skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not too many problems, that's in general exactly how it works today. FDA approvals are generally marketing approvals: what you're allowed to advertise your drug for and to who. Physicians can do more or less whatever they want in terms of prescribing things. (Drugs which aren't approved for marketing for anything yet are a little different, but can still be made available as an "investigational" drug, which is a much lower, primarily safety, bar.)
At first, I was thinking of a helium-filled building run by Lando Calrissian but this makes a bit more sense. The handwriting is on the wall that Amazon needs thousands more smaller warehouses distributed throughout population centers in order to pre-stage and reduce delivery time of drone/conventional deliveries to anticipate fulfillment of common/regional-popular items. Amazon Go should probably tap into some of the same logistics and expand with fewer/larger non-food stores for items people want to see/feel in person. Just how long it will take for Amazon to m&a to become the Tyrell Corporation, I have no clue, but it seems almost plausible (a few giant corportations perhaps?).
This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html

Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administration generally has not required drug companies to prove that cholesterol medicines actually reduce heart attacks before approval.
See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/business/17drug.html

Meanwhile drug companies are making billions selling cholesterol lowering medicines called statins.
But lowering cholesterol using drugs is not useful. Read more about that here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-04-15/heart-dis...

Not only that, these statins are dangerous drugs. Its side effects include loss of short term memory, for example. Read more about that here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-not-dementia-...
Just make backups.
Ridiculously clickbait headline.

BBC reports study "better than other outlets" (according to OP), later reports study is flawed.

BBC's organisation ensures better oversight and correction mechanisms compared to most websites.

The "astonishing" delay at correction is proved by showing a fairly neutral BBC search "study suggests" result amongst all the other results claiming proof or certainty.
Idiosyncratic Drug-induced Liver Injury (DILI) is only 13-20% of all DILI. The other ~80% being pharmacological. About 40% of all acute liver failure is caused by acetaminophen. http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v102/n11/full/ajg2007481a....

Meaning a single FDA approved over-the-counter drug is responsible for over 20 times as much liver failure as all dietary supplements. Some regulation may be beneficial but the current policies are clearly suboptimal.
There are some merits to this idea, but there's a major flaw. It's kind of like tax havens. If you have two countries with different tax rates, all else being equal, a multinational will set up HQ in the lower tax county. Likewise, for pharmaceuticals, the company will pick the country that has the lowest barrier to entry and then sell to both.

While within a country a given barrier may be too high or low, it will probably be somewhat randomly too high or low around some appropriate level of safety. With the multi-country scheme, the bias will be towards too low on nearly every drug.
For the argument you're trying to make, this is such a weird cite. The thing I was "wrong" about was that you weren't a white supremacist, and my wrongness was due to the immediately preceding comment in which you stated directly that white supremacists were "mostly factually correct".

I still don't believe you. You're right: the comment you cited was a moment of incivility (specifically: I was sarcastically dismissing you). I don't believe that you think white supremacists are mostly factually correct. I think you get a rise out of zapping this particular raw nerve, and feel like you're so gifted at rationalizing message board comments that nobody will pin you down on that.
Nope, that's not how it works. Do you work in the science community? Many fields of science and engineering are gradually being eaten by politics. Going against progressive politics is dangerous for the career of any academic scientist in the US. This isn't a huge issue (yet) for math or hard physics. It's hard to politicize those fields (not for lack of trying; I could go on a very long rant about how non-scientists are trying to make scientific fields conform to their political expectations), but for other fields like environmental science (which, by the way, is only weakly scientific in the sense that it does not follow good practices for having high predictive power, so it's relatively easy to manipulate) political concerns are very powerful.

This is a bit rambly, but the gist of it is that it's naive to pretend that many nominally scientific fields are actually entirely objective and free from politics.
I've been thinking recently about government regulations like this and about where it should end.

Why are we so sure that we can't trust people to make an educated decision about an experimental drug or any of the many other things we regulate, many of which only impact themselves and don't put the general public at risk in any way. Yet one of our most deeply held values is trusting them to make an educated decision about who should run the country. It's certainly not any less complex of a topic when you consider all of the policy areas that there are to evaluate politicians across.
Could you please link to these press releases?

It's been very difficult for me to wade through the muck on this one.
The SEC failed to enforce some of it's regulations and didn't see the upcoming crisis. Multiple other federal agencies did the same thing. Not a single government official from any country (remember that a similar housing boom unfolded in multiple other countries) foresaw the upcoming trauma.
Note that it it was likely politically infeasible for them to have more rigorously enforced much of their regulation during most of the time period it could have helped. The new securities which caused the crisis were very complex and partially were structured specifically to dodge government oversight.

