skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's a mistake to pick out individual phrases and treat them as if they were mathematical equalities. Look at the preamble to that section:

'As used in ORS 672.002 (Definitions for ORS 672.002 to 672.325) to 672.325 (Civil penalties), unless the context requires otherwise:'

It's terrifying because you are reading bits of it out of context and extrapolating incorrectly to the broadest scope imaginable. I perform some of the activities on this list on almost a daily basis just in the normal course of making things and being an artist (the old-fashioned variety slapping paint on canvas). I have exactly zero fear of ever being prosecuted for unlicensed engineering activities.

How you should be reading it: ORS 672.005 described things that an engineer does as part of their work. Then you go on to look at ORS 672.007 which talks about how

(1) A *person* is practicing or offering to practice engineering if the person:
(a) By verbal claim, sign, advertisement, letterhead, card or in any other way implies that the person is or purports to be a registered professional engineer;
(b) Through the use of some other title implies that the person is an engineer or a registered professional engineer; or
(c) Purports to be able to perform, or who does perform, any service or work that is defined by ORS 672.005 (Additional definitions) as the practice of engineering.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/672.007

You are not going to get fined just for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle in public. In programming terms, you're worrying about the value of a variable without considering its scope.

Forgot to mention that all emphases are added by me.
I think that you're missing my point. Those "non cognitive" skills tend to be correlated with high cognitive ability. But they aren't exclusive to it.

Frankly it depends on your definition of success. In an extreme example, we had a young man with Down's syndrome who cleaned our office and did some maintenance a few years ago. He demonstrated all of those non-cognitive characteristics, lived independently and seemed to be happy. I would argue that despite a fundamental deficit in cognitive ability and a corresponding low IQ, he was a successful adult.

In the context of a conversation about Japan, where success is getting into a school and becoming a salaryman, those non-cognitive skills (which were broader than just the much-hyped "grit") are meaningful once you hit some average threshold of brainpower.
Actually i thought about Gopher (i even have my own client - http://runtimeterror.com/tools/gopher/ - although it only does text) since it basically behaves as FTP++ with abstract names (sadly most modern gopherholes treat it as hypertext lite by abusing the information nodes).

Gopher generally avoids most of FTP's pitfalls and it is dead easy to implement.
You're making lots of evidence free statements due to your anti-Google bias that have little basis in reality. You seem to think that Google is using less machine learning than Tesla. Think about what you're saying, Google, the company which uses machine learning for everything, whose long demonstrated the ability to read street signs and crowdsourced massive ML data on it using Recaptcha, and which makes purpose-built self driving vehicles is doing less than Tesla, whose self-driving capability was an after-thought, the vehicle was not designed from the get-go for Level 3 or 4 capability.

How would Waymo possibly build a car with Level 3 or 4 capability if they weren't doing a hellava lot of onboard visual field processing? Accurate maps data won't let you deal with bicyclists or pedestrians properly, it won't deal with all kinds of hazards.

There's a reason Waymo cars are festooned with LIDAR and cameras and other HW in a giant boxy minivan, and it isn't purely for show to make them ugly on purpose.
> which created the Taliban

That's rich (and lying by omission) coming from an (presumably) American.
Lots of people are single. Lots of people's kids are grown. Lots of people could own one car for the kids stuff and car-share the second vehicle as needed. Even with private ownership for cases like children, the total number of cars on the road could decrease considerably.
You can download data for over a billion taxi rides in NYC: http://toddwschneider.com/posts/analyzing-1-1-billion-nyc-ta...

The linked blog post literally tracks employees of individual companies and sees where they live.
I think you got the roles mixed up... Google is the megacorp in this and Uber is scrappy startup.
We were told the same thing about Taxis -- or at least that part of that red tape was to ensure the safety of riders.

Yet this company comes along that very aggressively flies in the face of this licensing and the world flocks to it.

We can't equate the inexistence of mandated licensing to there not being feedback mechanism for quality, competence, etc. If we did not mandate licensing, don't you think those would emerge? And perhaps even be better?
That's an interesting observation. So what you are saying is that if I make sufficient headway into the problem without providing the most efficient answer, it should be fine?

There are rumors that unless you are spot on perfect in Big 4 interviews, they wont advance you.
Do you have evidence those citizens desire a happy coexistence and repeal of these laws? The survey linked elsewhere in this thread claims the opposite.

Of course that doesn't mean the top people aren't "abusing" the laws to get more control.
> It is an Islamic country and blasphemy is indeed punishable by death in Islam.

By some Muslims. Islam is not a monolithic entity and many Muslims manage to get by just fine without throwing fits about blasphemy, just as most Christians don't play much attention to the Biblical rules about not wearing mixed fabrics or cutting your beard.
Exactly, punishment is hold in high esteem when you believe yourself to be righteously demanding it, and no-one believes themselves more righteous than a religious person doing "god's will".
https://github.com/dropbox/hackpad

There's this open source version of Hackpad, under Dropbox's Github account. Apparently, it's an obsolete version, since the last commit made dates back to two years ago.

