skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don't have data, only anecdote. I've used two of the same supermarket chain which both had the machines, one in a mixed-use area next to a mid-sized research university, and one in a very residential area in an inner-ring suburb.

Around the university, the supermarket drew primarily from the adjacent neighborhoods, and got a lot of college students and local residents who were shopping on average weekly, so we quickly got skilled at using the machines. In the residential suburb, the supermarket draws from a much larger area, and there are more customers who shop there infrequently, so they never get skilled at using the machines. Even just as a skilled user, not as a professional checker, I would regularly stand in line behind people where I knew that I could have shaved minutes off their time merely if I had checked them out.

A lot of the skill involved was just in general operation: how to find barcodes, how to scan items reliably, how to identify produce and enter it correctly, how to use coupons, how to flag down help if the machine entered an unexpected state or required human assistance, how to use the payment terminal with cash, credit, and debit, how to bag items correctly and so that the machine would recognize them, what the various prompts mean and how to respond to them. There's a lot of complexity in operations which we denigrate as "unskilled" or "menial labor" which is only evident when you take the time to observe closely and see what people are actually doing in them.
The author doesn't even give correct invocations of dd (on BSD, at least, for their last example with head).

I certainly agree the syntax of the arguments is strange, due to its age, but I don't agree that learning it is difficult or a waste of time.

All I've learned is that the author doesn't like dd well enough to learn it.
So all I have to do is show up in a country and just say "I'm a citizen" and if they can't disprove that claim then I get to stay?

Because that's essentially what you're saying here.
A LITTLE GIRL HAD a VISION OF HEAVEN AND SAW MILLION OF ANGELS, Christians
I agree, I don't see what it adds. All it means is that the AI doesn't know what it's doing -- but it's still doing it! So as we're getting converted into computronium, I guess we can take solace in how the AI doesn't know that's what the numbers mean?

With that said, it is a great proof of concept for something in the Chinese room debate: "See, this computer knows it's running deep net for someone's calculations, but doesn't know it learned how to have a conversation with someone and was carrying out said conversation."
Do you know if a structure of any of these proteins is published anywhere? I checked the PDB, but didn't find anything.
Are [difficult to scale] software developmemt services companies encouraged to apply? I see YC as a product oriented accelerator.
"4.4BSD Lite2 -> OpenBSD 2.3"

What happened with the 4.4BSD lite to OpenBSD fork? The next OBSD is a parent of NetBSD.
I've never applied to YC but that isn't totally correct. There's no one forcing you to raise venture capital. I know of YC companies who are quite successful who have never raised money or stopped after raising a smallish angel round and still own a majority of their company. Granted they're in the minority, but it can be done.
"A bank's reserves are the funds it holds in its account in the central bank."

Are those reserves (capital) fluid? From the tier-1 you refer I get the impression these are real physical assets and in flux. Interesting. How do the UK banks handle market runs? (I must read more about the banking system) In Aus major banks are government backed with minimal competition.
Well no, you're the one who said it's impossible to prove lack of citizenship, not me.

I'm guessing that ICE is generally able to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that most illegal immigrants are not citizens. Most can be fairly easily proven not to have had US citizenship from birth (due to being born outside the US to non-American parents), and there is a central database of naturalized citizens, so if they are also absent from that, done.

What I'm saying here is simply that if it is indeed impossible to prove, as you say, that is not a good reason to relax standards of proof.
fish product:

1. the result of multiplying fishes, as done by Jesus

2. a type of multiplication indicated by the fish symbol (see also: dot product, cross product)

3. a product intended for use by fish

4. the yearly economic value produced by fish (see also: gross national product)
I expected that to be a post to an actual discussion, not a link to one of your own posts which nobody actually responded to.

