skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Specifically, "what is it?" is a weird question. People have been answering it in increasing detail for a long time and it still frustrates us. First it's elements, then atoms, then a stew of protons and neutrons, which happen to made of sub-atomic particles themselves, until we reach the new "fundamental". Someday, a particularly crafty scientist will be able to solve the quark parity problem or manage to crush one into bits and then we'll have a whole new layer of stuff beneath quarks. Or maybe they won't, but we'll still wonder what a quark is and why God or nature made that the smallest unit, and we'll always want to split it into two.
The threat of protectionism from the current administration has motivated a few companies in the auto sector already. Might be somewhat tied to that.
You can argue against Cuban's point that anyone who doesn't know machine learning will be "dinosaur in 3 years", while also being enthusiastic about deep learning.

> "traditional" machine learning methods ... may be good enough for business tasks, they are not the cutting edge of AI research

That's true - but so?
Under discussion is whether every developer should drop what they are doing and learn ML/DL, not what the cutting edge of AI research is?

In that context a lot of the low-hanging fruit for the next while is going to involve actually deploying simpler ML, with all the non-ML work that entails - and maybe using off-the-shelf DL to extract information from unstructured data.

> older ML PhDs are angry that deep learning is so easy

That's very ungenerous. People tend to do PhDs in things like ML (often making sacrifices to do so) because they want to advance the field - not to make it harder! People are excited. They are wary about hype causing another AI winter, or a lot of important projects failing for silly reasons.
If it interacted with itself in ways other than just gravity, it would make clumps. The problem is, it doesn't make clumps. Its distribution is very clearly non-clumpy.

Also, if this was gravity leaking between parallel universes, I believe it would produce measurable artifacts, and therefore could be tested.
I think the underlying issue is a misalignment of interest between YC and startup founders but not exclusive to YC but to all Venture Capitalists: you are nothing but one of YC's many hedged call options where they have a good chance of recouping the investment where as you really cannot time travel or demand YC pay you for the time wasted.

To me YC was a largely branding move. It's fashionable to be able to say "yeah we are YC backed".

Too many people in the industry are so caught up with being a "Startup" that they forget that they are just like any other "Businesses" but with far less control over your own destiny and even far less likely to win much money than working at a large company where you have high probability of becoming a millionaire in the same amount of time you spent on your startup.

People are biased and self select their dumb luck as insight that gives them an edge which obviously does not translate or is repeatable-take a look at the graveyard, techcrunch won't get any views reporting anything but hyped up PR pieces.
Or any untrusted user input for that matter?
No, that looks like GAs with string/array representations. Similar thing worked for me when I tried randomly referencing nodes within a chromosome (say from index A to index B) - generating a graph like structure

The outputs are like this for some not-so-easy targets:

Op nodes
['ADD', 'ADD', 'MUL']
EXPR: ['ADD[ni_99](ADD[ni_49](I__7[ni_43](), ADD[ni_19](I__8[ni_66](), ADD[ni_79](GET_CONST_3[ni_25](), I__9[ni_71]()))), I__1[ni_61]())', 'ADD[ni_13](I__6[ni_17](), ADD[ni_49](I__7[ni_43](), ADD[ni_19](I__8[ni_66](), ADD[ni_79](GET_CONST_3[ni_25](), I__9[ni_71]()))))', 'MUL[ni_68](GET_CONST_8[ni_73](), FLOAT[ni_42](I__1[ni_91]()))']

With genetic programming (using an AST), it can solve complex equations:

However, this simple equation i.e. correct answer "(a + b + c - d) / e" could be evolved and will result into either of these (depends on my luck maybe)

Case1:
((int)((b+((c-d)+a))/e)&(int)((b+((c-d)+a))/e))

Case2:

