skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Chris Lattner on Twitter:

>My decision has nothing to do with "openness". The "friend" cited is either fabricated or speculating. Folk just want to make [apple_emoji] look bad. [angry_face_emoji]

https://twitter.com/clattner_llvm/status/819974025371787264
This post is misleading or just wrong. Perhaps the author is stuck on the word "predicting" as in I figured out soon there will be an accident using magical AI techniques.

As the author says, the tesla saw 2 cars (things) in front of it, the one farther ahead rapidly slowing down, the one directly ahead was very likely to need to slow down to avoid a crash, so the tesla slowed down. I don't understand the issue using a word like 'prediction', but it did slow down ahead of time, because it noted the situation and computed a likely future state.
And since people have an issue with recentism, just look at recent events that prompted sama's post, Republicans in the senate repealed half of the good things in the ACA.
Let's take a railway analogy. Obama was elected to drive the train for four years a couple of times over, during his tenure things would be better on the train. However, the points, signals and power to the track was not something that was ever to be in his control, the train journey would be pretty much whatever the 'deep state' of intelligence agencies and their cronies wanted.

Like all previous train drivers Obama did not jump any signals or stop the train to hop out the cab and manually shift the points to get the train on the other track. He did a professional job of steering the train along without running too many people over or derailing the show. His predecessors were generally not as good at these finer details. Perhaps what Obama was best at was doing the announcements over the intercom, the passengers found him to be very funny and charming and all those good things.

Although we are all experts on trains - where they go, what the schedule is and what the seats are like, the reality of the coffee and so on, most of us are utterly clueless about what is in any of those boxes at the side of the track or how it all works.

If I was one of those people that always wanted to be train driver, and, if I had to put together a popular platform to be elected, I could make all kinds of promises, e.g. to floor it at 125 mph and put on some non-stop direct services with some buyable-in-able idea that it would all work out wonderfully. If I knew about the railway and the state of the track, or anything about those grey boxes, then I would not be issuing these cheques that cannot be cashed. Being a 'nice person' would not be enough, clueless me would not be able to take on the constraints of the infrastructure to deliver those 125mph direct trains.

It is easy to be matter of fact in a railway analogy when it comes to the problems of the system, with politics the 'deep state' is the 'problems of the system' and this is best discussed 'matter of fact' rather than as some mumbled conspiracy story.

You are not going to revolutionise transport by being a train driver even if you are the best guy for driving the train. Obama was the best guy for driving the train down the 'deep state' tracks.
>I don't think they will throw out the good parts

The Senate has already voted to remove provisions that your praise in your post...
Are you kidding? Go on any states healthcare exchange and price out a plan for a family of four. Subsidies only cover low incomes, apparently $70k for a family of four in NY is rich and can afford $18k/yr premiums with $14k deductible. There are some really piss poor regional plans with weak provider networks that are cheaper but you'll end up getting hit by out of network bills. The major carriers are charging astronomical rates if they are providing Exchange plans at all in 2017.
About $7500. I would be surprised if your costs are radically different - be sure to account for any employer or government subsidy for health insurance premiums.

Also, those numbers include only in-network providers. If I am given out-of-network care - which isn't always under my control - then I could potentially be on the hook for tens of thousands more dollars.
> because most Republicans seem to think the poor are poor out of choice and should suffer the consequences of being poor

Of course. What part of

> but damnit kid, get a job. Do something with yourself

did you not understand.
Right, and how many game developers are recommending to "never use virtual functions because they are slow" in 2017? I remember seeing statements like that in Usenet posts and articles from the 1990s.
Transferring Knowledge from Text to Predict Disease Onset[pdf]
I don't even see how one could have effective "stress management" provided by a US health insurance company or healthcare provider.

Good luck getting treated for GAD without first some random SSRIs and blood pressure med cocktails.
No more evidence than I just stated. I didn't screen capture the change. Rather I told my wife to sign up for her company's insurance since their non HSA plan dramatically cheaper.

I personally prefer HSA backed plans since I have a real asset. We've saved heavily over the years. Now I can't really do that. I think there is only one such program in Florida. It was a high premium and high deductible.
Surprising contenders emerge for Trump's NIH chief
It has long struck me as an intense, unforgiving place to work, with the upsides that you'll probably make a shit ton of money and possibly work on things that affect many people. Not the kind of tradeoff I would personally make, plus it's in the Valley which I wouldn't like either. I can certainly see it getting old after a time. Especially now, when the bloom is off the rose a bit.
See? Don't overthink it.
The only thing that operating across state lines actually accomplishes is enabling a race to the bottom. It means that whatever state manages to make their regulations the most attractive to the insurance industry is the state that all the providers will "move" to, and that's the quality of insurance the rest of the nation gets stuck with.

