skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Who would I ask? Most tracks on soundcloud aren't posted by the people who would be selling them, so far as my experience goes.
Until you get to x-rays! I've always wondered why this is
Given that they said explicitly that the bot invented all of its behavior for itself from scratch, it seems more likely to me that it did so.
Picked heroes have been >80% since TI3. Compare that to LoL's ~50%

https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/4n5og5/com...
Didn't you bother to run SMART and see what the power-on time was? Just for curiosity if nothing else.
>This third party tool is making unauthorized edits to the New York Times' copyrighted material.

It's not a third party tool. It's a tool used by the first party (user) to modify information that was sent to him without effecting the publisher. I don't see how the publisher has any authority over what the user chooses to do with the information he obtained.

> I find it difficult to justify "We changed around your copyrighted work to remove stuff we decided we don't like." If you don't like ads, pay up or go elsewhere.

That's an interesting take on IP rights. By generalizing your argument, would you argue against newspaper snippets because a reader would only collect the article without adjacent ads? (with scissors made by a third-party, no less.)

> You do not have a right to anybody else's IP.

Fair use, Noncopyrightable items, old expired IP, and the public domain are all examples of rights I have to others IP. Rights have been - and I hope will continue to be - balanced between the concerns of IP "owners" and the rest of society to best serve everyone's interests. Tipping the scale in one side's favor like what you advocate here will disrupt that balance.
Coercion, or incentives? The criminals can say no.
Meaning that they knew he would sue, they knew he had a case, they know they might lose and they're more than fine with paying him to make the problem go away because a few grand in his pocket is a lot less than a long-term depreession in your monthly average user rate (i.e. potentially less ad engagement)
>was what occurred there a "hack" or just a proper function of the contract which all parties agreed?

both. Lawyers are just hackers of the legal system. the runtime environment is the courtroom. The contract is the code. loopholes and technicalities are another name for bugs.
"Say yes or spend time in jail" is not coercion, in your opinion?
I'm talking mid to long term here. To rephrase, is there a sizeable amount of players who will stop playing, knowing that they cannot ever be the best? Because when AI beats one, I don't believe there is a coming back.
For the concrete AlphaGo example, of course it was hugely popular but I would be interested in the evolution on the number of players, how many of those viewers started playing balanced by how many existing players lost interest following the matches (excluding GO researchers :) ).
Maybe HN is fatigued with discussions of the Google memo, I don't think there has been enough.

I'm vouching for the new contributor to Vox, hoping she can continue talking about issues she's seen.
I received a counterfeit item after paying more for the item that was "Sold my Amazon", thinking that way, I would get the real product. What's more frustrating is that Amazon didn't really care or do anything about it. They offered a return or an exchange but couldn't guarantee that that the exchanged item wouldn't be fake. I no longer trust them with items that are easily faked.
Rendering ん as "m" before b/p/m is standard per Traditional Hepburn romanization, one of the most popular such systems.

C.f. "Shimbashi", "kampai", etc. It's not an ad-hoc thing being done for "tempura".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepburn_romanization
This strikes me as circular.
Statoil has been operating an 85 meter rotor pilot since 2009, so they have a lot of understanding about how to deal with such potential problems.
IIRC, subs use ELF or ULF. My understanding is that some of the older subs could trail a long wire antenna behind them.

It'd seem to me that the bandwidth for such would be abysmal.

Is this correct? I did take some EE courses but that was like forty years ago. All I have ever done with that is receive. I should probably learn more.
If you're interested I did something similar to what you describe for MarioKart http://kevinhughes.ca/blog/tensor-kart. Its a lot simpler than DOTA though
This is the problem that is grabbing at me. Well put.
I've vouched as well. We have tools to handle inappropriate comments threads without needing to avoid the topic wholesale.
Anecdotally, I think that traffic from San Francisco to Mountain View on Friday mornings is lighter. I attributed it to people working from home on Fridays while going into the office the other 4 days of the week.
Re the "fatigue", that sucks. But unfortunately, it's a rational reaction to AA, etc.

I recall running into women in CS in the 80s, far before the days of diversity hires. It was instant respect, as you knew that that person was not only legit, but had probably overcome extra obstacles to get where they were.

These days, anyone who could have been a diversity hire is guilty until proven innocent.
Are you interested in the operations side of things? Making CRUD apps is one thing but deploying them at scale is another. It's a whole new problem set with a lot of interesting tools (Kubernetes probably being the "hottest" atm).
That's the $170M question. I definitely would be concerned about the lack of engineering. That said, the people left will find that they're able to complete significantly more work since there is less communication overhead. They will also certainly will be working on very focused projects that will affect profitability.
nice coding setup ;)

Interesting how she seats, my legs would hurt.
Coercion is taking a free person and threatening them with something horrible if they don't comply. These criminals were going to go to jail anyway. Not a big distinction, but I don't think that it's coercion.
As a sort of counterpoint, I really wish that Amazon UK was integrated with the Amazon US customer database. I'd like to be able to log into Amazon UK with my normal credentials and order something from there, with the option of international shipping - because occasionally I want to order a product that's not available over here in any way.
ARPANET/the Internet was developed to facilitate communication, remote access and data sharing between different computer systems. Are you sticking with "Why not just use a phone?".
> How does having a bot succeed cause appeal to be lost?