((((int)a&(int)(((((((mod(e,a)c)/e)(((((int)(d-a)&(int)b)+e)/a)/e))/((((int)e&(int)c)+e)+(c+(e/a))))c)/e)e))/((((int)e&(int)c)+e)+((b/e)+(e/e))))+(((((((((mod(e,a)c)/e)(((((int)(d-e)&(int)b)+e)/a)/e))/((((int)e&(int)c)+e)+((b/e)+(e/e))))c)/e) <..........10383 characters here.........> ))))))/e))/((((int)e&(int)c)+e)+(((d-e)/e)+((d/b)/e))))+(((mod(e,a)/e)+(b/e))+(((c/b)+((d+b)/e))/e)))))))))

The GP output (case 1 and 2) above was generated with a tweaked version of https://github.com/rogeralsing/go-genetic-math
I have, actually. Mossadegh was extremely popular, and actually had to be reinstated due to public outcry after his temporary removal. Did he eventually do some crazy things? Yes. But would that have happened without major foreign powers spending tons of money funding agitators and rebellion? Doubtful.

Regardless, my initial point wasn't that the Iranian government under Mossadegh were the "good guys". It's that average American's aren't aware of the kinds of operations our country runs and why we carry them out.
Invisible “fileless” malware taking control of banking networks
If you read my post carefully the "thinks the result would be the same" was about compiler optimization case, not processors' out-of-order execution.

Take this example:

a = 5;
b = sqrt(44);
return a * b;

If the optimizer is sure (and strict aliasing[0] also helps to be sure in many other not so obvious cases) that the sqrt function is not using the a variable then it can swap lines 1 and 2 in the generated machine code, and the result will be the same.

In your example changing lines 2 and 3 will alter the result naturally so the optimizer won't touch it.

[0] http://dbp-consulting.com/tutorials/StrictAliasing.html
Title should be: "Lisp is not purely functional".
Being that this is a SVM, which is typically evaluated as a simple linear sum of weights, I imagine they reimplemented that in the application layer. Would be curious how they handled the normalization steps (reimplement that as well?)
I've been following you on Twitter and have been mad impressed for some time. Great to see this technical write-up and I'm looking forward to part two!
1. what counts as

Funny, but OO people did something like that too.

2. inventing new jargon, particularly in cases where existing terminology is mostly adequate

Many programmers are guilty of this, particularly if they are young. Once you've been around a few decades, you start seeing this pattern.
Loved part One! Stop hanging around here and get Part 2 written!! You have a good writing style and it was easy to follow whats going on. I also like the indepth of what PICO-8 is doing behind the scenes. I've read other articles, but yours is the first time it's clicked.

Thanks!
I actually don't use Gmail for partly the reasons you mention, so I'm not at all unsympathetic to your view!

However, I tend to think of governmental privacy threats as the most important ones, and I assume that many other people in this discussion (and in the community of people who strongly advocate decentralization) share that perspective. Your prioritization is sensible if you're much more concerned with corporate monitoring (especially if you live in a jurisdiction with effective data protection legislation).

You might also want to consider people who live under extremely violent or repressive governments, whose concern with government as a threat actor may be easier to sympathize with. They're probably better off in the short term with something like Google because Google will likely resist data requests from their governments, while the ISPs (being local and sometimes state-owned) will likely not resist those requests. While they can't resist every surveillance or coercion scenario, it's easy to imagine that they can fly under the radar easily by using Gmail if it's popular where they live and they aren't doing other things online that the government finds interesting.
Picking a stethoscope for your profession
Those did kind of give it away, but how else are you going to apply that power to the road?
Hopefully he'll get on board with it soon - if things keep going the way they have been, soon it economically won't be feasible not to.
It probably depends somewhat on how these devices are marketed. I was in a resturaunt last year where a salesperson was showing one of these boxes to the resturaunt owners, he had it hooked up to the TV and he was accessing pirated content while claiming it was "included" in the price of the box ($499!) and "completely legal". Definitely questionable.
A Few Unicorns Are No Substitute for a Competitive, Innovative Economy
Yup, can't explain it, don't understand it.. let's let it loose on pediatric surgery what can go wrong!
Otto’s Self-Driving-Truck Tests on CA Roads May Run Afoul of State Regulations [pdf]
There's a big group of hackers who refer to Common Lisp as "Lisp" or "lisp." I believe Doug Hoyte is doing that. Richard Gabriel and Peter Norvig do it too.

