skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The course is excellent, and thank you for making it and offering it for free - but a word of caution for those considering following it: Along the way you will incur not-insignificant costs for Amazon EC2 GPU instances, and, even if your instance is shut down, SSD EBS storage costs.

Edit: To be clear, I'm not suggesting it's not worth it, just highlighting that theres's more than a time commitment to budget for.
Pretty sure it's just a typo and they meant "triumph".
> Okay, sign me up!

Uhm... No? I don't know your newsletter's quality. Where's the archive?
You sure make lots of questionable assumptions.

First, Buffett's minimum pretax profit hurdle for potential acquisitions is $75M a year, not $10M. Those people tend to have the best legal help possible to avoid/minimize estate tax.

Your opinions on mon-profit entities is anecdotal at best, all that matters for the purpose of the question at hand is how Buffets charitable contributions work and you haven't spent an iota of time learning about them, not that it stops your pontificating.

I disagree with Buffett on estate tax, but that doesn't make me blindly question his motives. There is a whole world out there full of people who may surprise you if you take off your political blinders.
Probably more interesting to HN readers is this blog post describing an algorithm for doing this:

http://www.thevelop.nl/blog/2016-12-25/ThreadTone/
Apart from the fact that the OP was talking about giving meaning (Chinese room, anyone?), not having meaning, I think that too is up for debate.

For sure there's no clear, agreed, universal meaning, and most likely it does not have a meaning to you. Not everyone thinks like that, though.

edit: [OT] "have a meaning to you" or "for you"? I have the impression that there's a slightly different interpretation, and one might be offensive (not intended). Or are they the same?
People in low COL countries can be paid enough to work 3rd shift for much less than the cost differential between a 3rd world slum and a Nowheresville KS house.
"As above, so below" comes to mind.

Sometimes it seems that the diff between a CPU and a cluster is the suffix put on the latency times.
This is how I see it:

If the machine comes up with the decision making logic, it's AI, if it does not, it's not AI.

A sorting algorithm, in most cases, is a description of the logic to decide how to proceed at each step to accomplish the task of sorting. The computer merely executes that logic for us very very quickly.

On the other hand, self driving machine learning algorithms come up with the logic of how to base the decision of when to steer left/right, to what degree, when to accelerate and decelerate, to what degree, all by themselves. Often time, we can't even formalize the logic they use, we can only test to see how well it performs. This is AI. The computer originated intelligence, it did not simply execute it.

Within that, there is a spectrum which even human exhibit. I cannot come up with logic to solve all tasks. For most tasks, I would need a good teacher and a lot of practice before I can find on my own logic that can solve a task, even so slightly, depending on the difficulty of the task at hand.

I'd say there's only one exception to this rule. Sometimes it is useful to call something which appears intelligent AI. Like in most video games, the computer is actually simply executing the logic a programmer told it about, but to most players, you will believe as if it is coming up with it on its own. Most often, it does not and did not, a programmer came up with it, but you're fooled into thinking otherwise, and the computer appears sentient. This is not true intelligence, but being able to use logic to make decision, even if that logic did not originate from you, is probably a part of intelligence. In a sense, if I could program a machine to perform all tasks, even though it uses the logic that I came up with, that machine would appear quite useful. It would only fail when encountering a task it has never seen, or a condition in a task that's not accounted for in my logic. Machine learning would not fail at those, in that, it could re-learn from the new condition, and come up with a different way to solve the task.
Maybe not hard enough: http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/16/14643634/uber-public-faceb...

"the session did not go over all that smoothly. In total, Jones answered only 12 questions on his public Facebook post"
> but instead could try to repair the damage done by the uber-bro culture instead of looking for an easier paycheck?

You seem to assume that b/c he left after half a year he didn't try and just wants to get easy money somewhere else. I wouldn't be so quick to that assumption and that's probably what makes your opinion unpopular.

