooking and cleaning and raising the children. That's why single women were called "spinsters" - spinning thread was their primary job. "I somehow or somewhere got the idea," wrote Lucy Larcom in the 18th century, "when I was a small child, that the chief end of woman was to make clothing for mankind." [2]

NPR also published an article on called "The History Of Light" [3] which traces how much light (like candle light or lamp light) you could buy with a day's worth of labor, at various points in history. In Babylonian times, your day's wages could buy you 10 minutes worth of light. Light was therefore relatively expensive and in-affordable. By the 1990s, a day's wages can buy about 20,000 hours worth of light. Light is so cheap everyone has practically unlimited amounts, which led to substantial changes across modern society.

Technological progress has drastically improved the lives of everyone. It has not made everyone rich, but those in poverty today are phenomenally better off than at any time in the past.

[1] http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understandi...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8940950

[3] http://www.npr.org/2014/05/02/309040279/in-4-000-years-one-t...
That "quantum leap in battery chemistry" is obviously physically possible, given that animals exist...
Bitcoin ATMs Flourishing in Vietnam
Of course, if you take your average city dweller on your island, he will probably die of thirst before the tigers get to him. But take an (unarmed) navy seal as your human on the island and I'm pretty sure in a couple of months he will be the Tiger King.

And Hawking would just ask his assistant to put the cat into the box. You are artificially depriving him of his actual resources to make a weak point.
Like what Criswell et al are doing with SVA-OS and CHERI team are doing with CheriBSD.
I would laugh, but I have a robot that does that for me now.
> That is different than fragmentation in the sense you're implying.

It is! But there are a mass of completely incompatible, overwhelmingly popular libraries.

> For asyncio, I am pretty sure that Tokio will be the tool for most applications.

When?