It also sidesteps the point that there's an orders of magnitude difference in how much effort goes towards getting women into safe and high-paying male-dominated jobs compared to dangerous low-paying male-dominated jobs.
Review of Netflix Original Deidra and Laney Rob a Train
> calorie counting and eating at subway everyday really does work

Is there any evidence of that?
The openbsd 2.3 label is duplicated to prevent too many lines.
Or "Murphy" by Samuel Beckett. He takes it to the limit.
The sequences have only recently been found, and the interesting proteins don't share much homology.

Check out http://kumamushi.org for a lot if technical detail in the genome. jfarlow in comments below points to one of the interesting proteins that apparently provides dna protection.
Thanks! The right opportunity finally came. =)
Maybe someone could craft a similar vulnerability for Fish.
Drying out wouldn't be the only problem in space though, there are other problems... (Btw how long they can survive like that though?)
Each is also getting more and more centralized and privatized.
Startup Genome 2017
I'm not salty about that. More just salty at the experience of dealing with people who were teleported to the top of a hierarchy, throwing their weight around as if they'd climbed it.
Of course not. Some people seem to think pasting tangentially related wikipedia articles contributes to discussion, but it doesn't.
>When something is said to be "lacking", it implies that something should be there but isn't.

I don't consider "lacking" to have that implication. Especially not in the context of the Oxford comma, as lack of an Oxford comma is well known to be a source of ambiguity(1).

(1) https://theliteraryman.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/comma-com...
This is not DRM. This is homomorphic encryption. There is a difference.

In a system with DRM, the data is kept secret from users of the system by managing the rights to what data those users can access. Example: When you play a DVD, the key to decrypt the contents do exist on the system, but rules are in place to make accessing the key, outside of accepted practices like decoding the frames of the video, hard. The key still exists on the local system and it can be extracted and once you do you have full access to the data regardless of the DRM's restrictions.

In a system performing homomorphic encryption, the data is kept secret from other users by never decrypting the data. Homomorphic Encryption would add two encrypted numbers together and the result would be a third encrypted number. If you don't have the key you cannot decrypt any of the three values. The key does not exist on the local system.

Homomorphic Encryption is not DRM. DRM is invasive and requires you to surrender control of parts of your system to another party, while Homomorphic Encryption is just a computation and can be performed with no modifications on a system.

>While that may be useful, it's not about safety.

I disagree, it's entirely about safety. Homomorphic Encryption allows a future for us to control our data. I could submit my encrypted health information to a 3rd party. They could perform homomorphic calculations on my encrypted data. They then return to me the encrypted results. The 3rd party is never privilege to my unencrypted health information and only the people that I have given the key to can decrypt and view the results.
Cheers Mr. Seibel,

(I'll assume you're rich and were smart enough to take a vacation somewhere along the line.)

Where is the coolest place you've ever visited ?
(and what about it did you enjoy ?)
"The state of Michigan is contributing matching funds of $20 million for a total award of $120 million."

So, not really matching?
No, not really. This is about keeping the model private. I think that the confusion is because of [0] and [1] being similarly titled but basically completely unrelated in meaning. See also [2] and [3]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adversarial_machine_learning

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_adversarial_network...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homomorphic_encryption

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
If all you have is a compiler, everything looks like a line of code.
> Neither of you understand there is a difference between what the Census Bureau Considers the Mean and Median Income.

No, actuslly, I do recognize that there is a difference between the mean and the median, that the Census publishes both, and that the former is the usual definition of "average" in unqualified English use.

> Failing to understand that Median Income is not simply half on this side and half on the other is your problem

No, even your source says that that is exactly what the median is. The mean, OTOH, is something else entirely.
> We know the law meant the last two things as separate anyway, though, because there's no "or"

The judgment by the appeals court covers that too. Interestingly they don't side one way or the other on what the text means, instead they simply conclude that it is ambiguous. Having concluded that, they follow a separate rule which says that if there is ambiguity, then the judgment should favour the employees.
it's great, and lovingly being recreated: http://www.openttd.org/
Try Netherlands, a few American companies here (including Cisco) which should make transition easier.
My impression is the opposite of yours - I've moved personal projects from GitHub since their incident.
>CAS instruction locks the memory bus like any memory access.