The ratings agencies actively marked bonds as AA which they knew darn well were in reality B or worse. They committed fraud at the behest of the banks.

There is a massive difference between inaction and fraud. That's why the SEC doesn't get a lot of blame.
Hi. Founder here.

I wasn't expecting this to be on HN (was kind of hoping for the opposite, actually; I'm not in a mental place where I can write a big, Medium-style, "why my startup failed" missive just yet), so I didn't go into any of this sort of stuff.

The short answer to your question is that companies are bought, not sold. They may seem common, but acquihires are statistically pretty rare, and they usually come with...terms. Which may or may not be good. There's also no guarantee that an acquired product will continue to exist post-acquisition.

Anyway, if enough people are interested, we're considering open-sourcing the annotation tool. I'd like to see that live on.
> The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.

Translation: the lobbyists for various polyunsaturated "edible plastics" are currently in the lead.
Exactly, it could have been a Russian national, or it could have been someone from the USA, Nigeria or Spain, with enough VPN tunnels and botnets at an attacker's disposal it might take years, if ever, that they could attribute the event back to the true source.
Any ranking of problems that puts risks to mankind from artificial intelligence as the most pressing problem can't be taken seriously. I realize that it's become trendy in software to think this is actually a threat, but that's more of a marker of an in-group made possible by the collective ignorance of that in-group of the relevant fields of knowledge.
Morality isn't "solved" either, but we still outlaw murder. We can't not try to protect ourselves.
I think Trump is doing the, "keep your enemies closer" routine, but that only works if you know exactly the goals of your enemy.

This could get ugly.
They're surveillance companies, so they could probably figure that out based on device fingerprinting if they wanted to. Or they could just remove every record matching the request, since no sane person actually wants to be in their database. But of course neither of those things will ever happen, for obvious reasons.
>Granted that concept (a brain's worth of computation) is hand-wavey and poorly defined

It's not that bad. There are two measures - function equivalence in devices using optimal algorithms - things like Siri, self driving cars and secondly trying to simulate a copy of the neurons in the brain similar to the Blue Brian project.

The numbers are roughly 100 teraflops for the first case, about 1000x that for the second.

Moores law gets all the press coverage but the more interesting thing is the amount of computing per dollar keeps doubling, did so long before Moore and probably will for a while yet. https://ourworldindata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Calcul...
It's not that I don't think they would lie about anything, it's that I don't think they would lie about something this trivial and small. The NSA lied about the multi-year global surveillance program which serves their core mission, so that means that the NSA and also the FBI and DHS will lie about a relatively minor news story? How is this even in their interests?

I'm more than willing to believe they're lying but I need something. Some evidence, a credible motive, a plausible story. You can't just say, "Well the FBI says so, and they lie all the time, so we can be sure it isn't so." That's the road that leads to disbelieving the moon landing.
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words.
The food pyramid hasn't existed for a number of years, thanks to a number of individuals including Michelle Obama.

Choosemyplate.gov is a great first step to changing the dietary habits of children.
Canonical ships ZoL binaries as of April 2016. They claim doing so doesn't violate the GPL since they are shipping it as a module rather than built into the kernel.
It is however hardly possible to design a human diet without carbs where the planet doesn't suffer from a large scale ecological disaster[1] (assuming most of the world's population would adopt that diet), unless unconventional animal food sources, such as insects or krill, become mainstream. I don't see that happening any time soon.

[1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919211...
Source on the kidney thing? I haven't read that (except for that a LCHF diet can trigger issues on people who have an existing kidney disease)
"the best software-writing tool that mankind has invented"

you mean "the most complicated"? :D
Isn't every company a sales company, in reality?
Use different food.

If your diet is complex carbs with lots of fiber, you probably won't be hungry after ingesting a decent amount of calories. Most people don't do that (myself included), so instead I add in a lot of protein, which also fills me up reasonably quickly on a per-calorie basis.

It's not simply calories that fill you up, so choose the right calories. I can eat a thousand Calories of chocolate chip cookies and still be hungry, but a thousand calories of protein bars or broccoli will usually fill me up reasonably well.

(Actually, I've never managed a couple thousand Calories of just broccoli. I usually do 200-300 Calories of broccoli, but that alone does as much as all those cookies for satiety, so I can then eat a filling-but-sane second dinner and be full+healthy.)
Tesloop, the transport company that'll shuttle you between LA and Las Vegas via Model S, has only seen 6% degradation over 180k miles on their vehicle; this is with ignoring Tesla's advice not to charge to 100% every time at Superchargers.