Not sure whether they would take down this repo too.
> Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here.

I hear you, and agree that when he says "I'm an engineer", we have a certain set of laws that apply to that speech.

I'm saying there is another aspect which is the the crux of the reply-to-top-level comment to which I objected: that Final Report is saying "doing [math and stuff] on [public things] is engineering, and you did [math and stuff], so you're doing engineering without a license". I don't think my "the Final Report is saying..." is unfair: check the Final Report sections 8,9, and 10.

I bet there are a lot of confounding issues in this particular case, but, very narrowly, what I'm saying is that using publicly-available data and speaking (without saying "I'm an engineer") of applications of "special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences" cannot be illegal or fine-able, yet this is pretty literally what sentence three of section 13 (Final Order, Page 6) says is happening.
If your ladder could deliver itself to someone for $10/hr. (or a ladder could be delivered to you on demand) I suspect we'd have a lot less ladders.
No. See my other reply above. You're ignoring important context that defines personal behavior separately from defining what the professional duties of an engineer include.

As a simple example, if you have a faint and I ask you if you're all right, what you're feeling etc., that doesn't mean I'm practicing medicine without a license despite the diagnostic nature of my questions.
It was definitely a blend at Queen's University in Ontario. Computer engineers could choose between hardware and software specializations. All engineers shared a common first year. Then all electrical and computer engineers shared a common second year. Third and forth years focused more on the specialties, though there was still significant overlap.

Also worth noting, professional registrations may not line up exactly with degrees. You don't necessarily need a degree in computer engineering to be a computer engineer. The board would likely find a degree in electrical engineering and a few years of relevant work experience to be sufficient. (Though, this may vary by jurisdiction.)
What's a fios router and why do you need one ? Why do you need any equipment from them ? The forced cable box monopoly was bad enough. Is it happening to routers too now ?
Huh?

Windows explorer has FTP built into the shell. As does every other desktop OS.

If you care about file integrity, you want to out of band to verify the signatures on the binary anyway.

Dropbox is blocked in most commercial networks and offers no assurance of anything.
Hah, this is a great idea. It'd be really interesting to see a timelapse of a specific area/event over time.
Ok, it seems pgxc_ctl explicitly calls pg_ctl with `-i` option when starting coordinator. So this for some reason was hardcoded since when postgres is started with `-i` option then `listen_addresses` is ignored.
I actually do. Doctors with "proper training" still kill people and are grossly negligent. Like I replied to someone above, where I think I and you would sharply disagree on is the notion that without mandated professional licensing it would be a free for all. I don't think that is true at all. I think systems of accreditation, checking for competency, etc. would emerge, and likely even be better than the ones we have today.
The verse that entire Wikipedia page centers on is referring to a particular incident that occurred to the Prophet[1]. Furthermore, the verse is not referring to blasphemers in any way.

It's important to note that a large portion of verses in the Quran were revealed to the Prophet in response to a particular event that took place during his lifetime. Tafsir (exegesis) is the subfield of Islamic science that deals with figuring out the context of a particular verse.

[1] Explanation of that verse (5:33): http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&t...
Fitbit contradicts husband's story of wife's murder
"Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned. It applied the "clear and present danger" standard. The current standard is "incitement to imminent lawless action" as articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio.
The driver is absolutely responsible. However it is important to also teach safety. You can teach safety without condoning a driver's collision.
If I were to point fingers at ADHD at all, I'd be more likely to mark it as an example of overzealous diagnosis of normal human variance than as a culturally-created disorder. At least in the relatively high-functioning cases.

(Are those stories of people with ADHD who are completely distracted by any arbitrary stimulus true? I've never heard of them closer than two or three degrees of separation from where I heard the story, and never a trustworthy source. Regardless, I don't mean those, hence "high-functioning")
The biblical rules you site are from the pre-Christ laws. They were laws that needed to be followed to save man from the wrath of God. Christians believe that Jesus died and therefore took the punishment of their sins away, and all they need to do now is believe in him. So it's not the same at all. As far as I understand the laws of the Koran are very much the laws Muslims must follow.
I don't think the issue is the law, it's the seemingly capricious enforcement.
Gopher had a lot going for it over the early web. But its death knell was University of Minnesota wanting to charge a licensing fee for it.
I think you need to think of a better example. The stadium would be built by a major contractor, and they would be responsible for hiring capable people. In general, having a university degree in structural engineering means a person can design structures that don't fall down. In this instance, having a license would be just like an extra stamp on the university degree.
I think the size of vehicles is related to safety features and mass being safer in collisions in addition to the expectation for capacity.

