skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Those are U3 numbers, which IMO is too narrowly defined. It's basically counting people actively applying for a traditional job.

See for the various definitions we use for unemployment

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2015/05/the-many-flavors-of-...
People do these things because the rewards can outweigh the risk, either by skill or favorable circumstance.

To change that you have to make it where the rewards are not worth it risk. this is by increasing difficulty and closing those favorable circumstances.
Yeah, I'm thinking a lot of the engineers will be unhappy about constantly traveling (or worse, moving) to Arizona.

Their self-driving engineers are now split among three locations: San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Arizona. I think that alone is going to cause significant engineering friction. It's a lot harder to do remote work for testing live robots (especially if they can kill people).
I'm wearing them now and cannot preceive any delay. Is there a specific audio file to play to truly test it?
I can imagine the sprawling suburbs would be really hard to live in, obvious benefits in lower cost housing and more green space but the isolation and need for a car seems pretty terrible.

I live in Barcelona and the majority of people live in flats/apartments, my apartment building is like a large family, mixture of retirees, families, young couples and mixed flats of people just out of university. Everyone knows each other and relies on each other, for our neighbours' 90th birthday almost the whole building (10 flats) took her cake and stayed and chatted and had fun. (My partner and myself are both foreigners here and we're still accepted into the culture and events like this. IMO it's really hard to overstate how crucial this sort of interaction and sense of belonging is in a large city. What intensifies this even more is in Barcelona the first floor of a lot of apartment buildings is where there are shops/bars/butchers/restaurants etc. For most of my food and leisure needs (including the gym for example) I don't need to go more than 400m, this also creates social situations where you bump into the same people and staff over and over creating a real village feel.

Here's a great shot of Eixample, a district in Barcelona divided by distinctive grids that lends itself to these 'micro' village communities. http://lh4.ggpht.com/-I28z_xwspR0/UdgqfgPxzCI/AAAAAAAAqCY/Mj...

Sorry that was quite the tangent to go off on!
GP's example of a p/e of 35 assumes that they turn around from losing $3.5bn/yr to making $2bn in profit per year _and not altering their valuation_.

Not only that, but, assumedly to do so, they would have to switch away from high-growth mode to profit-mode. That's no longer deserving of a "gonna take over the world" p/e.
> Fixing a government full of corruption or inefficiency is quite a bit harder

You wrote "practically impossible" wrong.
I cannot consolidate their results with my own experience and those of many reports I've read: their results seems way too good! Real world annecdata: a google hangout seems drained the battery in about two hours on my top-spec, one-month old, MBP. I never had experiences like this on the 2013 MBP.
In that case, it may also make sense to consider using the cross compilation capabilities in rust rather than building on the actual device.
> Delegating doesn't imply he knows wtf he's doing

That was the intentional implication. Political power does not block technology, it just changes it. An honored publication, acting like a kid's magazine posting some hand waving about the scary times, is laughable. You know who is going to be set back? RMS, and he knows it. This administration has some knowledge about IP.
This article explicitly endorses argument ad hominem:

"These people are wearing funny robes and beads, they live in a remote compound, and they speak in unison in a really creepy way. Even though their arguments are irrefutable, everything in your experience tells you you're dealing with a cult. Of course, they have a brilliant argument for why you should ignore those instincts, but that's the inside view talking. The outside view doesn't care about content, it sees the form and the context, and it doesn't look good."

The problem with argument ad hominem isn't that it never works. It often leads to the correct conclusion, as in the cult case. But the cases where it doesn't work can be really, really important. 99.9% of 26-year-olds working random jobs inventing theories about time travel are cranks, but if the rule you use is "if they look like a crank, ignore everything they say", then you miss special relativity (and later general relativity).
Signal does not solve the meta data problem either. Discovery is an open problem [0]. Signal messages leak the recipient, which is the most important meta data. You would have to use Tor/Onion routing, which is inefficient.

