skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I believe a lot of endowments have only specific uses. You can't just spend as much as you want on whatever you want. It also gets buy-in from the community. Even if you can afford to run something for free, accepting donations is a great way to measure your impact.
$221B in cash on hand. They can get any AI researcher super start they want. No?
> My point was that there is no need to anticipate such world-breaking changes with a version ID. We have the hostname for that. What you are creating is not a new version of the API, but a new system with a new brand.

I think Rich Hickey (the creator of Clojure) would agree. He said something to this effect in the "Spec-ulation" keynote at Clojure/conj 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk
What good does a penalty do if the entity who owes it declares bankruptcy?
Given that Mike Bloomberg will likely be running against Mark Zuckerberg to be the next president, this seems a little self serving.
Honest question: in the context of the realistic range of consumer AI applications in 2017, what are some meaningful shortcomings Apple products have? And do those shortcomings have any interest to the majority of consumers (and not say, to developers or analysts)?
If I recall correctly there was an old version of Google Maps which worked without JS.
It was before they replaced the old snappy and functional Google Maps with the bloated and slow app we have now.
...and Capitalism never faced a threat like the Bloomberg Terminal, but here we are.
If you're a Rails dev, take a look at VersionCake.

It allows you to version your json Jbuilder views by adopting the file naming convention (e.g. show.json.v1.jbuilder, show.json.v2.jbuilder, etc).

There's fallback to most recent, compatible version of the API.

https://github.com/bwillis/versioncake
I once stayed at a backpackers in Hong Kong with a bathroom so cramped that the only way to use the shower was to put the toilet lid down and stand on top of the commode.
It's largely a question of whether you prefer to write your code in imperative-looking form via generator functions, or pipeline/declarative form via observables.

There's a couple particularly good comparisons of Redux side effects approaches at https://decembersoft.com/posts/what-is-the-right-way-to-do-a... and https://medium.com/react-native-training/redux-4-ways-95a130... , and more comparisons in my links list at https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master... .
Not sure I'd call it scammy, but I've been increasingly annoyed with the number of things I need to swat away or make an active effort to ignore in order to spend an uninterrupted 15 seconds skimming over a page to see if it's worth more of my time.
Bloomberg and friends are just panicked over the fact that they're losing control of the narrative, which is really their main product.
Thanks for putting that list together.

The article from 1861 is fascinating.
True. I agree with you for the most part, but we can't forget that this OCW thing is something MIT never had to do. It's probably also quite a money pit, that is besides the donations, which might make adminstrators wonder why they do OCW if it's not atleast self sufficient.
>The calculation problem with central planning isn't​ really a calculation problem, it's a missing input problem. You can't optimize utility without a good input on utility.

Historically that has been true, but couldn't technology help? Like, issuing everyone a smartphone and having them register all demand and make all purchases through it. The rest is a problem of keeping capital from aggregating at the top.
God forbid trying to socialize and learn a bit about your coworkers, or potential coworkers.
> "Alexa, play me that song I like. And while you're at it, order me a case of my favorite beer. Thanks."

The problem is that nerds are allergic to advertising because they are allergic to "being sold to" because they (well, we) like to think we're above such petty foolishness.

As such we are not the customer. Therefore nobody cares what we think.

And privacy will go away.

The problem with this is, what happens if privacy goes away too much and somebody abuses it? What happens when a malevolent dictator takes over and oh hey look at all these devices so conveniently set up to spy on all the people. How wonderful. What if a benevolent dictator takes over but their idea of good doesn't align with your idea of good? What if somebody decides that oh hey, drunkness is a problem, people do terrible things when they're drunk, let's round up everyone who buys more than 3 sixpacks of beer per week and put them in a holding facility and fix them.

You know all those futuristic utopia movies that turn out to be a distopia under the hood? We're living in one of those. The question you're answering is whether you're inside the utopia or outside. Those of us who embrace the lack of privacy and being sold to, we're on the inside. Those like Stallman are outside.
Nazi schmazi ... Facebook is the real problem say Wernher von Braun.
The trailer is eligible for being nominated. The actual nominations don't happen until January 2018. Still pretty cool though.
Geolocation 101: How to Get a User's Location
unsafe litearally means "you, compiler, cannot verify that this does not violate memory safety, but I have done so, so please trust me."

Violating memory safety in unsafe code is UB.
Former FBI Director Talks about Russia Interference in US Presidential Election
You are making two assumptions that aren't necessarily true. First, you're assuming that you have control over what kind of information is being collected and shared, and you're assuming it's always good for you.

