skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Does LTE-enabled mean I can make calls and connect to the net on it? All I ever use my phone for is sending texts and occasional phone call.

I would be interested in a smart watch to replace my phone.
Starting an online business: do these 10 things and never fail again
I think it depends on how the culture is toxic. Amazon's culture seems to be "toxic" in a very specific way: that it selects for a very particular kind of person, with particular kinds of motivations - those who don't align with that are unhappy and leave quickly, those that are stay and perform very well.

I think there are ways Amazon could improve its culture, but apart from widening the potential pool of effective hires, I'm not sure it would benefit the company a huge amount. However I think Amazon is the exception to the rule, and in general I think toxic cultures are a significant hindrance to most companies.
I love the work that GitLab is doing, though I'm personally using Gogs/Gitea since it's much much less resource consuming.
IF you've paid attention to Cernovich for any appreciable amount of time, you'll soon realize the entire PizzaGate and pedo hunting meme one truly giant troll on the _entire_ media/political/entertainment complex and their own constant, frequently hoaxing, witchhunts. (i.e. Gamergate, RollingStone/UVa, etc.)
Not wrapping their cupcakes in a ton of petro chemical plastic either. So no instore bakery for Amazon I guess.
Self-made. Father was an expat civil servant so very expensive secondary education was paid for, though.

> odds are that you see
> yourself this way but
> actually aren't

Certainly possible. I just see such a gigantic gap between how hard I could be working and how hard I actually am. I'm not sure how it relates to other people.
> If you can really build an effective ultrasound system that people want to buy for significantly less than the currently available price when you've no expertise in the field, then why hasn't someone else with vast experience in the field gone and done exactly that?

If you just made a new effective ultrasound system that passes the FDA, why would you sell it for a lower price when you also can make more money?
Skymind – about the future of AI
I wish more people saw it this way. Philanthropy is the only thing driving me to amass wealth. I used to be ok with being poor and spending a lot of free time on side projects but more and more I'm becoming disgusted with myself and those around me for living selfishly when so many people around the world are in pain.
Just don't shout at all, unless you need help.
He is completely skipping the most important part. The superintelligence has to have some reason to be in conflict with us. Human beings don't go out of their way to hunt down and eliminate ants. They don't find out what ants eat and sieze control of it to manipulate them. There is no reason to think that a superintelligent machine would be likely to present terrible interference to us proposed.

So it's super smart and has its own goals. We can reliably presume that it will need energy to achieve those goals. Will it need to achieve them quickly? Why? Would the superintelligence be shortsighted enough to provoke humans into active combat against it? I see no reason to just assume we know the thing would have human eradication as a goal, need exorbitant amounts of energy and resources because it sees achieving its goals as a terribly time-critical thing to do, etc.

Also, if we're going to build a brain and assume no quantum weirdness - why assume the total absence of a subjective morality? Why assume completely immunity to social influence, which the brains we observe most all encounter?

And let's not forget - human beings are in a weird spot, intelligence-wise. We're smart enough to achieve things, but we're not smart enough to be crippled by the profound lack of control we have over things. We're totally comfortable going out and driving around all day, even though we claim to value human life extremely highly and even though we know that causing deaths of innocent human beings is not THAT far-fetched of an outcome of driving a car. I would be unsurprised if we flipped on a super-AI and after 5 minutes it simply stopped in its tracks, having determined that the probability that some action it would take would result in its own destruction with a non-zero probability and that it is instead taking the safe route and not acting at all. No matter how superintelligent it is, it is not going to be able to magically compensate for the influences of chaos theory which destroy the ability to be certain about ANY prediction. We, as humans, feel very clever with our assumed spherical cows, frictionless surfaces, homogenous air pressure and zero wind resistance. Why would a superintelligence also be comfortable with that?
> The problem is one of regulatory capture - corporate vested interests control the governance process

The problems with many things, but especially the price of SF Muni's new Central Subway and the like, are more about union interests controlling the governance process than corporate. Remember that they do prevailing-wage construction (which somehow means they pay the highest wage out there, not the average/median) to their construction workers.

The millions/billions spent on environmental-review studies and lawsuits are another matter as well.
Yes, but you also need to look at the products of those people's labor and other things that labor could be used for. Do we need more people building and crewing luxury yachts, or building and operating hospitals and sheltered accommodation? In both cases people are paid to do work, but the products of that work are very different.

But in practice much of the wealth of super-wealthy people is actually either tide up in the value of the businesses that they own, which are often doing economically valuable things, or is invested in useful enterprises (shares), or funds useful activities (bonds). It's not as though the net wealth of Warren Buffet is all being thrown on hookers and blow.