But I agree the it is ludicrous to continue with these massive vehicles if we can find a way to move forward. I think the other massive vehicles present a safety hazard to small vehicles so you may need to separate them physically.
Hey, that's great! We can just ship all the ADHD sufferers over to Europe for a vacation, and they'll be cured! Or do you think it would take an extended stay? And be careful if you visit America, you might come down with it yourself!
It did click with me. Thanks to my wife who is very sensitive, warmly & calmly outgoing (but never intrusive) and considerate, I gradually learn to respect almost everybody.

Having in mind I screwed up so much in my life also taught me humility; I judge people less and less with each passing day.

Those two things help a lot when talking to people in both casual and professional settings.
That is a valid point, thank you for bringing it up.
I feel you have it backwards. That there are observers doesn't seem like much of a mystery: there doesn't seem to be anything mysterious about observers beyond the right kind of computation. The mystery is the qualitative experience of conscious observers, the feel, the what it is like to be, etc.
I am aged thirty and every day I use a technology that didn't exist when I was eight, furthermore this technology "feels" ancient to me.

It's a bit cliche but the pace of innovation in our field (at least up to now), and the rate at which we get used to new things, is amazing.
Well, then you modify that, too.

It’s your computer, you installed the software, you have a license, therefore you own that copy, and can modify it however you wish. (EU Copyright Directive, especially Article 6 and following).

Now, the question is, why does Windows not allow me to add signatures that should be considered acceptable by default, why can I not modify my own OS installation?
Who's at risk of getting hurt if I identify as a gender I haven't earned credentials for?
Unfortunately a lot of people figure that reading a few critical articles means they know more about something than its actual practitioners, which is why you're, bafflingly, being downvoted. As a Christian, I've had non-Christians actually get angry at me for not being a bigot, and as a feminist I've had non-feminists tell me that I'm "supposed to" hate myself and all men.

Some people get really uncomfortable when others don't fit into their tidy labels.
Like hoodies and hackathons, not like hacking into stuff.
> "Shouting fire" is a reference to Schenck v. US which has been overturned.

It's a reference to dicta in that case, which would be dubious to cite as meaningful even had Shenck not been overturned.
Rather than dropping compatibility entirely, I've always wondered why no modern OS has gone the route of creating a "compatibility layer" that's actually a (very-tightly-sandboxed) VM containing a [stripped-down] older copy of the OS.

This would be perfect to re-add Win16 support to W10, for example. Try to double-click a 16-bit app? It opens with its handler, "Windows 3.1 Hyper-V Association Background Launcher". As long as no W3.1 apps are running, it unloads, and the rest of the OS can be completely free of 3.1-era cruft.

You could deprecate features from your latest OS at a breakneck pace if you really took this strategy to heart. WinRT really could have been just Metro/UWP + a "Desktop" that's actually a Windows 7 VM with a high-level paravirtualized shared filesystem.

(And it's not like Microsoft didn't do this themselves before; this is essentially how DOS applications ran under Windows 3.1, in a [hypervised!] DOS VM.)

---

EDIT: let me clarify the specific point I was getting at.

If you ship $OldOS as a VM within $NewOS, very tightly sandboxed, then you never have to update $OldOS again, nor do you have to keep the code from $OldOS around in $NewOS. The $OldOS VM is now a "static artifact"—something that will never change, but will continue to run old software perfectly.

So, if $OldOS gains more security flaws, you don't update $OldOS; you update the virtualization software to make the sandbox stricter.

And when you find that your $NewOS is now, itself, old—well, you just do the whole thing again, writing an emulator for $NewOS within $EvenNewerOS, and then your $OldOS programs run by launching a VM-in-a-VM. If you like, you can port the $OldOS emulator to run on $EvenNewerOS—but you could also just consider it legacy software of exactly the type your $NewOS emulator is built to run.

The point of this is to decrease maintenance burden, by freezing the previous OS, so that you never need to think of it again. This wasn't what was done with "XP Mode"; Windows XP continued to receive updates as a component of Windows 7. The point here would be to EOL the older OS, and then virtualize it.
Here's some perspective from a Pakistani agnostic who supports blasphemy laws.

This article is an example of how people in the West really don't get how religious countries in the third world work. Because rule of law is absolute in Western countries, articles like this make it sound like the problem is the unjust law. That is absolutely false.

There are two major problems with blasphemy reform. The first problem is that the PEOPLE want blasphemy punished. There is a significant minority in Pakistan who is OK with a blasphemer being killed. It is not an unjust law imposed on people - the people WANT it. The second problem is that the rule of law in most third world countries is very weak. Which means that if people want something punished, and the law isn't there to punish it, they will take the law into their own hands. We saw this very recently when a huge mob lynched a university student who was accused of blasphemy. So... the people want blasphemy punished, and you cannot stop them from taking the law into their own hands. What do you do in this case?