You might think not beating bots is OK. Not for me and many people have been involved in competitive scene. The moment machine beats human, a large part of the competition is gone. The essence is that you want to be the best. But if all you can do is to beat some other inferior opponents, what's the point?

> Secondly.. Chess & Go have been around for thousands of years and they still are played en masse daily.

This is irrelevant.
Humans are not machines.

Games are mostly based on the skills of the players, so should games be balanced by assuming a human can do what a machine can? Of course not!

A bot can usually make computations way faster and more presice than humans.

Let's say a bot plays against another bot, both with different characters. One character might seem really overpowered compared to the other, but that might only be because the bots can react to certain events thousands of times faster than a human. Without that reaction time the tables might turn and the other character might be clearly stronger.

So how fast should we assume a human can do a given action? How precise should we assume the player is at fast calculations?

I do see a lot of things it can balance, but letting bots learn by themselves with no limitations will definitely not work out well.
I disagree. Overnight success means good market traction, which eliminates one of the biggest questions in a startups lifetime.
I know it's not the same type of AI, but in chess there's a whole scene for computer + human play. A chess engine on its own can have trouble seeing strategic ideas that humans can recognize (e.g. opposite-colored bishop endgames, certain closed positions, and fortresses) so an engine on its own will lose to that engine being assisted by a skilled human player. In other words, humans are still capable for contributing at least a little. That said, it's not much - I think a chess GM paired with an engine will probably only be able to beat an engine rated ~100 or so points higher than their own.

It will be interesting for deep learning, though, where the ideas are a bit more abstract. Perhaps humans will be useful for a while longer.
TimescaleDB vs. Postgres benchmarking
The memo came across as both arrogant and poorly constructed. To cherry-pick some pieces of data without context of the greater body of work is the domain of politicians and talk radio hosts. I can find you a paper with data showing whatever fact you want.

Second, I find this whole thing American centric. When it comes to politics, there are never examples cited from other countries.
DOTA has a bot API (https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_Bot_Scripting)
I don't see an issue if it's available to one and all adults for free with no strings attached.
Flying fish. A report by the Koch Brothers Environmental Preservation Institute says floating wind turbines would kill at least a hundred trillion of them a day, and crash the entire ocean ecosystem.
You know you don't just get to make up new definitions for words to win arguments, right?

I can't find a single definition of coercion that requires "a free person" to be the one being threatened.
T1 towers don't have backdoor protection though.
You bring up good points, but there is such a thing as nuanced argument, and we can make distinctions between late and early capitalist models to avoid throwing out mom and pop with Jeff.

I'm not going to argue that capitalism does not bring benefits, it certainly does, I don't think anyone could deny that, but just because it has brought many benefits does not imply:

a.) That its negatives should be ignored or considered negligible by default. (I hear fascist states are highly organized and effcient, surely this benefit outweighs all the censorship, restrictions on freedom, etc. that often accompany this increased organization and efficiency?)
b.) That it is the only system that could bring such benefits.
c.) That there are no better models.
d.) That history is static and the model that works today is also sufficient for the future.

Because none of these hold I think it's worthwhile to call capitalism, and other systems, into question and see if we can envision alternatives.

As far as lamenting goes--since when was it a rule that I had to approach systems with an all or nothing mentality? So because I dislike one side effect of capitalism I have to dislike all of its side effects? Huh?

Doubtless Amazon is convenient, but you cannot deny that the Amazonian dominance (hah) has indeed erased the social relationships from early capitalism that I brought up. I'm pointing out that while we gain plenty from Amazon-- convenience, comfort, reliability--we also have to remain conscious of what we lose: the human quality (faint as it was) that used to exist in economics and the exchange of capital.

Hell, you don't even have to interact with your computer anymore to order toilet paper from amazon, you press a button and its done. Or, more eerily, you talk to Alexa and more or less accept whatever she orders for you--think of the interaction this is replacing. Consider a fur dealer; a detailed discussion with a domain expert about furs and what suits your particular needs is replaced by a technological interface that is assumed to preselect (more or less) the best available option for you without any sophisticated dialogue about it. Sure, someday Alexa will probably be an expert in furs as well--but we are losing something when companies are allowed to grow to incredible size at global scale. The world does become incredibly convenient--every purchase is an amazon purchase so the familiarity makes it near impossible to screw up or be cheated or surprised--but it also reduces individuality and choice.