Here's a fairly innocent scenario: if Amazon Echo can learn everything about you, they may discover that you're crazy about Paris and you have good income. Then they can sell this info to every travel website who'll put you into a pricing bucket which would guarantee that you'll overpay for your next trip.

But generally speaking, we take advantage of information asymmetry all the time: buying real estate, getting a new job, planning a vacation, etc. Sometimes you have the leverage, sometimes you don't. With massive information gathering by a handful of big players you'll most likely end up on the losing side in the future, especially when dealing with businesses/governments who can afford to buy a profile on you before engaging. Imagine if your religious beliefs and either you voted for Trump were available to anyone via an API call which takes your face image as the input and costs $0.02 to make.
A Sufficiently Smart Compiler would be able to.

The second just increments a pointer which starts at the first elem of the array; the first increments a counter and then uses it as an offset into the array, which is bounds checked (the second never generates bounds checks). Proving that that counter never exceeds the end of the array, so the bounds check can be dropped, is not trivial.
That's true but social networks are more ubiquitous than emails and print media. Also, in an email chain the person has prior knowledge that the news is fake. The same is not true of social media feeds.
Put your events on a diet in an event-driven architecture
Perhaps you have nothing to hide, but other people do. The danger in your accepting these "robots" as they are is that those other people might end up not having a say in the matter.
>can work with instead

what can you actually do with these "smoother" varieties?
This is why I use Android without GApps.

You have to trust the company, the employees, its security, the goverment.. Better to think of everything you upload as already posted in pastebin. It's relatively accurate.
Collecting location data, visited URLs and phone books is absolutely not required to make speech recognition. You don't have to learn computer vision algorithms on people's private photos: you can use public photos instead. Even "context based computing" does not seem to work better if data from all users is put into single database. Why "AI" and surveillance are usually treated as related?

Most creepy forms of surveillance are used for ads (but I'm not sure if it even works, I always see completely irrelevant ads) and Apple is not advertising company.
Nonsense. Scurrilous newsletters are older than the republic and were once the primary way people got their news. The "fake news" story has been way overblown.
Abundant Robotics. SRI spinoff. They have an apple-picking robot. It's too slow, too fragile, and uses too much duct tape.[1] They need someone to re-engineer the mechanical parts.

Agrobot. Strawberry harvester. Nice vision system, too slow and too fragile.[2]

DeepField Robotics. Bosch automatic weeding robot.[3] Well-built, but too expensive.

Mechanical engineering for dirty environments is hard. But there's a lot of good machinery working in dirty environments and getting the job done.

Computer vision, at last, works, which makes intelligent agricultural implements possible. But the computer vision component isn't a big part of the system; it's basically a smartphone-sized piece of electronics. Most of the problems come from the moving parts.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS0coCmXiYU
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKT351pQHfI
[3] https://www.deepfield-robotics.com/index-en.html
The real problem is that Facebook is controlled by a single person, who is planning to use it for their own political goals.
Geez... Looking at all the praise from the tough HN crowd, I can only hope to one day build a product that's so widely loved.

Kudos to the team at Algolia. Hope you're bathing in pride this week. Looks like the praise is widespread and well earned.
I don't agree that "politics is different from business, so rules for targeted messaging should be different to protect democracy". I don't agree at all.

If targeted messaging can enable fraud on the democratic process, it can just as easily enable fraud on economical processes. All the issues pointed at the article apply just as well to a seller/buyer relationship.

Maybe we should work into regulating those opaque robots.
Missing "HN" somewhere.
A future in which I'm choosing between Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, and Trump doesn't sound very inspiring.
The original article is arguing that there should be prices in health care. The vast majority times is a lot closer to lasik than it is to heart-attack.

Even you would agree there are times were prices could work in health care. It is a non sequitur to respond a call for prices with the most extreme example and say you can't use prices for all of health care because of the extreme case. For the extreme case, we can have catastrophic insurance or government payment. However, it doesn't make sense to make all cases work like the catastrophic case.

I am acknowledging that there are times that the healthcare is different than other goods. However, the counter arguments seems to be that the acknowledge catastrophic situation is all that happens or matters? Everything but the most extreme cases is closer to the market for food or rent. It is extremely important that you receive it but there can be competition for which one you pick. Also, similar to the market for your labor. It is extremely important that you stay employed but still not life and death for many people.

There are benefits for real prices for the normal cases even if the extreme cases don't pay. Prices are determined by the marginal buyer. Consider a procedure that is life and death for 50% consumers. If several hospitals are competing for the other 50% that can shop around, that will drive down the price for everyone.
Wall St. would punish them for raising salaries.
Because in the former case, the optimizer has to prove that the length of the array cannot change during the body of the loop, while in the latter case, that's guaranteed by the language semantics.
Show HN: Npm module that makes easy to convert JSON to CSV
They should have just shadow-throttled transfer speeds for hoarders...
This is common for large law firms. My employer has software that enforces ethical requirements and monitors users to detect suspicious activity.
Great point.