[0] https://whispersystems.org/blog/contact-discovery/
> I think this ignores the most important question of all: Given the rises in automation, how do we avoid adding up in a Hunger Games-esque future?

Unconditional Basic Income, or something very similar.

> And before anyone says UBI: Do you honestly think that Paul Ryan, who is planning on gutting Social Security and Medicare right this second, would go along with that?

Probably not. Paul Ryan remaining in a position to exert decisive control over policy and avoiding a dystopian future may well be mutually exclusive options.

> UBI is going to be off the table for at least 20 years.

Congressional and Presidential elections are much more frequent than that and can result in sudden and dramatic reversal of policy direction, especially in the face of widespread economic concerns.

Sufficient economic pain, historically and globally speaking, has also been known to provoke large and fundamental political change outside of normal electoral timelines and succession processes.
Jobs disappear, and new ones get created. This is true. However, the new ones are not in the same places as the old ones, they are not the same level of pay, they're not the same level of training, and, most importantly, they're not in the same number as the old ones.

Productivity growth is great, if you're in a position to take advantage of it. If you're unemployed, and are unable to get a new job, all the productivity gains in the world won't help you when you can't make your mortgage.
Do you feel sorry for an athlete who hurts themselves?

Do you feel sorry for wife of a stuntman who dies in an accident?

Do you feel sorry for those with a gambling addiction?

I can understand why you wouldn't at all feel sorry for an investor to the same extent as my examples above; presumably the investor hasn't ruined their life. However, my point is knowing the risks doesn't preclude someone from receiving empathy/sympathy.
>If all jobs require four years of expertise to apply for, every time one job gets mechanized, while employers switch over to automation, the employees made redundant would need to sustain themselves while studying to gain the expertise required for a job in a different field at the same salary.

>We do have an increasing number of distinct jobs that each take many years of study.

Can you name say, three or four of these jobs which require four solid years of study to master and have been automated away completely in the last 20 years?

Because this sounds kinda like bullshit to me.
If two users PGP email to each other, anyone who's monitoring either mail server or the network in between can tell A) when they are talking, B) who they are talking to, C) what the subject of the email is, and D) how big the email is.

With signal this is much harder, for instance google/apple do not know who you are chatting to. They also don't handle the encrypted message transport/delivery.
My point was that according to the rules, the "will of the people" is in fact the vote of the electoral college.
I believe there has been a fair bit of research into this, and poor people are more likely to be good at managing their money than those with significant disposable income.
Unwrap will panic if no parent is found, whereas the `?` operator allows for a clean handling of this situation.

Dealing with this case properly without using a single `?`, gets really ugly with a lot of nested

if let Some(parent) = node.parent() {
Why are quantum effects complicated? They are random, however our behavior is not very random at all.
First class, composite key indexes
Edward Snowden responds to the HPSCI report on his disclosures

https://twitter.com/i/moments/812014048866877440
How can you hide accidents that occur on public, urban roads? Perhaps accidents with very minor damage, but wouldn't any significant accident already be reported, as the police would be involved?
> Mr. Dalio has the highest stratum score at Bridgewater, and the firm has told employees he has one of the highest in the world.

So this billionaire is designing a human-ranking system based on some criteria on which he scores number one in the world?

In examining a system for bias I certainly hope they factor in the fact that the guy who paid billions for scientists to research factors under the "total human awesomeness scale" also somehow managed to find that the guy signing all the cheques was the same guy scoring a perfect 10 million every time.

I wonder if the scientists working on quantifying human greatness for Kim Jong-Un are using the same scale?

Couch it in whatever scientific BS you want, it sounds like we just read some sort of billionaire's ego-rotica.
To search on a blade, visit the blade page, like this Hacker News Search blade:

https://hn.bladesearch.com

then type your query into the field that says "Search this blade..." and click the blue search button.