If I'd feel that after half a year I hadn't gotten anywhere, I'd get out too. Regardless of the pay check since one way or another I'm not able to have any meaningful impact on the organisation and its mission. I don't know if that's the case, but that's an equally reasonable assumption given what we know about Uber's culture. However, since we don't know one way or another it might be nice to assume good faith over cop-out or incompetence.
Blogspam of

https://www.uu.nl/en/news/operation-of-ancient-biological-cl...
> If it wasn't Berlin, it would be Bonn, Munich, Hamburg, or Cologne.

1948 the candidates rather were Bonn, Frankfurt, Kassel and Stuttgart. As you surely know Bonn won.

> https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hauptstadtfrage_d...
How old is the debate about what is really AI? A program called _Chess_ written in 1970s by Larry Atkin and David Slate at Northwestern did manage to win one game from David Levy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_(Northwestern_University...

Atkin often complained about the characterization of their program being AI, saying (paraphrasing here) "It isn't AI. It is just good software engineering."
Yes – stuff like this is confusing 'intelligence' with 'sentience'.

Playing go or chess would have been classified as activities clearly requiring intelligence in the recent past. We're just moving the goalpost whenever AI advances. At some point, it'll probably divide mankind into fractions which either want or don't want to grant certain rights to AI (possibly obsoleted by the great AI uprising of 2025-20-11 6:45:23am to 2025-20-11 6:45:25am)
Yep, No one was taking "disrupt" serious anymore, so they needed a new word to strip from its meaning.
Like how much? If you are going to get into deep learning for real seems like it might be worth building a multi-GPU workstation?
While planned obsolescence is probably a factor I'd also consider the desire for more complicated features, efficiency requirements, and high (upfront) price sensitivity on the part of consumers. To the last point in particular I think you will find that a refrigerator was way more expensive in real dollars in 1950.
What a schmuck :D
:shrug: It's part of the list of kaarak and is taught as such.
You're probably right. The self-driving car stuff sounded like fun too, but not if you're being sued over it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13909520
Not to worry. The implant will help you adjust to the idea. You'll be telling all your friends how great it is!
It doesn't. There's a 3rd party middleware that implements it on top of Metal, but I don't know how it performs. https://moltengl.com/moltenvk/
Think about it from a revenue standpoint. It doesn't matter if your cost of living becomes 50% cheaper if you lose 100% of your income.
I've thought about this, and I don't think that making all data persistent is necessarily a good idea. Programs tend to crash and corrupt their volatile memory. If you want some data to be reliable and permanent, you have to treat it as such.

The main obvious advantage of using non-volatile RAM across the board is that it won't consume power all the time, like DRAM.
That depends on where the train is directed: At the company as a whole, or at another set of company heads who ignore serious or hard problems?

I doubt the entire company is tainted, but it does have issues that need to be led by people who will address in something other a Facebook AMA.
If only there was a term for this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
The big issue not mentioned is how much influence Facebook exerts by feeding users what each user likes. Facebook is by its nature a filter bubble. That's inherently divisive.
> How active is GHC's development?

There are two active areas of development which could solve this problem (long pause times with a large working set):

* Compact regions -- which will provide off-heap storage that can be manually memory managed. These are shipping with GHC 8.2. See the paper here if you're interested: http://ezyang.com/compact.html

* Linear types -- A type system extension which allows the programmer to specify values which can only be used a single time. This allows a king of type-safe manual memory management where the compiler statically check that values are freed. This work is further off, but there is currently a prototype being developed in GHC. Check out this blog post for more information: http://blog.tweag.io/posts/2017-03-13-linear-types.html

> Would it be possible to efficiently run Haskell using Go's runtime environment, i.e. by changing the compiler backend?

It's an interesting thought, although I suspect this would be very challenging in practice. Haskell's lazy evaluation, with thunks instead of concrete values, probably wouldn't play nicely with Go's heap layout. I would also suspect Go's runtime has been quite special-cased to Go the language. It would nice if the Go runtime system was opened up in the same way the JVM is.