There are already ways to direct the spending of the wealthy towards more productive uses, such as consumption taxes on luxury goods. But if they take their wealth to other countries with laxer consumption taxes, there's no a lot we can do about it. So we're back to the libertarian argument. At some point you get into questions of freedom and individual rights.
For some more details, I bookmarked this page that explains "IQ", so that I can post it in forums whenever the subject comes up :-)

http://www.michna.com/iq.htm

Relevant paragraph quoted:

Misconception: The IQ is a direct measure of brain performance. For example, somebody with an IQ of 120 can do 20% more mental work in the same amount of time than somebody with an IQ of 100.

In truth the IQ is a purely statistical measure. It has no direct relation to brain performance, is not proportional to it, and doesn't even have any linear or otherwise straightforward relation to it. The only thing you can say is that somebody with a higher IQ will show higher scores on most other brain performance tests as well, but the IQ doesn't say how much higher.
If we've learnt one thing this year, it's that negative press doesn't have the effect most people feel it should.
Are you basing the 50% based on what is after the "@", i.e. gmail.com and yahoo.com? Or are you looking at what server the MX points at. It's very easy to have your own MX for your domain point to a google mail server.
Am I the only one who thought that the points he came up with to refute AGI / ASI actually made the concerns deeper?
I say they should keep their money and control! Educate and involve them in important things early. The HARC initiative looks great. Such an initiative could answer questions like:
What are important problems?
What do we need to do to efficiently solve such problems?
Have we spent too much effort on a single solutions? Is it time to try another way?
What can we do to bypass bureaucracy?
I trust businesses to have a mindset for risk and results. In my opinion charities behave more like guardians preserving/nurturing more than making a 10X change.
The IEEE standard for floating point numbers has certain mathematical requirements that makes it a bit more "correct" but possibly also a bit slower. What Linus is saying [1] is that you don't need that in most applications [2] and definitely not when you specify -ffast-math

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-07/msg01877.html

[2] and many agree with him, Java for example moved away from IEEE around the same time this was written.
For the first time ever, Consumer Reports does not recommend the new MacBook Pro
I'm thinking more and more that the self is a member/outcome of a community to some extent, but kind of a community in 'itself' as well.

Perhaps this is more true for some than for others, but personally I feel like a pretty constant activity throughout my life has been trying to maintain, herd, disentangle, integrate, mediate between, etc., various versions of myself.

In my late teens and most of my twenties this could mean actually trying on different lifestyles and 'personalities', but starting in my late twenties this kind of quieted down and I started feeling like a more consistent 'self'. Which is nice in many ways; much more peaceful.

The thing is, I don't actually feel confident that these different and sometimes incompatible ideas of my 'self' actually disappeared or integrated or whatnot. At least not as much as I think they did. If anything, I sometimes feel like they got tangled together and became a kind of 'rat king' monstrosity, a kind of meta-self that both pretends and kind of manages to be one larger organism at peace with its selves.

As I said, it feels more peaceful. It's probably healthy to an extent. But I do feel that in this tangled mess of selves, the weaker and more unusual ones suffered, while the more 'acceptable' and dominant ones have relatively more sway. I became a simpler, agreed-upon version of my selves.

More recently I've (or we've?) been trying to let go of the desire to integrate so much and to accept the fluidity and vagueness of it all. I try to have less of a 'narrative' of myself. Any narrative leaves out important things, so perhaps it's something to do sparingly, if at all.

Of course, this post in itself is evidence that 'I' still like to to tell a story of myself and how it progressed, but then I suppose one desire all my 'selves' agree on is to have a sense of self. All in moderation, I guess.
A Developer’s Guide to User Experience in App Localization
No. I don't use hot module replacement and I don't like this idea. And I don't prototype things often - maybe once or 2 per year - my contracts are usually long enough. It's all personal, as you see.

I'm saying that to implement feature in Rust takes same time as in Typescript or PHP (as PHP is a server side language also and comparison is more illustrative).
Quick Deals by Amazon by Kindle Paperwhite, Echo and Fire
This is not uncommon among the upper classes I've known.

FWIW: Here is a gruff internet hug/shoulder squeeze.
It doesn't even hold with humans. Take a look at John von Neumann and his brain was pushed down the human birth canal.

We really have a poor idea of what super intelligence is - none of us can even understand people much more intelligent than ourselves.
I just flew UK to Spain this week an no one even mentioned Galaxy. Note 7. Nothing but the standard "phoned must be off or in airplane mode"
I'd rather have code in headers and longer compiler times than type erasure.
Give the gift of friendship this Christmas
What the author is actually talking about is of course the mythological techno-singularity event, which is of course bullshit.

Have you ever programmed any piece of software that suddenly implemented features of its own? Did your program become sentient?

Laughable. These are child-like fantasies belonging in 50s sci-fi.