Consider the options in front of a Pakistani politician who is personally against punishment for blasphemy. He can either revoke the law (at risk to his own life) and then watch as people form huge mobs who lynch people accused of blasphemy at random. He will be unable to control this because the police might empathize with the killers. OR he can impose blasphemy law, and then weaken implementation. When the blasphemy law is imposed, then people are discouraged from taking the law into their own hands. At the same time, he can weaken implementation to the point that no one Really gets punished for blasphemy (as in the case in Pakistan - the state does not execute people for blasphemy). With a blasphemy law, the religious nuts are appeased, and at the same time, with weak implementation, a semblance of freedom is maintained.

That means, the blasphemy law keeps the lid on the monster that is public opinion until it can be reformed. And that comes through education, where the Pakistani government is trying to make strides. (Unsuccessfully, I might add, since it is a poor country.) In any case, THAT is the logic behind blasphemy law - it prevents the country from descending into anarchy. It is easy to sit in a country with great rule of law to say that why are these people in third world countries making stupid laws, but the lawmakers in these countries aren't stupid. The obviously see that their people are backward, and there needs to be imperfect stopgap solutions until the country can implement better rule of law.
Where you choose to help out is up to you?
Not all places think test coverage is the gold standard.
That's quite surprising actually. Given my own experience, I would have likely doubted these results had they not been published by Pew (or Gallup).
In not a single part of my statement I'm saying they desire coexistence, I'm just saying the reasons they don't have it; anyway, if governments only followed everyone's desires no-one would pay taxes.
In context: The guy was a swede. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that in general we in the nordic countries don't have an additional licensing scheme for engineers. Having a university degree is considered sufficient proof of skill to get hired by an engineering company. And, the last I looked, our houses and bridges were pretty okay. Nobody designs stuff alone - most structural engineers work for one engineering company or another and work in teams.

So, in his context, having a degree is sufficient to be able to call himself an engineer. Funny he hasn't acclimatized to US, though.
>Hikikomori

I believe this is pretty much agoraphobia
The day I was forced to sign up for a yahoo account was the day they lost me...after finally finding a crappy yahoo user id which was sooo much less cool than my three letter initials flickr id I got when it was in beta, I failed the recatpcha 4 times, cursed them a dozen times, and said goodbye forever.
In my opinion, it's only worth it for people who don't ask themselves this question.

I think we should think in terms of time and fraction of a salary (relative) instead of absolute dollar figure.

Framed as follows: Someone who makes $X/year attending an event with a fee "f": what's the ratio f/X. What's the time/opportunity cost of attending the event. Is it still worth it to attend.

$10k can be one's savings or another's dust collecting Brioni.
Isn't there some middle path? Maybe the reason more and more sound like they want to go in a socialist direction isn't that we are all a bunch of socialist, rather, the pendulum has swung so far in favor of inequity in the USA the reaction has the appearance of socialism.

Many of us are waiting for the day that the wealth is spread to the outer reaches of the populace, those who have not. I suspect, we'd see a huge explosion of wealth for both less and more wealthy people. Here I'm not just talking about dollars on the bank statement, but a happy, enjoyable society to spend you time in. You don't have to step over the homeless person, for example.

Stop concentrating wealth, what does that mean? You're just going to give people stuff? Yep, you get a phone, you get shelter and everyone gets a bed, meal and healthcare.
This [1] is a good start. You'll probably feel like you're drinking from the firehose though.

[1: https://www.tensorflow.org/tutorials/image_recognition]
JPEG Huffman Coding Tutorial
You make too many assumptions, but Taliban is by-product of Pakistani obsession with India and Strategic depth.
But even in the US, religious tribunals exist among different religious groups and sometimes cross the line between arbritraion and the law.

They are mostly ignored because well organized religious sects are politically powerful.
For some reason I cannot edit my own comment. I finally got a response from SolarCity on this matter just today. They say my account will be fixed in "winter 2017". I bought the house in winter 2016, so they are basically saying it will take them one year to fix the problem.
What happens to your Facebook account after you die?
Good work, you've managed to paint all religious persons under one brush.
Hopefully, it was avoided on purpose because it's a complete nightmare to use.
That's because you're lifting it out of the relevant context. He has already messed things up for them by previously claiming to be an engineer to government agencies and local and national media.

He can't unring that bell because he already accepted a warning (absent any fine or penalty) and agreed to abide by the Code on not calling himself an engineer and then repeatedly broke that agreement, so he doesn't get to keep selling his proposed traffic solution because of his demonstrated bad faith.

It's like someone who called themselves a doctor and turned out to have no medical qualifications being enjoined from wearing a white coat and a stethoscope and hanging around hospitals offering unsolicited medical advice.