They might say, "Clojure is a lisp," but when referring to "Lisp" (i.e. without an article "a" or "the") they're talking about CL.
It does look like the afl.rs project (afl for rust code) has been run on regex:

https://github.com/frewsxcv/afl.rs#trophy-case

Which resulted in just one issue? I'm not sure how long they fuzzed or what the methodology was, but this was the panic they found (still not a memory safety issue, more akin to an unchecked exception in Java than a crash in C++):

https://github.com/rust-lang/regex/issues/84

Since that issue is from the same time as Rust's 1.0 release, I suspect that either it hasn't been run again recently or that things are pretty stable in the regex crate w.r.t. fuzzing.
Digital Ocean has a $5/mo VPS instance. OVH has a ~$3.75/mo VPS instance.
I've never felt comfortable with password strength tools online for similar reasons. Sure, most (maybe all) are local Javascript, but still.
All manner of problems in the programmers mind become trivial if only we allow users to input essentially code to express exactly what they want. Of course this is basically never a good solution.

The issue with allowing arbitrary regex patterns is DoS through exponential blowup. But if you allow running code anyway you might not very much care for that.
Italy. Another country previously ran by the Mafia.
> Obviously if I were accepting regular expressions from random people, I'd use RE2.

And if you're using Perl, it's not hard to do so[1]. Pluggable regex engines FTW. :)

1: https://metacpan.org/pod/re::engine::RE2
I'd be very interested in better understanding what it takes to make something like YC work remotely. Indeed, if I ever left my own job to start a company again, this is the space I'd like to explore most.

It feels to me that there's an incredible untapped potential of talent that simply can not relocate or even come to an office on a regular basis (due to disability, economic reasons, visa status, age, family obligations, etc).

If we can unlock that potential then there is so much more we can do as a society.

If anyone at YC (or anyone else) is interested in talking, please reach out.
Facebook closing 200 Oculus VR Best Buy pop-ups due to poor store performance
Then why do some people currently pirate and spend money on things?
QLegance, a solution for client-side GraphQL
He paints a grand vision of almost unparalleled scale and scope. I really liked his Xeelee cycle, even though the writing is quite arid. But holy cow, this is a writer who thinks BIG.

Unfortunately he takes a few liberties with physics. Dark matter could never produce and sustain life. It's just too poor in terms of interactions. You need richly interacting matter for that, producing the most richly interacting atom of all - carbon - in order for life to appear and evolve.
Maybe "I'll fix this with expressions of regret."
Why stop with social media? Why not email and other accounts as well, just to be safe?

It's one thing to ask for social media user IDs (which still bothers me), but this is taking it to another level.

I already have to submit my financial details, history of past travel..At some point, you will come to a place where there's enough 'data' for anyone to conclude anything they want. Sort of like, if all you have is a hammer, everything will look like a nail.

Sad.
Automatic indentation saves a few keystrokes. A languages service (go to definition, etc) is what turns a text editor into a code editor!
>Most people I know who have some ML knowledge also realize how far we are from a computer program that can read code, read specs, and then decide how to implement or fix existing code.

That's exactly the wrong way to think about it IMO. My vision of Machine Programming is that it's a fluid OS/UI that adapts application architecture to how people actually use them. So for example you have "Deep Excel" which is trained first to give the basic functionality of a spreadsheet, but as each person uses it, it gets data about most used/combined UI elements, follow on actions etc... that "rewire" through RL the UX to behave in the way that the user indicates it wants to behave.

So each instance of the program running would be unique to each user and constantly changing to make it more adaptive to their needs. Network these in a deeper system and you can iterate on design and functionality of products way faster.
The following article has an interesting treatment of interpretability:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.03490.pdf
Or the ignore rule in an IRC client. The input pattern of a log filter. Etc.
Don't Call It Wheat: An Environmentally Friendly Grain Takes Root
Are you implying antiquate == bad? Because it is not.
Coal on the other hand... but no seriously what makes you think that solar industry is more efficient,cheaper and green?
> The real purpose behind functional programming is to separate the functional description of what should happen from the mechanics of how it actually does happen.