What I do know for a fact, is that when it comes to AI fear mongers, there is not much intelligence to be detected.
I just love to see how my mind is so fallable. I want to believe that many of things I hold in my head are data, facts and logical theories and forget what assumptions I have made to get there. Not saying whether the author is right or not but he brilliantly points out some potential flaws and logical leaps that must be taken to get there.
If your goal is to win, you should play moves that lead to situations where you will do significantly better than your opponents, given what you know of their strengths and weaknesses. Whether they are good or bad from an 'optimal play' perspective doesn't matter.

For example, if chess is a win for white, you play black, and you have a halfway decent opponent, he will know what black's best defense looks like (that is: the one that takes him the most moves to win). Replaying that gives you zero chance of winning or drawing. Deviating from the beaten path cannot decrease that chance, and may increase it.

It is similar when chess, played optimally by both players, turns out to be a draw, and you want to win, but in that case, you may not want to give up your assurance of a draw, so you may play less weird moves. You still will want to play moves that lead to plays your opponent is weak at, though.
Don't malfunction? What are you smoking? Everything malfunctions eventually, from software to machinery to cells and neurons.
-Not quite.

Last week the flight crew on my Scandinavian and Lufthansa (Both Star Alliance) flights repeatedly informed us prior to departure that anyone caught with a Note 7 on them would be hung, drawn and quartered to the full extent of law and then some more, just to be sure.

I think they went from just requiring them to be switched off to banning them altogether sometime in September. Ban was definitely in effect in October.

I also think that the flight attendant claimed this was due to a recommendation from the EASA (European Air Safety Agency), though I didn't pay all that much attention as I was reading E-mail on my positively ancient S4 Active at the time. :)
Is the existence of a trust fund actually relevant for the story? Whether there was one or not, as you already said, Gates didn't have to fear failure. I doubt the family would have let him live in poverty on the street if he had failed. I don't think it changes the narrative. But it's bad that - if you are right - the wrong story is out there because it gives a convenient escape to get sidetracked and be able to ignore the actual message.
Because that's what the sane approach is. The odds of Galaxy Note 7 is going in flames are very very small, this happening during these few hours when on plane, makes it even more smaller by few orders of magnitude. That's why in my parent post I suspected hidden agenda by direct competitors, not that there's real hazard. We accept bigger risks every day and don't make big deal of them.
How is this company shut down?

Almost the same day my Us-based company officially announces to close down, but we haven't been paid since June 2016. I really want to know if this happens in Us

See also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13242516

Thanks
The Data Science Conference
Os celulares mais desejados pelos brasileiros em 2016
By lately do you mean 7 years? Clickbait has been their entire business model from pretty much day 1.

To their credit, BI's clickbait headline writing skills are stronger and their thesaurus of adverbs thicker than many competitor sites.

Plus you'll never guess this one amazing thing BI does that skyrocketed them to among the best in the industry at headlines...
truth. how we collectively became accepting of drones used by our governments to destroy targets half way round the world whilst the pilots sit in some skyscraper somewhere in our own countries is remarkable. honestly the disconnect is beyond deeply troubling.
Which limit are you talking about? I guess you have forgotten what the soldiers of the third reich did.

Or American death squads in Afghanistan. Might as well call them rape and death squads.

What about Guantanamo?

Srebrenica?

Should I go on?

How unenlightened and naive are you?
Chess engines (I suppose that could be called AI) as well as databases of games have developed opening chess theory very significantly because of these reasons.

For perspective, Bobby Fischer created a version of chess which randomized the game because even in his day, he was annoyed that some players that he felt were far inferior at playing chess, could actually better memorize opening lines and enter the mid game with an advantage.

So the answer is that players very well have been learning from AI.

>To the extent that an AI approaches perfect play more closely than a novice or masters from the 19th century

AI has become better than even the top chess players of today.
The old 'buying revenue' business model that served so many companies so well in the first dot-com bubble.
Monoprix is definitely high end. Maybe not whole food prices though. French American speaking.
Human beings have been extremely easy to kill for our entire existence. No system of laws can possibly keep you alive if your neighbors are willing to kill you, and nothing can make them actually unable to kill you. Your neighbor could walk over and put a blade in your jugular, you're dead. They could drive into you at 15MPH with their car, you're dead. They could set your house on fire while you're asleep, you're dead.

The only thing which keeps you alive is the unwillingness of your neighbors and those who surround you to kill you. The law might punish them afterward, but extensive research has shown that it provides no disuasion to people who are actually willing to kill someone.