For the most part, the insurance companies are huge, and they operate nationally already. There's really not any economies of scale that are going to produce direct savings. The savings come by slashing everyones coverage.
If you've ever run a business 20% profit is gigantic. Your local supermarket runs margins around 2 - 3%
How could you possibly just assert there are far more people in your position? There are tens of millions of people who had no access to health care that now have it. And can you explain exactly how the ACA has made healthcare unaffordable for tens of millions, since you assert more are disaffected by it than helped?
A couple additional pieces to keep in mind. Insurance companies are essentially capped at how much profit they can make on average per subscriber. For large groups 85% of every dollar collected has to be spent on medical expenses, and for small group / individual 80% has to be spent on medical expenses. If they don't meet those standards, the companies need to refund the premium to make up the difference.

In the linked article most of their profit would be coming from the large group market. The individual exchange is a separate segment and where they would be suffering those loses. So the desire to not remain in an unprofitable segment is not really negated by being profitable in a completely different segment.
"We also know for a fact that Republicans aren't in favor of the government staying out of people's private lives."

I think it's pretty clear at this point that both parties love getting involved in the private affairs of individuals. Obama continued Bush-era spying policies, and in fact just this week (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13390511) expanded the power of the intelligence community to snoop on Americans.

Blaming just one political party is demonstrable nonsense.
> I think we are no more than two years away from an explosion of new consumer startups

I remember reading similar sentiment two years ago, back when the Oculus started getting massive attention after their successful Kickstarter.

There are counter arguments to the rise of VR. As mentioned, price and hardware are too high for casual use, but that will be fixed in time.

What can't easily be fixed is that fact that it is not conveient. VR tethers you one spot, and using VR in public looks ridiculous/antisocial to outside observers. In contrast, an AR approach can avoids both issues by embedding an immersive context with subtlety. (in theory anyways; Google Glass looked ridiculous too.)
I've seen people saying it's illegal to be Muslim now. You can't underestimate the intelligence of people on social media and rioting cities. Maybe it's different where some of you live, or some of your online circles.
Wow, that would be nice. I remember having a MUCH better experience as well when my Windows phone paired with the Microsoft Connect in my Toyota Corolla.

The difference between the Windows phone and Android was pretty huge:

Android text message:

- Message pops up that I have a text message, I have two buttons, ignore or read.

Windows Phone text message:

Voice alert asks if I want to read it or ignore it. After reading it I can:

- delete it

- respond via voice command

- or call person back from number

It's a pretty big difference, and one I really noticed when I went back to my Android phone.
We've eliminated the possibility of Single Payer in the US, and the reason for this is stupid: Nobody on the left can criticize the ACA anymore. Due to our ridiculously partisan shitshow that we've got going on, any criticism by Democratic Party politicians of the ACA will bring a shunning from the party leaders. The only thing they are allowed to do anymore is gloss over the ACA's failings with flowery language, and say they want to "improve" it.

But you can't "improve" the ACA into single payer. You can only get single payer by starting over from scratch.

The pathetic thing is that a public option, the original plan, could quite easily be improved into single payer. And despite the largest Democratic majorities in both the house and senate for several decades, with a sparkly new progressive Democratic president that campaigned primarly on health care reform, they couldn't pass it. It seems the Democratic party has something to learn from the Republican party on how to get shit done.
There are a wide variety of solutions to that, they all fall under the general name of "dynamic DNS". Most DNS providers have some sort of system for updating it even. I use cloudflare and there's a wide variety of scripts that can be used to automatically update CF DNS records. There's also some purpose-built services and many home NAT routers include features for this.
Not to be the link guy, but links?

Like PET imagery of amygdala suppression after administration?
I posted a comment already, but I have another thing to say, or rather ask: honest question to sama and the rest of the YC people, why don't you lobby congress to keep parts of the ACA? Money in politics is the reason we are here, and until we fix that, the only way it seems you can play is to pay. I'm curious is people from SV have considered lobbying congress.
You're plainly wrong.

1) You write "Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit".

2) And yet you (wrongly) write "there is plenty wrong with systemd"

To be in line with your 1) statement you should write 'it is only small things with systemd which are wrong. Because everything - MOST = small, and not 'plenty'.

Yet you dont do, and you write 'plenty'. Why? Because you know, the moment you write 'there is only a small amount of things wrong with systemd' you will be easily challenged.

So, from logic perspective, you're wrong and you contradict yourself.
Is there anyone left who actually believes that it's Obama who makes these decisions?

I find it amazing that nobody looks at Obama's insipid presidency as the main explanation for Trump's election. When Trump says "Russia? Everybody spies on us!", that resonates with people because they know it is the truth and no other politician says it so openly and so bluntly.
Sarcasm usually plays out very poorly on written mediums like this, but you nailed it.
It is unfortunate it does not put a cap on the profits of medical providers. Hence the 'pain cream' fraud[1] and others.