I found this statement entirely fascinating, as it reminds me of the definition and motivation of interface in Java and many other languages. And no-one has ever claimed Java to be a functional language because of interfaces!
We know what it is. It is a socially constructed abstract concept, like "god" or "afterlife" or "pure substances" of Spinoza.

BTW, the "substance propositions" Spinoza has been developed are perfectly sound, except one small flaw - no such phenomena as pure substance ever existed. Dark Matter and related crap is of exactly the same nature - much more sophisticated phantoms of the mind supported by a sect of believers.
>...Except we completely stiffed Russia,

“stiffed” would imply we didn’t pay a debt we had previously agreed upon. Obviously that is not the case. As to why the Soviet Union or eastern Europe was not part of the Marshall Plan:

>...Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
So technically, he may never get out (again).
putting aside the simplistic rhetoric, who are the "good guys" then ?
Would you care to counter the arguments the article brings up, then?
Explainability is important - understanding why and how, but when it comes to the what the issue is accountability. If you are dragged up in court and accused of manslaughter (hello 5 years in an open prison) then you really want to be able to say, hand on heart, that what you did was professional and that you could reasonably have expected "not to kill". "I A/B tested it and everything checked out" isn't going to cut it.

Also; the nights in the prison cell contemplating that you are held responsible for offing some poor sod. Not so good.
i'm not there yet
> There still tends to be a focal point, in my experience

Agreed. This one and the others are all excellent points.

In the past I found these endeavors to be gimmicky, but recently it seems like someone has found the winning formula. Despite being completely comfortable in the theater, I still find that the recent attempts have eliminated a last bit of reserve and distance in my mind.

I'd love to know what the new theory is; what is the model or idea that all these productions are embracing? It can't be coincidence.
Yup. This is how the sausage is made (the scientific sausage). Some do not like it, but others find it fascinating.
Well, there was a guy selling other people's Instagram pictures at $15k a pop...
That is helpful for someone that is really early or thinking about starting a startup but there is a huge void between that and getting into YC.

My assumption is that if someone I know is at a stage that they'd get into YC that they already know about YC and are able to make a better decision to apply or not than me.

I've told people about office hours in their city. Something that is helpful and they might not know about.
The primary outlier in the clearing stats, is for murders involving black men. As noted in the article, for white women it's near 90%, for white men and black women it's about 76% (comparable to Canada). For black men it's 58%. The question then is, is that due to the volume of murders vs resources (black male murders overwhelmingly take place in poor locations in the inner cities, often are heavily concentrated (eg specific parts of Chicago that have murder rates comparable to the worst areas in Latin America), where police departments are stretched on resources compared to the murder rates), or is it because of who is being murdered (a bias in some regard)?
GMO Education – Institute for Responsible Technology
I've read a fair amount of them, and loved them! I hope other people see your comment.
>Certainly one of the more interesting questions about the universe. Are there properties of the universe that are unknowable?

Well, there's a very well known (pun intended) pair of properties that are XOR unknowable (you can only know one or the other with any precision).
My first thought was 'how ridiculous', but then I started to think of all the times I've utilized 'hacks' like these to get projects working and it's humbling to see that even at the highest level sometimes we are in 'just make it work' mode.
I've noticed this and I think it's an expression of a more general human urge to feel more important / significant than you really are.

It's the same urge that makes us all think we're better drivers than average, better looking than average, etc. It's the urge that make people move to Silicon Valley/Hollywood/etc., because everyone's going to "make it" even though statistically, that isn't possible. It's why every parent with the means pays through the nose to get their kids into Harvard, why SUV sales are high even though most people don't off-road, and why people buy technical outerwear for climbing, etc. if they never go near a mountain.