At this point it might be simpler to translate Haskell source syntax into Go.

My overall feeling is that putting more work into the standard GHC runtime system would be a more efficient use of time.
Cisco IOS/XE Software Cluster Management Protocol Remote Code Exe Vulnerability
Well, we can scratch off one of those, no one cares about Wii U :)
> intelligence is a spectrum

To me, saying algorithms are on the intelligence spectrum is like saying the weather report is on the humour spectrum. It's true but ultimately meaningless, because neither algorithms nor the weather report exhibit the interesting properties of those spectrums.
I never programmed for one myself, but I imagine that it's a very alien world if you see everything as a single vast address space of persistent objects. I imagine layers of software would make it less strange in order to facilitate porting programs to the platform - I remember IBM ported Node.js to it, so, there must be a way to see it as a more traditional machine.
Would YC be interested in funding a deep learning chip startup?
> pay up to get someone experienced in turnaround situations.

To your point, in the business world, if you've already gone through the turnaround experience, you're probably already very well compensated.

The one big thing that you can dangle in front of good candidates is a more powerful position or more responsibility. Hire a COO into a CEO position, or give a proven head coach power over personnel decisions. Other than that, there really isn't much of a carrot you can dangle. A move from a CEO of a successful company to a CEO of a failing company is a strictly negative move. EDIT: all other things being equal, of course. You could get a CEO of a small successful company to run a large failing company, but that'd be similar to getting a successful high school coach to run a college team.
From the article:

> It’s either incompetence or more likely, planned obsolescence.
Canada's first spaceport could host launches in 2020
I don't agree with the premise (that the dual mandate set by Congress of maximum employment and 2% inflation should be the overarching goal of the Fed) or the conclusion (that the Fed should wait on raising interest rates), but I appreciate the transparency and attention to detail of Mr. Kashkari's analysis. More public officials should publish the reasoning behind their decisions.
When it is 5 or 6 months of your current housing cost, and you're living paycheck to paycheck (if not piling up debt) due to underemployment, yeah, $2k to $3k is crazy.
Companies have a staff for each area that goes around repairing the appliances and those people get jobs and the companies sell more appliances.

I bought a GE refrigerator last year. Just a few weeks after having it, I woke up one morning to the thing not getting cold. GE insisted they come to look at it, while I insisted they replace the refrigerator. Repair guy comes on the first visit 2 weeks later, tries some different parts, tells me, "I'll be back next Friday.", which was 7 days away. He comes back the next Friday and determines the refrigerator is unrepairable. It had heated up and completely warped the inside. The repair guy had to take photos and video for corporate. That means a brand new refrigerator went straight to the dump. It's upsetting. And note how much time it took before this poor guy could get to me. He was booked with appointments.

This was a month long fiasco. I had spent time researching and purchasing the refrigerator before hand, which was even more frustrating. During the month without a refrigerator my only option as I saw it was to bite the bullet and buy another refrigerator. That refrigerator has been great, albeit my standards for a 'great' refrigerator have lowered.
I won't lie to you and say I don't have an anti-Uber agenda. I do. I would like them to fail and go away.

But you have cause and effect backwards. I feel this way about Uber because of all the things they do; I didn't feel this way and then decide to find evidence to support my feelings. Lyft isn't great, either, hell, neither are taxi companies, but they aren't saturating the world with crappy behavior like Uber is. Given how universal Uber's misbehavior is - even my list is only partial coverage - I don't see how it doesn't apply to "every aspect of the company."

At what point would you draw a line and say "this behavior pattern is unethical and shouldn't be encouraged/enabled" when we're talking about a big company? That is, if Uber doesn't fit the bill, who does - does anyone?
I've worked on hundreds of domestic appliances.

Newer ones from any manufacturer are indeed failing more often, and are designed worse.