Did that answer your question?
C has no more real arrays than assembly: for the cpu, it's just differently indexed pointers in the end. But arrays in C have some notable differences from pointers in C however, please read a good detailed description here: http://eli.thegreenplace.net/2009/10/21/are-pointers-and-arr...
As a cultural innovation, trap music is cool.

In what sense? It's same old same old "Where da hoes at where da bitches at" soft-porn junk that the distraction industry has been selling to teenagers for about 3 decades.
Read the headline and thought "What the hell does Intel have to do with declassifying some reports!?"
Doing things remote is hard. Uber already creates a large office in Pittsburgh, and I presume they will do the same in Arizona.
The scenarios are the same.

Gas explosion: house destroyed, possessions gone, death if I am home, move to a new home.

Nuclear incident: house is uninhabitable, possessions gone, possibility of shortened lifespan if I receive excessive radiation, move to a new home
I'm guessing it'll be worse than a centralized team, but not too bad.

The Pittsburgh team is there because of Carnegie Mellon, so likely where the hardware gets made. The software engineers in SF just need data from vehicles, which doesn't require cars to be near them. The operations folks actually going out and testing the cars can be anywhere, as long as they can stream data back to the SW and HW folks.
Amazing work - thanks for championing!
> Would you feel better by just viewing USG as a corporation with a contract that you continue to consent to by not having left?

Yes I agree.

So lets assume we have someone who has monopoly on land (like USG) and who is non-violent (unlike USG). How do solve this: Trade Sanctions/Non Cooperation. Bitcoin is a similar development.

> The straightforward response is that a contract to use a road should be scope-constrained to the topic of road usage, and not say also preclude you from using drugs on your own property.

Agreed.

> But that's no longer as simple and universal as a belief in unlimited contracts.

Existence of unlimited contracts does not imply one have to agreed to one unreasonably. That is, think before agreeing to a contract (and arbitrator).

Also note the contract to remove unlimited contracts would (probably) be unlimited itself.
I did read the article through, but made up my mind that the author is presenting a flawed argument when I saw how quickly he skimmed through his base premises, not really giving them much in terms of fair thought. In particular, I don't see how he can so blithely assume so easily that there is no quantum effect in the brain structure. I feel there's some degree of arrogance there, as we have not yet even begun to unlock the inner secrets of the brain nor come close to mimicking it. Our best approximations of intelligence are analogous to the comparison between sewing by hand vs the mechanics of a sewing machine, only the sewing machine remains far inferior (at least for now).
> Mark Davis (CEO) explains this opportunity as, “Imagine if you were the 10th engineer at VMware. That’s the kind of experience you’re going to have with us at ClusterHQ.”

That was from a clusterHQ recruiter's email that I received just a week ago. I thought it was weird to sell a position in that way.

I don't find it unreasonable that a recruiter was hiring people while the company is closing down (what do they know?) I'm reminded it's always important to ask for specific financial information when hopping on to a startup. What's your revenue? Expenses? How long is your runway?

My condolences to anyone who had hope, time, and effort invested in clusterHQ stock options.
While that was my reaction, in the interest of quality and depth of conversation it would be good if you expanded on why you disagree here.

I'm not sure what the parent meant by this. Quality what? Lobsters? Fresh fruit and vegetables; nuts, seeds, and whole grains; animal flesh - these are all relatively inexpensive compared to processsed "value added" food products, regardless of where you are in the world.
Funny how Americans have such a pavlovian knee jerk reaction to regulation. As a European I think a lot of your problems actually derive from not having enough regulation: inequality, violence, lack of universal healthcare, lack of solidarity. Too bad so many Americans are willing to sacrifice all that for so-called "freedom".
The responses are pretty unsatisfying; there isn't really any meat there at all. Just a bunch of hand-waving "it can go any way". It also fails to recognize that computers don't need to be powerful human-level AI's to displace workers -- they've been doing that from day 1.
Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future - The subject is extremely interesting, challenging and thought provoking but I felt like Ashlee Vance (Author) was somewhat inspired by Walter Isaacsons Steve Jobs in terms of his portrayal of Musk as the genius who is somewhat a jerk. Either that or Vance was trying to convey that people like Musk and Jobs often are jerks....(6/10)