Your pack longevity math is grossly inaccurate.
You didn't show any evidence of the FDA being a net benefit. You only showed that the FDA probably could have reduced that specific type of liver injury by regulating those specific supplements. But the government is not magic, and the FDA almost certainly has also caused injuries by overly or erroneously regulating other things. I have no idea what the net effect is, but you certainly haven't shown it to be positive.
Well, in this case there aren't multiple solutions -- my solution was literally the problem statement. I wanted to make a particular array accessible later in the pipeline in a specific API. That was the problem statement (the reason behind this problem was that the plugin API needed to be able to expose this array). This itself was pretty simple. The array arose from a particularly entangled bit of code. Possible ways to persist it are with a regular or smart pointer/slice to the vector, in both Rust and C++.

This isn't an instance of the XY problem.
I went to a seminar on collaborative robotics (industrial robots that work in close proximity with human workers) and one of the vendors had a robot arm that you programmed by simply moving it from position to position, telling it what technique to use to interpolate between them. You could also easily set up reference planes by probing the work area or workpiece, then constrict motion to an axis in that coordinate system, say for inserting parts into holes on an assembly. Not quite the "learning" system you describe, but easy to use and understand. I think one example application they showed was a robot that was programmed by this method to insert lifter rods in one side of a V8 engine block (which was hard to reach), while a human did the ones on the easy-to-see/reach side. It was pretty slick.
"getting a chance"? They're children, they don't have a choice. It's not like they're weighing the options and deciding that school just isn't right for them. Forced labor, child or not, is inhumane and cruel.

And then obviously, you don't learn anything on an assembly line. Please put some more thought into this stuff if you ever plan on having kids.
Im not sure.
> There's a bit of a thin-skinned-ness to editing your own post to complain about downvoting. (I get downvoted sometimes. Honestly, who the fuck cares?)

Yeah, but it worked! Shit, maybe that's the equivalent to click-bait. I see it as a community service though. Downvoting helps if something is factually wrong. But if you downvote because you disagree, but then don't articulate that, you aren't helping anyone. You're doing it to feel smug.

> I think the hyperbole of "lynch mob" is a bit overused

It's true, but it is kind of career-destroying. At least for me it would be, I'm not so teflon.

My complaint is you have to be really careful publishing stuff like this for public consumption, which it is. What are we supposed to do with this information? By putting it out there, he's expecting some kind of response, right? But will he get the response he wants? Once the genie is out of the bottle, it's out.

I mean, worst case, most people ignore it, nothing gets done, and if/when it comes to a trial Mr. Applebaum's lawyers say: "Oh, person <x> has been badmouthing us for years, he's biased, his testimony is unreliable." Shit. Now you're one step further away from "justice".
I've seen the same type of thing with respect to memory and load.
Don't forget that lobbying budgets for pharmaceuticals are also huge. I'd rather pharmaceuticals spend money to show me ads while I still get to make my own choices than spend money to buy laws that restrict my choices.
Short answer "no" with a longer answer of "ZFS is sometimes better than most other options"
Worth noting that Mermin intended the phrase to be derisive, a not-so-thinly-veiled criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation.
What dietary supplements can cause liver injury?
I'm just relating what's in the article. Thanks for sharing that, though.
You do something to satiate yourself. Foods high in fiber help with that, to some extent.

It's really a matter of how long we've been overeating. Over time, our body adjusts to accept that as the new norm, or set point for food intake. It just takes more time to sensitize yourself again to less food making you feel "full".
<"Shut up and calculate" is the mentality that produced nearly all the XX century advances on the quantum physics theories.>

I tend to agree with the gist of this comment but there is an important wider context. The Copenhagen interpretation was not a win for one side versus the other but a truce. That truce has degenerated into the dogma of "shut up and calculate" which is now used to shutdown any questioning of the philosophic premises and implications of QM/SR/GR which was never the intent. Here is a comment I posted to another thread;

============================================================

I agree but I think there are important philosophic[1] questions raised by quantum mechanics and, to a lesser extent, special relativity. One hundred years ago the founders of the new physics had the same questions but could not resolve them to everyone's satisfaction. One of the founders of modern physics (I forget who) said (I am paraphrasing) that all the different views on the "meaning" of the new physics amounted to where you want to hide the contradictions. The Copenhagen "interpretation" was not a definitive win but a truce.