Your concerns about the government are certainly not unfounded. Based on my anecdotal experience they seem a little overblown but you are right to call these things into question. I'm not sure it needs to be one or the other. It's quite likely both the big G and capitalism are contributors to the world's woes. Note however, that most of the issues stemming from big government you mention are intimately tied up with the flow of capital (retirement fund, saving rates, income...)
If not using them every time you have sex means a jail sentence, yes.

(Plus, they're not permanent.)
Thanks for posting this. Since gender-based employment policies affect women much more than they do men, it seems like women should be the ones leading the discussion about whether these policies are a good idea or not.
It accepts a parameter to set the minimum supported SDK version, so it will exclude newer DEX features in that case.
Things happen to people all the time, should I care about every single person who gets fired for doing something stupid at work?

Do you care that Bob down the road got fired for swearing at his boss? I bet you don't.

Why is this guy special?
> It's a metaphor

It's a forced metaphor, trying to gain sympathy for a cause without an iota of the merit the original cause had.

> There is no "reduction", just misrepresentation

Please, explain how it is misrepresentation? I hear this a lot: "oh, you are just misrepresenting!" or "you are putting words in his mouth", so far not a single person has actually clarified how, exactly, I am misrepresenting Damore's words.

> "massive whiner" is the kind of insulting hurling that is getting you downvotes

If I gave a crap about downvotes, I wouldn't be on this forum calling out people who want to paint themselves as victims of an "unfair system", when they clearly have had the upper hand since the beginning.

> Yes you can, and Damore did, with nuance, in the memo - which you haven't responded to in either specific or accurate term yet.

Yeah, I've only stated 100 times before that his argument is incredibly weak, because he tries to build a case for "discrimination" based on "the facts" that women are not interested, and hence trying to reach out to them is "discriminating men." Weird thing is: he doesn't quantify anything, he just states - as a matter of fact - that biological differences are probably a huge driver in difference in interest in the field.

So, let me ask you: how much difference do the supposed biological "handicap" women have account for? 10%? 20%? 50%? You know the answer? No? I mean, you seem to have all the answers and have a solid grasp of the "science" behind the argument, so please, quantify it for me and make a solid argument of why outreach is wrong considering the massive disparity that exists nowadays.

I'll sit here and wait.
Sounds like a narrow application of the fundamental attribution bias. Not sure that explains everything, but I'd bet it plays a big part.
Additionally, most international banks refuse US citizen unless you bring a lot of money, because the US taxes all citizen (not just the money made in the US, or money made by people while they were in the US).

And this goes even further, for example due to US patent laws, and export regulations (encryption are weapons of war, etc) even lots of open source software is not directly legal in the US (and many projects outright ban US citizen from working on these, while living in the US - this is also why the OpenBSD hackatons originally were a thing[1]).

________________________

[1] http://www.openbsd.org/hackathons.html
Prison in the U.S. is cruel and unusual punishment, as well as an institution of modern slavery.

Race and income are the highest predictors of whether a person would end up in prison.

Both of these speak loudly about us as a society and about our true values.
> Although the intentions of many US cryptocurrency regulations are to protect US residents/investors, they are instead leading to the exclusion of US residents from everything cryptocurrency-related.

Coinbase, Gemini, Kraken...

The US gov has actually been very progressive with regard to crypto. But if you're dealing in USD and doing bank wire transfers on behalf of USA citizens they require compliance with KYC/AML laws. This is apparently something Bitfinex didn't have the capacity to comply with.
FWIW, if I learn of any attempt to mislead, I'm out. An example would be that I'd invest in someone with a storied past, unless they tried to hide it.
Biggest Amateur-Built Sub Sinks--Owner Suspected of Murder
Um, what? Bikes are literally the most effecient form of cargo transportation. Get a rack and a bag. Or a milk crate. It's not impractical at all.
Sure, if you want to get hit by a car and breathe in tremendous amounts of carbon monoxide.

Most roads in Texas cities are extremely unfriendly for bike traffic.
Microbursts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microburst) can be very dangerous. I'm not sure if these would be correctly classified as "turbulence", though.
Ulysses writing app for macOS switches to subscription
I think one of the biggest challenges in moving from 1v1 to 5v5 is the substantially increased possibility of creative strategies. In a 1v1, there isn't that much room for innovation, making it a perfect target for existing AI techniques, which are good at learning what is "in the data" but have not yet been shown to be capable of thinking outside the box. In contrast, in a 5v5 matchup, a much wider range of strategies is available. I'd imagine that in this more flexible setting, AIs would be highly vulnerable to cheese strategies, or in general strategies they have never seen before. Furthermore, if there are any exploitable quirks in the AI (which seems quite likely, given the established lack of robustness of neural nets), I have no doubt that clever human players will be quick to exploit them. On the flip side, I think that makes 5v5 a far more challenging and interesting goal that would be very exciting if achieved!