Sunlight is an amazing disinfectant and it is my hope that our government mandates every doctor and facility publish the total cost of every prescription and procedure they employ. We will collect that data and disinfect the high cost of health care.

[1] https://www.fisherbroyles.com/marketers-for-compounded-pain-...
Fiverr competitor promises free premium services
Sure, it's in the name itself (open), but what's the rush then? In AI safety, the time left to solve the problem is a crucial factor. Of course it can be measured in man-years instead of years. Still, what's the big rush, or can we at least see some calculations? Democratization is different/orthogonal to pushing the boundaries of research.

I'm not saying releasing gym and universe was a bad choice. Honestly, I can't say. But can we see a rationale?
One can read this piece and see it as a group of super driven and uber competent people designing a super, faster car, open sourced with a 3D printer for the parts etc, without thinking about the lack of safe roads. It's a jungle out there. And in this case, one wild fast car is enough for a disaster.
Forgot to add there's a really good page around by the Chrome security team detailing all kinds of functions somebody might wish to remove such as dns lookups that expose your IP (the tails/torbrowser design document also has this list)
Sure if we ration care intelligently based on maximizing QALYs per dollar or something then we can get roughly equivalent results (on a total population basis) for much less money. But that means we have to put a price on human life, and for emotional reasons most people don't like to do that.
If anyone wants an accessible summary, this is good:

http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/courses/econ/Classes/Arrow.html

This is the key paragraph:

"
The basic problem is that, unless you know as much about medicine as your doctor, you can't evaluate the quality of advice he or she (mostly "he" in 1963) gives you.
"
> And I don't mean turned off by default, I want it removed at compile time.

Many features can be turned off globally in about:config in a way that will not result in an opt-in prompt and will also reduce the javascript API surface.

Is that not good enough?
I'm not American so forgive my ignorance, but is that the amount you pay monthly?
I feel far more secure doing a video call with Firefox and WebRTC than I do with the alternatives.
The melody for Still Alive at the end has a differing note for "it's hard to oVER state my satisfaction". Still sounds good!
One of my favorite things to do is to pack up my PC and Vive and take it to a friend or relative to try out. A lot of people view VR as a gimmick akin to 3D movies, which fairly predictably has died out, but once they have a chance to try VR they often understand the potential.

I think VR has a real future - which certainly will depend largely on falling hardware costs and increased software funding - and while I'm sure the next consumer device version will be significantly improved and appreciably cheaper I'm glad I was able to make a small contribution to the bootstrapping efforts.
It's still free if you bought yours. They will keep this lifetime free thing going if you buy before January 15th. Only 2 more days! Mine is free forever. They just keep adding cool stuff making me wanting to buy a new one.
Having both an Oculus Rift (pre-touch controls) and a Vive to play around with I have a couple thoughts on this.

The first impression/experience is powerful and most people are impressed by it. The Rift prior to touch controls was unusable in comparison to the room scale, touch control Vive (to the point that I sold it). Maybe it's better now with the new touch controls, but I think they still lack room scale and the ability to walk around is a big deal. The Vive headset also fully blocks external light which is nicer (but these are relatively minor things that can be fixed).

VR in its current early adopter state is a lonely experience - more so than playing a one player game on the couch, you're completely isolated. While this makes for strong immersion - I think it increases the barrier to entry for most people. I suspect FB is right about the importance of social interaction getting people to actually use VR for longer than just showing it off to people.

I suspect finding the "Doom for VR" - the application that really takes advantage of the medium hasn't happened yet, maybe when it does it'll be obvious in hindsight. As for the comparisons to AR - I think Michael Abrash's points still stand: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/why-you-wont-see-hard-...
>Preexisting conditions cannot be denied and should be slightly elevated costs compared to the average user.

If pre-existing conditions can't be denied, and insurance can't be mandated, how do you prevent people from only picking up insurance when they get sick/hurt?
One solution: post anonymously, and have a close friends with some powerful social media klout to share it to an audience.

I know it doesn't solve the main problem, but at least you can share your thought without too much negative consequence.
I've been using Digg Reader. I have never used Digg for anything (is it more than a news aggregator), but the Reader replacement is really good.
A.I. Predicts Green Bay to Win Super Bowl
Yeah, that's not true. There is no legal way for a deductible to be that high

http://obamacarefacts.com/health-insurance/deductible/

> The maximum deductible is equal to the maximum-out-of-pocket limit each year ($7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family for 2017).
It's about trying to impose your faith on others.

Do you not realize how awful that is? How much of a hypocrite it makes you to hide behind freedom of religion as a means to try to force your religious beliefs on others? Especially via their health care.