The only explanation is that this is on purpose - just like cars or laptops or smartphones, they are designed to fail faster so you buy new ones. Planned obsolescence, plain and simple.

The best appliances today, by the way, are made by Bosch/Siemens and Miele. None of the other manufacturers come close, period.

Interestingly, the high-end machines from Bosch/Siemens made in Germany are higher quality than the ones made in Poland, China, Spain or Turkey.

Same design, but it seems they use lower quality electronics and metals, as the most common failures are with the motors, control boards and bearings.
How to handle people that you know are suicidal, but refuse to undergo treatment? I once had this situation (luckily with a happy end), that I only knew the rough location (in another country) and tried to talk someone out of it over the course of about a week. I was very close to calling the police, but was afraid it would do more harm than good. The person I was dealing with was very rational and calm about it and would probably just convinced the police of beeing fine.
To be fair, other CEOs are not constantly acting like a jerk to everyone. Maybe Travis will be more likable if he follows the footsteps of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and pledge to give the majority of his wealth.
Besides graduating from your fast.ai course, what were the other qualifications of those Google Brain applicants? I'm imagining they would have, or be in the process of getting, an MA/PHD in non-AI-related area.
Searches for “25th Amendment”
I diverted my attention to lower hanging fruit in my Ph.D., so stopped following that literature closely. Overall I think that unless you already exercise regularly, exercising will have a larger effect on cognitive ability than any task-based cognitive training regimen.
How Braintree destroyed a successful taxi startup from Serbia
I really recommend the Japanese For Busy People books, I learned tons from them quickly. They start off very basic (obviously), but they explain the grammar in a really good way, and progress into more advanced topics as you go along. Make sure to get the kana versions, not romaji!

For learning Kanji, the most efficient option I've found is Remembering the Kanji by James Heisig. It's a bit of a long-term investment, in that it takes a while for them to really pay off (you don't learn the readings/sounds until book two, the first one is completely focused on the meaning and writing of the characters), but in the long run I think it's a much better option than for example the books trying to teach you the characters by showing you their similarity to the things the represent.
Even on Android 7, Vulkan is not mandatory (devices must support Level 0, i.e. have a stub lib and return 0 surfaces, they should support Level 1, i.e. normal implementation).

Only OpenGL ES 3.2 is mandatory.

This was probably made for chipset producers; if Vulkan was made mandatory, you would see exactly 0 updated devices.
This might be exactly what I have been looking for... thanks!
I still consider that a 'computer' and not a microcontroller.

You will inevitably need adc functionality, possibly real time clock and battery usage.

Most servos don't need wifi or Ethernet. Instead, you will usually want to be able to read a voltage and then time how long it takes for that to change.

15 cent quartz crystal and built in adcs. Bitbanging pwm from raspberry pi is also horribly inaccurate... You need a ton of shields to just run a motor with an encoder on it... While arduino can do all that around 10mA
> Stupid jurisdiction should not be complied with above direct legal necessity.

Uber is breaking the law in these jurisdictions. That's what the court orders are for. Are you suggesting that it's okay to adopt a policy of "we'll break the law until we get caught" on the basis of not liking the law?
I strongly recommend a method of language learning called TPR (Total Physical Response).[1][2][3] It is by far the fastest and easiest way I know of learning vocabulary and grammar.

In a nutshell, with TPR the teacher gives the student a command in the target language, demonstrates the action the command is asking for, repeats the command and finally the student copies the action.

For example, if English was the target language, the teacher could say "sit down", then sit down themselves, then once again say "sit down" and the student would copy the action by sitting down.

This can then be repeated for "stand up", for "pick up the fork", or any arbitrarily complex and sophisticated command.

As you've no doubt noticed, the commands are given in grammatically correct sentences, in context. Grammar is not explicitly taught, however. It is implicitly taught and implicitly learned.