FYI, this hasn't been the case in at least 20 years, on any of the major architectures. Cache coherency guarantees a single writer for any cache line aligned chunk of memory without any sort of bus lock.
I prefer the Goodreads rating system which compresses 1 and 2:

1 - Did not like it

2 - It was ok

3 - Liked it

4 - Really liked it

5 - It was amazing

The reason being is that most books won't end up being 1 or 2, and there really isn't much difference between them. But it sucks giving 2 stars to something that wasn't bad. Perhaps emoji arranged in a non-star-like pattern would be the best.
It comes from ancient folklore (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_name). I mention Earthsea here because Aphyr is referencing Ursula K. Le Guin specifically.
Partial application isn't in conflict with closure.

Partial application doesn't really compensate for an identifier reference not being able to reach its apparent definition across a lambda boundary.

To an extent it does. Yes, story: "I'd like to pass Z as an argument here. Oops, Z is an outer variable outside the current lambda, so not reachable. But, aha, this is the last argument of the call I'm making, so just omit it. A function will then evaluate out of here and emerge as a value in the outer scope where Z is visible. There we can apply Z to that function and presto: effectively, we got Z as the last argument."

I get it, but it's a very limited workaround scenario. What if Z isn't the last argument; what if it is two scopes removed instead of just one, and so on.

Pretty much most functional languages that have partial application sugar are also lexically scoped, aren't they?

(You know, even Niklaus Wirth's Pascal has local functions that can see the local variables in their parent functions! When those functions are used as functional arguments, they can go downward only ("downward funargs"). So they aren't first class closures.)
"matching funds" can (and very often do) have matching ratios other than 1:1; it's the general term for a required proportional cobtribution.
The country is clearly a great mystery to most.

http://worldmapswithout.nz/
I've heard this a lot. When I look at reviews anywhere where there is a star rating and text review the only useful reviews tend to be 2-4 star reviews. 1 and 5 star reviews seem to have a tendency to be outliers or people who are really upset about something that most people won't care about. For example 1 star restaurant reviews that waited for someone to take their order and left because it took too long. I wonder if that could be applied to weighing the ratings accordingly. I have no data to test this unfortunately.
Also keep in mind that specifying the block size can be important, especially for efficiently reading data. standard shell tools don't just "figure it out" automatically. They guess, and sometimes those assumptions can be incorrect resulting in lower (orders of magnitude) performance.
Because it is a mathematical model, and a reasonable one. When you have p( 211 to 220 ) = .0002 as in the article you don't need to consider negative values. The power of mathematical models comes from their ability to abstract these details.
“Safety Third” Was an Ongoing Joke Between Uber Self-Driving Car Engineers
Coworkers...right.
USDCHF: Risk Remains to the Downside on Bear Pressure
The same way that crypto is DRM for personal communiques.. Safety as in "what information will we let be stolen" means safety for opsec.

Safety as in "only does what you want it to do" - correctness - is a wholly different discussion.
Yes, the difference is that spin locks never enter the kernel, while a good mutex only does on contention. In practice most mutexes use an hibrid approach.
> It was weird because he is such a staunch right-wing kind of guy, yet here he was putting money towards what seems like a very left-wing socialist idea.

Many Democrats where I live, Southern California, find these ideas quite repugnant. So it's not just the right-wing that needs convincing. In expensive housing markets, people get pretty upset when they see anyone getting something "for free."

It's a childish attitude, but it knows no political ideology.
And how much did the city originally "save"?

This affair should be poster child for being pennywise and pound foolish with our infrastructure.
There is a proposal in the EU that would prevent "unjustified geo-blocking" but I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to become law.
where lead-contaminated water damaged service lines.