The only people I've seen (and Ive tracked metrics in stuff like this among large user) using dictation beyond texts and short replies are specialists like attorneys and doctors and people in a bind with injuries.

Personally, i type faster and more accurately than I talk. The 1960 version of me would probably prefer dictation!
Totally awesome!
I just have one question.

When you got blocked or felt like you hit a wall, what did you do?
Doesn't matter. People are addicted to social media like people in the 60's with cigarettes.
The Proper Use of the SaaS Quick Ratio
You had me at "almost nobody leaves Yahoo"...
From the "Privacy and Your Apps" presentation on Tuesday at WWDC:

> in iOS 11, users will be able to choose the “when in use” option at all times [when asked for permission to use their location]
Just by eyeballing it, I am pretty sure that exceeds 80 chars.
Ehh, acting like these companies need to actively filter isn't a great scenario either. I think we need more visibility into what our neighbors are discussing so we can't echo chamber quite as easily.
Welcome to the Hacker News Daily FB Bashing Thread Bingo

[x] I deleted my FB account 5 years ago and couldn't be happier

[x] FB is literally cancer

[x] Zuck called his users dumbfucks

[x] I haven't been to FB in months but I miss out on being invited to Events by my friends

[x] Zuck called his users dumbfucks

[x] Zuck let his news editors be biased against the right

[x] After news editors being fired, FB's news AI picks up
news based on numbers instead of what I want to see

[x] FB invades your privacy to show you relevant ads

[x] FB doesn't show me relevant ads

[x] FB is for high-school drama

[x] Zuck wants to be the President. All this is just theatre.

[x] FB makes ghosts profiles of people not on the platform. This makes me feel like punching Zuck

[x] FB makes ghosts profiles of people not on the platform. This makes me realize the futility of avoiding FB, so I joined it

[x] Remember, Zuck called his users dumbfucks
Doesn't really give Forth the credit it deserves. Totally misses the point of Forth: the simplicity of the environment and it's relationship to the underlying hardware, defining primitives like : and VARIABLE with CREATE and DOES>, threaded code, , (COMMA) , ... Nice promotion of Haskell though
I seriously doubt that there is a significant number of customers that Apple attracts by being pro-privacy. On HN and similar environments, sure, plenty of people here value privacy, as do I. However, don't think for a second that the community on HN is in any way representative of Apple's customer base at all. Apple customers buy Apple products because they work well, look nice, are popular here in the US, etc., but it's NOT because Apple has a strong privacy stance. The majority of Apple customers couldn't care less about privacy (and probably don't know much about it either) and given the chance, would choose Siri working well and not returning search results from Bing over more privacy any day.

So, I agree with your sentiment, but I do not agree with your assessment that Apple's stance on privacy is anything even remotely close to a significant factor in attracting customers.
> But now you could issue every citizen a smartphone through which they could register their demand.

Unless they are expending a limited resource to do so, the same problem remains. In capitalist market economy that resource is money [1], and it's universal and fungible, both bid for goods and services (and not just in typically "consumer" markets) and bid against with offerings of labor. If you abolish meaningful markets for some goods and services—including wage labor—you limit the scope of utility signals you get—even if, as most real world state socialist systems have done, you retain exchange of currency for “consumer” goods and services.

[1] which, despite its utility, has significant issues, too. Nothing in this post is meant to endorse the optimality of capitalism, only to explain the problem of utility signalling in state socialism.
If you have knowledge and control over who gets your information and how they use, well that's effectively the definition of good privacy.
I'm very curious. When you say "undrinkable", what do you mean? I've heard a lot of wine fans say this and I've never really gotten a straight answer. Do you instantly pour out your glass and throw out the bottle? Do you finish your glass but throw away the bottle? Or maybe finish your glass but save the rest of the bottle for cooking?

I'm also curious about what wines you're getting over $10/bottle that are not drinkable. Here in the Netherlands we have fairly cheap wine, but not outrageously cheap by any measure, and the majority of what I drink is 6-10 euros/bottle. I don't think I've ever gotten an "undrinkable" bottle over 6 euros. The only "undrinkable" bottle I can remember buying in recent memory was part of a sale - some "fancier" wine at 5 euros a bottle if I remember - and though I don't think it was corked the taste was off enough that I decided to toss the bottle.
Yeah. Its called having options and you don't get much of that with Apple.
I remember when Apple stopped supporting the Core 2 DUO machines because the EFI was 32bit(not even the processor). I was not pleased
> Like last weeks WWDC they debuted the AR kit but did not bother to create an amazing/innovate AR app to showcase and get the masses excited for AR and their possible upcoming AR gear.