What makes this method work really well is that when you learn words and grammar, you're not doing it with just your mind and maybe some visual cues, you're using your body and doing so in a specific physical context (the place where you're learning), associating what you're learning with parts of that place. It's somewhat analogous to using a memory palace to learn, only without any extra effort of constructing the palace or imaging placing things you want to learn there. With TPR you actually physically interact with the things you learn in that space.

Another great thing is that a TPR teacher need not have any special training in education or really even in the method. TPR takes maybe a minute or two to explain to anyone, so you can recruit helpers from any friends or acquaintances you have who know the target language and are willing to help, though if you want consistent lessons and dedication you'll probably want a professional tutor or teacher anyway.

TPR focuses on learning to understand, in emulation of the first step of a child's language learning process. Children first learn to understand, then to speak, then to read, and finally to write. TPR helps with the first part.

When I taught my tutor this method, he told me that I was by far the fastest of his students to pick up vocabulary, and he wound up switching completely to teaching with this method. It was really effective for me, and I highly recommend it.

TPR has its limits, and it can't be used for all aspects of language learning, but it's fantastic for getting your language learning bootstrapped really quickly.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_physical_response

[2] - http://tola.maf.org/collect/missionb/index/assoc/HASH01da.di...

[3] - http://tola.maf.org/collect/missionb/index/assoc/HASH0162.di...
That text is talking about the CAS latency, not full read/write latency. CAS latency is the latency for reading from an open row. Rows are small enough that the only way you can persistently hit an open row is if you are either reading sequentially, (in which case the CPU prefetch logic makes the memory latency go away completely) or if you work on such a small working set that you actually hit the cache all the time anyway.

On DDR3, the full latency of a miss to ram is, in a low-bandwidth scenario:

latency of the full cache system, typically expressed as the L3 latency
+ latency of opening a row (Trcd)
+ latency for reading from an open row (Tcas)
+ latency of passing data from memory controller to L1 cache

In a situation with some but not anywhere near full load on the memory subsystem:

caches
+ latency of closing a row (Trp)
+ latency of opening a row (Trcd)
+ latency of reading from an open row (Tcas)
+ latency of passing data to L1

and when doing full tilt random access:

caches
+ time remaining waiting out the minimum allowed row active time of the previous memory access (Tras)
+ latency of closing a row (Trp)
+ latency of opening a row (Trcd)
+ latency of reading from an open row (Tcas)
+ latency of passing data to L1

The total latency is typically between 50 to 150 ns depending on the CPU and RAM in use.
A Tutorial on Auto-Differentiation and Backpropagation
Uber's board is failing the company and the public right now.
Uber's board is failing right now.
A coworker was raving about their refrigerator from New Zealand as being against this trend: https://www.fisherpaykel.com/
Whilst I don't like the author's way of phrasing interaction with real world information as "fundamentally tied to robotics", humans whose range of movement is restricted to scrunching up one cheek have won Nobel prizes because even with their physiological limitations they've still had access to and assimilated information vastly more complex and unstructured than board positions for the game of Go in order to be able to devise their own considerably more complex and varied end goals and means of communication to reach them. Whilst a computer which can choose hundred of legal Go positions at each turn might actually have more output channels than Stephen Hawking, it hasn't had and doesn't have the range of inputs to be in a position to contemplate alternative end goals such as dictating books on theoretical physics or ordering a cheeseburger (let alone the ability to learn how to be understood by sympathetic non-computers enough to overcome its physical limitations)

One can turn it around: if an organism has no means of assessing or communicating with the outside world bar the ability to send and receive electrical signals so simple they can be mapped to the game of Go and whose survival to the next generation depends on electrical signals combining in various rare patterns hardcoded into its DNA (which could be mapped to the win conditions for the game of Go), would we even consider the possibility of such an organism being intelligent simply because its route to achieving those patterns was incomprehensible to and could not be deactivated by counter-stimuli from the humans that studied it? Would such a theoretical organism even need to be composed of more than one cell?