A military AI being used to wipe out large numbers of people is exactly as 'inevitable' as the weapons we already have being used to wipe out large numbers of people. The exact same people will be making the decisions and setting the goals. In that scenario, the AI is nothing but a fancy new gun, and I don't see any reason to think it would be used differently in most cases. With drones we have seen the CIA, a civilian intelligence agency, waging war on other nations without any legal basis, but that's primarily a political issue and the fact that it can be done in pure cowardice, without risking the life of those pulling the trigger, which I think is a distinct problem from AI.
The AirBnB of Marketing
The dumbest money.
The CEO doesn't bother to say "sorry" for their mistake that leads us to this situation. It's sad to see her message http://posibablog.cf/closing_down/
For me its the same as pharma. Can you tell me if a government (ex India) would like to devote resources to make cheaper ultrassounds they wouldn't be able to? I only buy non-technical arguments, unless the bill of materials is on the same order as the price of the equipment.
Create a FREE account and you'll save 50% on digital marketing when you go through us!
The article is talking about relishing the richness of life's experience, not some sort of Machiavellian cackling while you watch people lose their jobs. The failures are simply to be valued as learning experiences that are part of life. That particular phrase is preceded in the same sentence with another phrase saying that the failures basically aren't pleasureable.

Read the paragraph as a whole, and don't just fish out one phrase and take it out of context.
I graduated from one of the top universities in my country (top 50 in the world) and we learned pretty much exactly the same material as they did at MIT.

In reality I don't think there is any significant difference in terms of education quality between the top #1 university and #100 for any given field.

But the difference in terms of opportunities after finishing MIT vs finishing some other good university is massive. It seems that if an investor or prospective employer hears the word 'MIT', 'Harvard', 'Stanford' or 'Yale' when you make a pitch, somehow you're considered to be much smarter than the rest.

I think it's partially due to this elitist mindset. 'Elites' seem to think that people who went to an elite college are many times smarter than everyone else - But the real difference is actually social connectivity.

People who went to an elite institution are closer to capital - This gives them more influence. They are more likely to become investors and employers themselves. Their elitist world view (rooted in the false perception that they make up an intellectually distinct group) means that they are more likely to hire/fund people who also studied at elite universities.

Elites think that people like them congregate around knowledge, but in reality, they congregate around financial capital disguised as knowledge.
I am rather curious what type of company you created. You mentioned sports science? Something in the direction of moneyball?
I've been to AU several times. UK and USA twice. In all cases I've travelled without telling my itinerary. Generally their border control people will only want to see edvidence of onward travel out of their country and/or back to home country and nothing more. I usually just present my ticket for the relevant mode of transport departing their country. Standard practice in most country I've travelled to. YMMV.
You would sell it for a lower price to gain more customers than competition.
No. Not letting cats out is cruel. They are outdoor animals by nature. They enjoy exploring the neighborhood(how much varies from cat to cat). And they have instincts to deal with whatever might be out there.

If you live in an area that really is too dangerous to let the cat out, then you were being cruel by getting a cat in the first place.
Most non-exceptional things depend on character. Extreme intelligence only manifests its value in areas of extreme complexity.

When I hire programmers for a job I'm looking for characteristics like consistency, patience, memory, organisation skills, attention to detail, a touch of pendantry and a reasonable analytical mind. I don't actively avoid extremely intelligent people, but given the work at hand I certainly don't care if someone is or not.

So in the world of non-exceptional development, character is king.

Likewise in business, except at times of revolutionary change, character always wins out. Persistence, focus, a dash of greed, people skills...Brains are right at the bottom of your priorities.
2001: An Apple Odyssey
Can someone recommend excellent books and/or tutorials to learn chess? I know only basic rules, but no tactics/strategy/opening/etc.
Exactly.

One can say that FSB/FSK hasn't got any more in debriefing than they would just from reading the newspapers. You can argue that the political value of Snowden for Putin far exceeded direct intelligence gains.

However saying that he wasn't debriefed is extremely naive. It's simply not how it works in Russia.
It would probably require 15-20 years if automation does reach the scale to have macro-level effects on employment. By that time China's economy will be 2x-3x bigger than it is now with GDP per capita around 30k USD. China would essentially be a developed country at that point.

It's easy to assume and take for granted that the US will create all the automation technology. However, I think it's more probable that China will move up the value chain and be the ones to own and develop these technologies, especially in manufacturing as China already has a super strong manufacturing ecosystem and talent (think Silicon Valley and Software).

If China owns the technology, the wealth would be in China so less will be available to spread around for basic income in developed countries like the US.
Curiously, cheaper ultrasound is at the heart of the proposition of a "new" player in the field : Butterfly Network.
They don't give back? Microsoft employs 100k+ people. That's giving back. These people all pay taxes and give back to society because Microsoft gave them a job. Because Gates happened. And in the case of Gates, let's not forget Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

What the hell have you done for society?

This story is very similar for most billionaires. They create A LOT of jobs and careers.