Extreme Ownership: Jocko Willink - entertaining listening in the car, perhaps no so much if you tried to read it. An impressive balance of storytelling and principles. (6/10)

Maximum City: Suketu Mehta - as someone who has lived in Mumbai for nearly five years, this book captured the pulse of the supercity as no other has. Able to describe the inherent beauty of modern India without resorting to the typical cliched western neuroses about the place. (8/10)

Seven Brief Lessons on Physics: Carlo Rovelli - Got recommended this book multiple times. Brief and succinct so Carlo must be commended for that. As a pop-science book it kind of paled in comparison to Bill Bryson's "Complete History" (6/10)

Rebels: Aris Roussinos - A raw, honest and powerful book that tells a story about many of the world's conflict zones from the perspective of someone who may get shot themselves. Refreshing and beautifully upsetting all at once. (7/10)

Mere Christianity: C.S. Lewis - A broad spectrum of thoughts about meaning and purpose that have obviously been considered for many years and then condensed in a very succinct way (8/10)

Business Adventures: John Brooks - A recommendation by Buffet and Gates, entertaining read with business principles built in (7/10)

Tools of Titans: Tim Ferriss - Obviously written for those of us who have allowed our attention spans to be destroyed by the constant sugary stimulation of the internet, Tim nails the balance of useful thoughts and observations from a broad array of guests while keeping it succinct and entertaining. (7/10)
I think it's cultural. I've lived in apartments and condos designed with nice common spaces (pool, clubhouse, lawn, chairs), and those areas were empty 95% of the time. At most, a couple of people swimming, or a guy taking a phone call.

We work all day, come home at 8pm, watch TV while surfing with phone, update Facebook, text a friend, go to bed. Repeat.
It very much depends on the city and even the specific part of the city. e.g. London, despite mostly being as you describe, has areas where there is a strong sense of community, even for new comers. Typically more working class areas.
The Signal server software _does_ federate. It has had federation support since the first commit in the git history. Whisper Systems' server federated with Cyanogen's server for a while. Moxie has said it was a disaster and that is part of why the official Signal server won't federate.

You can, right now, run your own server and get other people to also run their own servers. Fork the Signal app, modify to ask for a server to use, and try and get people to use it instead of (or as well as) Signal itself.
CEO Outlook: Chip Design 2017
The difference between a chimpanzee's intellect and a human's is likely a matter of degree/quantity. We're so many orders of magnitude away from that sort of intuitive intellect that it's unfair to refer to it as simply an order of magnitude difference, IMHO.
Even if it's not a quantum effect, biological system often have characteristics that break our conception of neat layers of abstraction.
Given that even photosynthesis uses quantum effects (yes, really) to get it's basic functions done it doesn't seem extremely far-fetched that nervous systems make use of these as well, assuming there is a theory that presupposes these effects (if we can explain neurons without them coherently, why should they involve these effects a.k.a. Occam's Razor).
This is an extremely poor argument. Try starting a conversation on a Manhattan subway. The lack of boxes between you and your fellow commuters does not make it remotely acceptable to interact with them, nor should it.

It is much harder to meet friends who are separated by 5 miles of bus ride than 5 miles of freeway. It is much harder to actually hear each other at a crowded bar than someone's home, but only the very rich (or the suburban) can afford homes large enough to host gatherings. Economic circumstances may coerce interaction with roommates, but living with someone is more likely to destroy your friendship than strengthen it.

I think this is a cultural/attitude thing, not really a manifestation of urban planning.
In my 15 years of commercial practice, I feel that your 2nd scenario very rarely translates well to reality: most of the times you need to put some foundations in the code that would allow features A, B, C, D and E. Even if your Scrum Master is liberal and tells you "OK man, we don't have much time, put features A and B only", this doesn't change the fact that often times the initial overhead of all 5 features takes the most time.