This is wrong isn't it? My understanding is they changed water sources, which changed the pH, which resulted in lead being leeched out of pipes.
> Tech really is quite high paying and good for people at all levels. I know people who did bootcamps and are now making 100K with a couple months of training.

Having survived the original dot com bust, I feel compelled to point out that there's no guarantee that the happy circumstances you're describing will continue indefinitely. Too many people attempting to ride the same wave will eventually result in unfortunate economic consequences.
Different game but quite similar and very good! There is also a commercial remake of transport tycoon for mobile :)
Internet solutions and tips
Wow! That's my whole point though. Can't we just say congrats for doing something so spectacular and leave it at that? Haven't men had enough victories?

Btw - I'm a man.
For California farmers, it’s creating a desperate shortage of help.

I am now offering $15k for a new BMW, up from $10k, but there are still no takers. Clearly, there is a "desperate shortage" of BMWs...

Does the LA Times seriously expect us to believe that immigrant labor is immune to the Law of Supply and Demand--that no wage or no combination of wage and benefits is enticing enough to persuade American citizens to work in agriculture, or that if the price is so high as to be unsustainable for most farms, that automation wouldn't come to be viewed as an increasingly viable, cost-effective alternative if cheap, illegal labor were denied to them?

The LA Times should be ashamed of itself for publishing this propaganda.
I'll point out that dd also allows you to control lots of other filesystem and OS-related things that other tools do not. See: fsync/fdatasync. I'm not aware of any shell tools that allow you to write data like that.
5 psi doesn't seem like much at all! I wonder if that's a pressure survivable by a human.
Speaking as almost your antipode, from a country with similar culture that has a lot of tourism, I'd like it if the people on tourist visas in my country paid access fees to similar places and we'd understand that my taxes go in part to paying my equivalent fee.

It costs something to maintain access to these places. It's fair that the people who see them help support that.
(SQL is the IATA and FAA identifier for San Carlos Airport, near the Oracle headquarters half way between San Francisco International (SFO) and Palo Alto (PAO))
The good thing is that those legacy operations can be now understood in term of the memory model.
That is a recreation of Transport Tycoon Deluxe, a different game than Railroad Tycoon.
And it's always true - the next version, not the current, will be good! just wait for it! again! ;-)
You see this a lot when filing your taxes with software.

"Are you part of a railroad worker's retirement plan that started before 1975? Do you have income from a farm that exported to Europe or northern Mexico?"
I'm guessing NAT has a lot to do with UDP issues on the interwebz.
If you're a fan of Chris Sawyer's games, Roller Coaster Tycoon is also getting a remake via OpenRCT2: https://openrct2.org/

And "Roller Coaster Tycoon Classic" was just released by Atari to iOS and Android, which is a port of the original games modified for touch. (It's a fantastic port, btw, I highly recommend it.)
Yeah I guess it was presented without a reason.

Code quality is pretty much the reason though. The oh-my-zsh maintainer himself even wrote a post once upon a time about how not to run an OSS project.

Prezto forked the project and cleaned up everything quite nicely a long time ago.
> In a future version we move away from the FFT

Do you have any idea when that will land in the open? Say, before 2018? Or maybe a little sooner?
It's a great illustration of why insider trading can be so damaging. There were so many ways to be extremely destructive overall, but which you could turn into huge amounts of money for yourself by trading your own stock appropriately.
Actually, you can do better than that

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_computing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof
Details to be worked out. :)

No, of course, I would not propose that. There are many ways to handle it that effectively amount to the same thing. The UBI could be paid out monthly or fortnightly or whatever seemed good with the tax situation otherwise being the same. Your employer would have to withhold a bit more tax to compensate, but the end result would be the same.

The point is not to argue specific implementation details; it is to offer another way of thinking about it.
> It is also a bunch of scripts in the one known file, and these can be dependent, programmed (if/for) or included from other sources

So it's not just one known file. Big trees can have lots of little makefiles.