How would you feel about tying health in to praying to Mecca multiple times a day?

How about if you work on the sabbath you lose your coverage?

Divorced? No health care for you sinner.

STD coverage should probably be banned. I mean sure, there are other ways to get AIDS but if you were having sex in a nice normal marriage then you probably wouldn't get it.
Great. Then CodeReview would be my recommendation.
Then he'd be setting up something a faction that's analogous the the Praetorian Guard, and that worked so well for Rome.
> There are no high deductible ACA plans.

That depends on how you define "high deductible".

For example, let's start at https://secure.marylandhealthconnection.gov/AHCT/LoadExplore... then click "Get an Estimate". Put in a family of 3, ages 63, 61, 21, no pregnancies, no dental. Income $100k. You get a list of 21 plans. The very first one on the list has a $12,400 deductible and a $13,100 out of pocket max.

In fact, there is not a single option on this list with an annual out of pocket max below $9000.

Granted, these are family plans. Your cited number is for an individual; the number is $14,300 for a family. But note that there are plans on this list that have out of pocket maximums larger than $14,300 (e.g. "BluePreferred PPO HSA Bronze $6,550" has a $26,200 out-of-pocket max). How to reconcile that with your link, I don't know: the theory says they should not exist, but experiment says they do.

Note that I picked on Maryland because they allow you to get this data without creating an account.

In any case, most of the plans on this list would have been considered "high deductible" before the advent of the ACA.

Anyway, what's the definition of "high deductible"? The standard definition used for HSAs is $1300 for an individual or $2600 for a family, which is almost hilariously low in today's marketplace. And the maxium out-of-pocket max for HSAs is actually _lower_ than the overall caps. I have no idea how that $26,200 out-of-pocket plan is "HSA-qualified", as it's claimed to be....

> The ACA lowered the costs of people with insurance by reducing the pool of people without insurance.

That's not true. The ACA raised the costs of people with insurance by pooling them together with people who used to be uninsurable because their estimated care cost so much. This effect completely dominated the effect of adding healthy people to the pool. One reason for that is that for healthy people paying the penalties is way cheaper than actually getting insurance, so a lot of them stayed uninsured, but even that is not the full story. The main upshot is that caring for some people is _really_ expensive and the cost has to come out somewhere.

We can proceed to an argument about whether the tradeoffs were worth it, of course, whether there were other ways of achieving the laudable goal of getting rid of the preexisting condition problem, etc. But let's not pretend that the reason prices went up is just "gouging". Prices went up to a large extent because the risk structure of the insured pool skewed towards more risk.

Now there is certainly _some_ gouging going on, largely abetted by the restrictions on interstate sale of health insurance, which leads many states to have a very small number of companies providing insurance. For the Maryland case above, there are precisely 3 companies represented in the list. And only one of those companies offers PPOs. Which is why the price of the PPOs in Maryland about doubled in the last two years: no competition, why not? This is hardly a "free market" behavior, though; it's a highly regulated, in a dumb way, market, that encourages monopolist behavior. Which is what we get.
Messages and media backed up to Google Drive are "not protected by WhatsApp end-to-end encryption while in Google Drive" according the app.
Sounds to me like a recipe for social unrest.
Thanks for the tip, 10.4 takes screenshots as TIFF (unless you use Grab.app) and didn't realize Chrome won't show them. Unfortunately I don't think I'll finish out the series with quite that many separate posts, but I want to do at least one more to finish it out and get the screenshots up.
I'd be far less likely to engage in semi-extreme activities that I enjoy (mountain biking, snowboarding) if I didn't have the safety net of insurance to cover me should an accident happen. I love those activities, but if they have the potential to put me both forever in debt and bad health, I'm probably going to think twice about it. At a minimum I'm going to enjoy them a bit less and not take as many chances. It would be unfair to my family to expose them to that kind of financial risk just for my enjoyment. With insurance I'm confident even if I were to be killed enjoying one of those activities, my family wouldn't be left paying the bill for the rest of their lives. Exercise can involve a host of activities and anything more than geriatric routines expose you to potential injuries you could otherwise avoid.
One big reason is people want their original battery back after swapping. We have all been trained that we are taking care of our batteries on phones or AA at home. The tesla should take care of batteries and they are basically swappable without issue. But this isn't how anyone thinks of their battery.
Note that the data retention changes that were enacted are mainly applicable to services provided by an ISP itself, such as phone, SMS and email. They explicitly don't cover IP traffic. You can read the text of the amendment here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2015A00039. 187A subsection 4 is pretty clear.

It's certainly worse than not having it but it's nothing like NSA level snooping.
How? The ACA mandated cost-plus structuring for the medical insurance industry, which provides all the incentives for rampant healthcare cost (and by extension, premium) inflation.