Everyone has a constructed image of themselves and we're lying if we say we don't try to burnish it. I think using all this tech is an expression of the desire for status. The problem is, it really can be a time-consuming, frustrating, customer-data-losing, unsupportable, waste of resources. That's bad for business, bad for your health (spending time fixing shit rather than eating well or going to the gym), and it can make your friends and family irritated with you, too.

I'm building a product right now on the most boring stack possible: python, postgres, pyramid. I've been there/done that on the whole sharded-MongoDB-Redis-Memcache-900 machines-AWS-Docker-startup-ops nightmare-use all the things (we actually used every single thing in that list at my last job). It was unreliable, a huge pain in the ass, a little bit fun, but ultimately quite counterproductive. These days, my bets are on things like the JVM, the .NET CLR, and Postgres. As Knish from Rounders would say, "My kids eat".

Another thing to keep in mind: a lot of this is resume padding. Yes, this is completely unprofessional, reckless behavior, but it happens, many recruiters are keyword-driven, and as interviewers many of us are impressed with a keyword-laden resume. We do this to ourselves as an industry in how we hire, who we let speak at events, and who we praise. It's nobody's fault but our own.
Welcome to the real world - not everyone's skill set commands the same benefits. You don't see a lot of people asking LeBron James how to make $40m/yr without any talent and physical ability, do you?

If your 'situation' doesn't allow the benefits/compensation that you want, you can either change your situation or change your expectations.
I really only have a passing academic interest in drugs, and don't tend to take sides when it comes to legalization, but "unnatural/manufactured/hardcore" vs "natural/indigenous/mild" is a silly view of things.

What is "natural" has been debated to death and back, but suffice it to say, I don't see an obvious line in the sand between coca leaves, cocaine (first extracted in the 1800's with ethanol and water), and crack cocaine (a little heat, a little baking soda, and you've got crack!). Heroin, alcohol, psilocybin, khat -- are these better because they're natural?

What is "hardcore"? Does it require a needle to be hardcore? Because you can smoke heroin and inject ibuprofen just fine. Is it something about the addictive potential? Alcohol has just about everything beat, and I find it awfully hard to stop drinking coffee. There's about a million people in Eastern Africa who can't feed themselves or their family, but sit awake most hours of the day and night chewing khat. Is it about the concentration of the substance? Is it its effects? What?

While it's tempting to entertain stereotypical notions of wise brown people sitting around enjoying "indigenous" drugs as part of a normal healthy life, you can get just as fucked up on things we discovered in plants a thousand years ago as you can with the amines discovered only in the past 150 years.
I wish my kids could always be under one year old
"Disingenuous" seems fair to me. The land is suddenly sacred and inviolable when someone asks to build a pipeline near it (not on it), but the massive casinos these tribes erect on their "sacred" land isn't an issue.

I would be more amenable to the tribes if they were honest and upfront about what they're doing: a form of collective bargaining to maximize compensation from the government.
> cannot think of a (sane) negative income tax system that can be described as wealth going from the poor to the rich.

Neither can I, but that's because I think all plans are either (a) mathematically impossible or (b) intended to distribute wealth upwards by dismantling the social welfare state as we know it.

> Sure there is, because a 125[2] of the 240 have a job, those who earn little, might still get some money from tax, those who make medium pay a some tax, those who make a lot, pay a lot of tax. But it will imply more tax on the rich, both income and wealth. (Though nothing ridiculous.)

50% of full time workers in the US earn less than 30,000 a year, so their income would get supplemented to 30k, and they would not make any net tax contribution anymore.

There are 94 million US adults not in the labor force at all (40%), so they too are not contributing to the tax pool.

So out of the 60% remaining US workers 50% earn more than 30,000 a year, so that means 30% of US adults will have to carry the full tax burden, which will be many trillions of dollars larger than today.

NIT would be 7.2 trillion, non-welfare gov't spending is 5 trillion, so government spending would total 12.2 out of 17 trillion GDP = 71% of GDP. So for this to work taxes would have to go up massively (which I support, incidentally, but most people will balk at this).
I think his talent was he was great at selling