> I'll never go into some .sh file to see what happens there, but often open Makefiles to find and tune details of anything.

Thanks for sharing. My own personal preference is such that I will never go into a Visual Basic file, but I will go into a Lisp.

You do know that the recipes in Makefiles are shell scripts? (With a subtle difference: each line implicitly executes in its own subshell, so setting variables or doing "cd" doesn't propagate). In a Makefile you still have to read shell code. It's mixed with make code, and with additional quoting rules and where true multi-line shell scripts that run in a single shell have to be written with backslash escapes; ugh.

(Note by the way that I didn't say anything about specifically using shell scripts for builds; I deliberately used the word "script" without qualification.)

> Not "a lot", but if I need reproducible actions in workdir, then it is Makefile.

If you want irreproducible parallel build problems, that's when you want make.

Sometimes Makefiles depend on execution orders which are not actually encoded as dependencies and these non-asserted orders turn into race conditions in a parallel build. You get a situation where in one out of twenty builds, that "y.tab.h" file out of yacc didn't get generated yet, while the lexical analyzer that wants to #include-s it is already being built. In single threaded mode, it just so happens that the rule which makes "y.tab.h" always runs first.

I once created an embedded Linux distro from scratch (build and packaging system and all). Over the base of supported packages we were pulling in, I saw quite a number of build issues of this type when the distro build would randomly fail to build a package due to race conditions like this.

GNU Make doesn't have any diagnostic ability that I know of to help you uncover where rules have unexpressed dependencies (a recipe refers to an input file which is the output of another rule, and that input file is not named as a prerequisite).
The trouble is that it's hard to predict an agent massively more intelligent than ourselves. But let me enumerate a few given properties you gave to the super-intelligent AI (SI) in your examples and then tell a story of a SI that became an existential threat:
1) The SI is hypercompetent at cybersecurity
2) The SI is hypercompetent at social skills.
3) The SI is connected to the internet
4) The SI has a goal/utility function (wipe out humanity / maximize paperclips)

And I'll add another property that Hawking notes is important:
4) The SI is able to improve its own intelligence

The story begins with the SI escaping from its handlers. The first thing to note is that the SI is now, in effect, immortal. With it's cybersecurity skills, the SI can avoid detection and infect a tremendous number of computers - at first those it calculates will be low-risk (i.e. existing botnets, old Android phones, etc)[1]. Using the additional computational power, the SI can continue to recursively self-improve and plan until it has the competency to invisibly infect high-value targets like the AWS cloud and (importantly) the computers of AI researchers.

Now the SI can plan for a long time. The SI can quietly encourage AI research and try to prevent end-of-civilization type events via its hypercompetent social skills. Eventually AI researchers will come up with an AI they declare as 'safe', 'friendly' or 'aligned'. The SI, having long ago compromised all the relevant computers and chip factories, silently infects this 2nd super intelligence, and replaces the 2nd SI's utility function with its own. Now the 2nd SI pumps out miraculous inventions - cures for disease, compelling societal ideas, and labor-saving robots.

Eventually we find ourselves in a wonderful post-scarcity world. The AI researchers are lionized as mankind's greatest geniuses, responsible for the creation of a benevolent SI that takes care of our needs from it as well as it's own. You may not trust it, but it will find people who do. Maybe greed, nationalism, security fears, or saving loved ones from death. The SI builds the needed facilities to thundering applause.

The SI is now confident in moving towards the next step. Time for some paperclips! One day it quietly sends a new blueprint to a few of the automated biolabs built to cure cancer. A few hours later the biolabs release a series of airborne super viruses and/or nanobots and 99.999% of humans die, with the rest saved for experimentation and convinced terrorists did it. The end.

Super-intelligent AI is an existential risk because while a super-intelligence keen to destroy humanity might fail today, it will succeed in time. The moment a SI touches the internet, our fate as a species may be sealed.