It's a developer conference not a product launch, so of course it focused on the code rather than "getting the masses excited". The point is that developers can now spend the next few months creating those AR applications to impress people before iOS 11 with ARKit is launched to the public.
The way that the Bible reads today, in English, after countless revisions and reformulations, translations and copyings, is so far removed from the original Greek or Aramaic that it's almost inconceivable that the words on the page are even close to what was written two thousand years ago.

The formality of the Bible in English can be in large part attributed to the King James version, and other versions of that time period, where you've got the turmoil of the reformation, with the English King as the head of the Anglican church in opposition to Rome, as well as a relatively tumultuous internal political climate, and so a lot of passages were tweaked around to reinforce royal authority.
If every year since 2014 has been comparable to 1861 then things are much more serious than I imagined.
If you stand up and get punished and ostracised/mocked as a result then standing up did you no good. You will learn not to do it.

Stand up thing worked great in this story. I trust you that your relative could suceed in standing up instead of being treated as crazy bad women. A lot of it is residuum from old times when gender roles were different and some of both genders keep going old way.

Her existence does not excuse dudes who attempt to dominate women more them men. I did won those fights in the past, but the older I am the less I care about whether it was intentional or subconscious. It affects me all the same.

That is why stories like this are good to hear about - it is good role model for women lime your relative - to see that she can stop the dude, not to consider his interest and win.

Maybe you could show her the story to make her inspired for that.
It's impossible to think that the features DfB launched with are equal or less than what they are now, so some of the price increase can be attributed to DfB providing more value to the customer.
The problem with these filter bubbles is the fact that entities like Facebook encourage them and they are fundamental to their platform. To increase engagement in these platorms makes it really easy to just create a filter bubble. When Facebook becomes your primary information source you begin to unfollow or shut off topics. Since you seek social approval from your friends it makes you want to argue less with others. Also, gaining likes encourages you to perpetuate the filter bubble with a narrative that your friends approve.
In contrast when you consume news from news outlets although you may have a bias on which news outlet you read its quite different in the fact that they may publish things that aren't necessarily found in your filter bubble.
On the other hand most people don't like having their core beliefs challenged in any way. If you present them that information they are more likely to just not listen. This is what fake news targets because no one in your filter bubble will challenge your beliefs and they can tell you whatever you want to hear.
Android Auto finally gets beta Waze integration UK
No for both of them. I closed Linkedin few years back and now I receive some emails through my website; much better quality.

Recently I closed Facebook as well as I was spending too much time there involuntarily, and I've been really productive since then. Every day I miss it less and less. Take into account that I used before and after Whatsapp as the primary means of communication among my friends and family.
There was discussion on HN about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12878337
I'm ceaselessly amused by the folks fearing Amazon Echos or Google Homes as though they're constantly listening microphones sent to the NSA. As though we don't already carry devices on our person everywhere we go that have mics (smartphones).

Also, while we trade our privacy to Google (or Amazon, or whomever) in exchange for customization and convenience (a social contract I'm generally happy to sign off on), those companies have even more incentive to keep our data safe.

Google is one of the most valuable companies in the world precisely because it, and only it, has the AdSense knowledge (and whatever other knowledge Google collects about me) to target me.

Insurance companies go to Google and say "show our ads to people Googling insurance companies" – that's how Google makes money. It's not as though Google says "here you go State Farm, here's everyone who's been looking up car insurance." It's business model is based on proprietary customer knowledge. It can't give away this data; it's incentivized to limit it to its own ad-targeting tech.

Are there still problems with this model? Sure. If the government decides to subpoena Google on me, they'll turn over my Gmail. But is it a hell of a lot easier getting access to Google services (e.g. Google Maps knowing where I generally go and what the traffic is like) versus using, say, Duck Duck Go on a VPN (let alone Tor or Tails)? For me, and I'd assume most people, yes.

EDIT: I would also point out that we've long been facing the privacy vs. convenience issue. It used to be that merely signing up for a landline meant getting your phone # listed in the White Pages. Paying utility bills makes your name and home address a matter of public record (unless you choose to shield them via owning and paying through a corporate shell). Ditto real estate transactions involving your name/address. All public records, unless you choose to hire attorneys to setup shell corps for the sake of privacy. Not so expensive to do this now in the age of LegalZoom, etc., but this used to cost quite the pretty penny.

This debate is nothing new; it's merely evolving.
graphql