As a side note: I think the most impressive aspect of this AI is that it was trained without watching any human games. In contrast, AlphaGo was bootstrapped from a bunch of existing human games, which I imagine was crucial to its training. Being able to learn how to fake out the human player without having seen this action before is quite impressive.
This theory is regularly independently rediscovered by jerks. https://www.pftq.com/blabberbox/?page=Three_Tiers_of_Mind
This has nothing to do with believing that we have right to other people's work without payment. The fundamental issue is that these publishers are allowing public access to their work than expecting to have some control over how it is consumed. Hanging your painting in a public park and then demand that people not wear sunglasses when looking at it, or demanding that onlookers look at it sideways would be absurd. Don't hang your paintings in public parks. Hang it in a private gallery, and make no-sunglasses a term for admission.

Publishers would be better served if they restricted their articles, by demanding payment upfront before serving the article, rather than unreasonably and unrealistically demanding that people consume their content in a certain way. Don't blame your users for your failed business model.

As a side note, Copyright is not the place where this issue should be tackled as no copyright is being infringed (Content is not being redistributed).
This lawsuit has a lot of ambiguity, but Benchmark is one of the more ethical firms in the valley. The idea that they would secretly and maliciously undermine their own portfolio company, then file this very public lawsuit about the same events, is crazy.

The suit claims the board did not know about the bad acts. If the board was the source of the press about the bad acts, surely the primary claim would instantly be disproven in discovery. Perhaps a better way for Uber to have avoided the many, many PR crises would have be to not have done the bad acts in the first place.
My response to another commenter the first time this was posted (and flagged - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14990433):

It's like a person brand new to the job - you don't know their skills yet. After a few months one's co-workers should see those skills in action enough that the suspicion disappears. And after a few years the worker will hopefully develop enough that they can demonstrate their competency to pretty much anyone.

And ultimately the person will be enjoying their career, which makes most other considerations irrelevant.

It's not as if outsiders to a job have the ability to accurately evaluate the person doing the job. A company can't be held responsible for someone else's Dunning-Kruger effect.
> but I think that it was one of those cases where it was "coached" (same as the creep blocking).

What makes you think that? In the interview, they explicitly disclaim this.
Deis Workflow Final Release
If you listen to his conversation with Jordan Peterson he states he originally sent it only to a diversity committee. After a month of not hearing anything back he posted it in a skeptics group at Google asking them to comment.

But I agree it makes business sense. Censorship of possibly truthful ideas makes business sense at the company that generally gatekeeps the internet.
You could make it more than just a fight over coastal access. You could make it so that he has more at stake than just this case. He publishes a list of companies his firm has a financial interest in: http://www.khoslaventures.com/portfolio/all-companies

If people truly care about this issue, they can organize public campaigns against those companies as a message to founders to avoid his money or face consequences. He may laugh off fines the court imposes, but this being a stain on his professional reputation would be more damaging.

But it would be hard to pull off. There are some HN favorites in there. How many people here are willing to avoid Stripe or Gitlab over beach access? He's betting that it's not many.
It is known.
But there is no expectation that a restaurant will serve you without paying. There is an expectation that a website will ask for payment/authorization if required, otherwise I'm not required to pay.

Moreover, there is no way to know if the content you're requesting will require a transaction (unlike a restaurant where the prevailing expectation is payment for service, even if prices are left off the menu). It has always been the case that I need to request the resource and then be told if it costs money, otherwise it's given to me.

Likewise, there has never been, and I would argue can't be, an expectation that a user agent render all content as expected. Would custom style-sheets violate the law? Do Lynx, Links, Links2, w3m, mutt, and pine all of a sudden become illegal? How does a screen reader render an ad? How does a braille interface render an ad? Am I now legally required to run a graphical interface otherwise I'm playing legal roulette?

What happens if the adserver malfunctions and doesn't send me an ad? Am I now put in a legally bad spot? What if an ad is sent in swf and I don't have flash installed? I also feel like there are legal implications to forcing someone to execute code sent to them. Do ad servers all of a sudden become responsible for drive-by malware? Can we sue them for damages?

I feel that the crux is that there is no way to know if "payment" is required before requesting a resource. You can't send me something and then say, "oh, yeah, hey, you need to pay me for that" when the (vast) majority of the time I'm sent things without any expectation of payment.
I just filled a complaint, they have a "report this use" link. Took only a minute, whatever it takes to keep people from abusing people and collaboration, especially using the ugly DMCA hammer.
Policy is programming, against the fuzzy computer that is the human CPU.