These brilliant men argued for a decade and could not resolve it so they decided to bury the questions. It was not unreasonable in that context to accept that they did not know the answers but the theories work so let's use it and see where it leads. I am sure the hope was that the answers to the philosophic questions would become clear as our understanding of the new physics grew. There was a lot of work to do aside from the philosophic questions. Fast forward 100 years and here we are, the philosophic questions are still unanswered, and the Copenhagen interpretation has hardened into dogma banning any discussion of fundamental questions in physics. I have respect for Smolin for at least trying to re-raise these important questions.

[1] I am of the view that philosophy is distinct from physics in that it studies the nature of reality and knowledge, thus it applies to ALL fields not just physics. WHAT do we know and HOW we know is the more (or the most) fundamental science. The physicists are throwing out the baby with the bath water when they reject philosophy en masse instead of rejecting bad philosophy.
With rust you don't need to rewrite though. Just integrate it a little at a time.
I'm referring to parent of this whole thread, which (briefly) is a press release that says, "Here are some ways you can protect yourself from the kind of attack the Russians did on the DNC" and then goes on to describe spear-phishing.

The reason this is unusual is because the intelligence agencies are being so matter-of-fact about this. They're not trying to convince anyone, like they did with Iraq's WMDs. They're not giving out pointed leaks and then officially denying them. They - meaning multiple agencies - are jut saying, "Yeah, it was Russia", as if it's a settled issue.

The conclusion I draw from this is that there must be very strong evidence. Could that evidence be forged? Sure! (Another reason why the "show me the evidence or I won't believe it!" people sound nutso - why would they think it wasn't forged?) But to believe it's forged we need at least a plausible theory as to who would forge it and why. Right now, I'm drawing a blank.
I recently have had to conclude that HN is not the right audience to express this kind of ideas and not be downvoted.

I am fine with people taking "religious" positions when it comes to a text editor or the latest web framework, the problem is that nutritional choices have environmental and health-related consequences, so I would rather them be fact-based.

Also, I wonder what we're going to see next on HN, flat earth? Chemtrails? After a recent submission which was also related to nutritional topics, I have been considering leaving HN altogether.
And Jameco, just off 101 in Belmont, and Fry's.
C and C++ macros are worse than textual.

They work with abstract token sequences.

This, per se, is not inherently worse, except that, oops: undefined behavior is worked into the spec. For instance, if you have a macro argument X which holds the ( token and another one Y which holds 123, and you paste these together using X ## Y, you get undefined behavior: two tokens are pasted to form something which is not a single, valid token.

A purely textual preprocessor wouldn't have an UB issue of this type.
Also note that the proposed (and current) alternative is for these consumers to vote for politicians who will make these scientific decisions for them.
Alibaba's biggest investments of 2016
> Well, I just re-read your list of 'clever' features, and can't really see how any of them is incidental

Couldn't find one thing that could be simpler, eh? I think you just said you wouldn't admit you're wrong under any circumstances.

> Not sure what to make of this comparison, given that Rust beat Swift in the majority of the benchmark tasks.

Are we looking at the same page? Swift wins the first 3, ties on the next 2 and loses on the last 4. You can call that 6 to 3 if you want, but it seems pretty neck and neck for languages with comparable safety promises.

> Also, you have to look at the quality of the compilers themselves. Rust is universally acknowledged to be a high-quality compiler, while Swift (especially together with Xcode) are often bemoaned as buggy and crashy.

Now you're just showing your ignorance. Rust uses LLVM for it's code generator. The Swift language is headed up by Chris Lattner, who started the LLVM project. Swift and Rust use the same code generator. Rust is riding on LLVM's coat tails. I have no idea who's in charge of Xcode, but I don't currently program on a Mac or use IDEs, so I don't care if that crashes.

> Well, I have to say they are an extremely lucky bunch. Most systems programmers don't have the luxuxy of writing script-sized programs which use the OS as their garbage collector.

Most programmers don't have the discipline to keep their programs simple. So yes, I'm lucky to be in a place where lines of code is considered a cost instead of a benefit.

> 'Would you like to do high-performance concurrency with statically guaranteed no data races?'

No, we also tend to use multiple processes instead of multiple threads. This scales very easily across a cluster of computers, something Rust won't do for you.

Go ahead and have the last word if you like - I won't reply. I've clearly made you defensive, and I don't think this discussion is likely to turn friendly again.
Tesla uses its power packs at some Supercharges for demand shaving. More batteries = more peak load they can handle.