Outside of that, I definitely am in agreement with you.
Eliezer never took Roko's Basilisk seriously; unfortunately, there's a great deal of misinformation about this online. Here's what happened:

"What I considered to be obvious common sense was that you did not spread potential information hazards because it would be a crappy thing to do to someone. The problem wasn't Roko's post itself, about CEV, being correct. That thought never occurred to me for a fraction of a second. The problem was that Roko's post seemed near in idea-space to a large class of potential hazards, all of which, regardless of their plausibility, had the property that they presented no potential benefit to anyone. They were pure infohazards. The only thing they could possibly do was be detrimental to brains that represented them, if one of the possible variants of the idea turned out to be repairable of the obvious objections and defeaters. So I deleted it, because on my worldview there was no reason not to. I did not want LessWrong.com to be a place where people were exposed to potential infohazards because somebody like me thought they were being clever about reasoning that they probably weren't infohazards. On my view, the key fact about Roko's Basilisk wasn't that it was plausible, or implausible, the key fact was just that shoving it in people's faces seemed like a fundamentally crap thing to do because there was no upside.

Again, I deleted that post not because I had decided that this thing probably presented a real hazard, but because I was afraid some unknown variant of it might, and because it seemed to me like the obvious General Procedure For Handling Things That Might Be Infohazards said you shouldn't post them to the Internet. If you look at the original SF story where the term "basilisk" was coined, it's about a mind-erasing image and the.... trolls, I guess, though the story predates modern trolling, who go around spraypainting the Basilisk on walls, using computer guidance so they don't know themselves what the Basilisk looks like, in hopes the Basilisk will erase some innocent mind, for the lulz. These people are the villains of the story. The good guys, of course, try to erase the Basilisk from the walls. Painting Basilisks on walls is a crap thing to do. Since there was no upside to being exposed to Roko's Basilisk, its probability of being true was irrelevant. And Roko himself had thought this was a thing that might actually work. So I yelled at Roko for violating basic sanity about infohazards for stupid reasons, and then deleted the post. He, by his own lights, had violated the obvious code for the ethical handling of infohazards, conditional on such things existing, and I was indignant about this." https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2cm2eg/rokos_ba...
That Robinson paper is amazing, and I hadn't seen it before.

TL;DR:

The engineers said "Make these two fixes" and got 1.

The engineers said "Don't launch until the O-rings are redesigned" and were informed that 2 years of no-launch was unacceptible

The engineers said "Okay then, at least don't launch with an O-ring colder than any previous launch[1]" and this was accepted until a high-profile launch was repeatedly delayed.

Finally they were told "We will launch unless you can prove to us it's not flight ready" and due to natural uncertainties and a small number of data points they could not meet this burden of proof.

1: Well actually they weren't focused just on temperature, so it was really more of "outside of the envelop of previous launches"
Anecdata: we are a 4 head-count startup. One of our heads is leaving soon. I thought about the impact on operations and realized most of his tasks can be automated and the rest we can absorb without overloading. Automation and AI are surely a main factor in some jobs never coming back. High productivity (also thanks to cheaper/better/faster IT-related services) is also a factor.
it's a particular 16th note

Every pop music genre has a signature sound. This is acoustic branding. It's vital for pop-music to function that the audience can determine in a fraction of a second what brand is being offered. Nothing deep going on.

I hear it as an incredibly dynamic
and forward-looking genre.

What dynamic
and forward-looking about 3 decades of "where da hoes at where da bitches at"?
I don't make this assumption about brains. I was trying to lay out the premisses you need for Bostrom's argument to go through.

I think you may have mistaken the thing I was arguing against for the thing I believe.
Famous Last Words by Bosses I've Had (2014)