skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The commercial entity backing the ML program should be responsible. If one doesn't exist then the comparison fails, as one would presumably not be willing to trust the competency of a public domain ML program without a true, commercially and medically backed "second" opinion (algorithmic or otherwise).

Perhaps one day, ML programs running eye diagnostics will be as cheap and disposable to use as pregnancy stick tests: "Point and diagnose."
I was thinking along the lines of evolutionary biology - I'm assuming my human brain is only capable of truly processing scales that realistically my ancestors would experience.
What is it like being a faggot?
You sound like a faggot
Show HN: develop BACKEND services 10x FASTER | backend generator + many util
You are right - a small network does not make it poor. But a person with poor social networking skills will tend to end up with a poor social network, in terms of having a number of available potential partners from which to choose. I shouldn't have said the network itself was poor. Merely its use in finding a life partner would be poor.

You're right again, that online dating shouldn't necessarily work out in just three dates. But given a social network similar to your own, along with tools to filter and sort for the most ideal match, and a bigger pool of potential matches, it should result in immediately presenting you with the person that you would normally have found in a version of your social network that was bigger than normal and then meeting them in person. With a bigger social network, in theory, you should have to go on fewer dates in order to find a good partner, because there is a larger pool from which to find the best candidate. Of course, it doesn't work out this way.
Every time I see someone make an illogical prediction about AI, it's because they don't understand the frame problem.

Immense processing power is of no value, if you have no capability of grounding and regrounding it adaptively in reality. That's the job our bodies and our societies provide, and AIs have no way to do it, except taking on a human body and joining human society, at which point an argument can be made they're not AIs any more, but human cyborgs.
The Swedish physicist revolutionising birth control
It is stronger
This "I'm bored with my life. I shall appify it and travel to random countries" stuff is a whole level beyond First World Problems. It is something like First World Problems of the Jet Set. Yet, this article doesn't cast him as a member of the Jet Set.

Modern Life has gone to some rather weird places that were simply inconceivable until incredibly recently.
In many places you cannot. You would be considered married by common law. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage
Faggot
With Snowflakes and Unicorns, Ratner and Mirzakhani Explored Universe in Motion
Actually, men used to like it when women were fat about two centuries ago. Nowadays, it's completely reverse: super-models are all slim.

This wouldn't happen if attraction to beauty was mostly subject to biology. (You know that biological structure doesn't change so fast in less than 200 years, right?)

Also, you seem to underestimate how much humans are driven by their emotions and sense of loyalty to someone else. How would you explain the affection between people who fall in love with the disabled?
"But, you're wrong. Far more men than women are perpetrators of domestic violence, and far more women than men are the victims of domestic violence. This is true for crimes of sexual violence, and for stalking." I refuted your claim with a well sourced article(it is quoting more than just the CDC, which I have already pointed out is highly biased).
Hmm, while I agree there is a trade-off, I am mostly in favour of the shift away from the classics. It's not that we shouldn't learn from the Greeks, it's just that we can only afford one corner of a modern education for them.

For one thing, languages are a big things that take a long time to learn. For people in most fields, the time spent learning ancient languages can be spent in better ways. Also, classical educations end up placing Plato and Aristotle on a pedestal, and those guys were wrong about most of the things they said (or rather, less right than their modern successors).

Finally, an education can no longer be well-rounded if it only looks at the classical West. Western civilisation has been preeminent since about the 1600's, but if we go back to the axial age, then thinkers from all over Eurasia have to be reckoned with. It's bad enough to distill the Greeks to just Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, but now we have to add Zoroaster, Kongzi, Mengzi, the Buddha, the Upanshads and more just to get a fragmentary and hackneyed overview of classical thought.
Pure evil. Everyone uses the subway, everyone should pay. Not just "the rich."
Obviously the concern of the grandparent is that if you do like the article says and you blindly follow some randomized scripts to where they tell you to go, you can easily end up "into the bad part of town".
That reflects the TARP bailout and the Fed's policy on interest rates. The Fed bailed out the banking system by lending money to banks at very low rates, which they could then profitably re-lend at much higher rates, allowing banks to pay back the TARP loans. My point was that this was a political decision, one not predictable by financial analysis.

Through all that neither the dollar nor the Euro moved all that much compared to other markets. Housing, oil, stocks, and gold all moved more.
Not even wrong: Why does nobody like pilot-wave theory? [pdf]
This is why these tools are generally described as "decision support" systems and not "diagnostics" systems. There are many reasons why you don't want to be classified as a diagnosis device (FDA approval is a big one), but ultimately letting the doctor make the final decision removes the ML controversy out of the picture.

EDIT, for context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_decision_support_syst...
In this case I think most jurisdictions would treat the AI as just another tool or piece of equipment.

If you asked a similar question about who would take the blame if a piece of X-ray equipment was not working properly and caused some form of harm, the liability might fall on the X-ray machine manufacturer who guaranteed a certain level of accuracy, or it might fall on the hospital that procured the (potentially unsafe/certified) equipment. It might also fall on the physician who wasn't following the proper protocol for using the equipment.
That... really depends who you ask.
I worked at a shop that insisted on one parameter per line in function calls.
Comp.programming.threads FAQ (2001)
> Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.

Can you point to the two or three best studies showing this? It seems really hard to study objectively--how do you measure innovativeness? how do you control for all sorts of potentially confounding variable?
This seems really stupid to me. An action has defined effects, there is no reason to think of all possible nonexistent side effects. Then they allow for that as a default and point out an apparent exception: what if an object is moved into a can of paint... This is so incredibly stupid I can't imagine people take this seriously.
Hacker News hasn't changed a bit haha

http://tenyearsago.io/news.ycombinator.com
Going back to what OP said:

> In earlier times, farm fields actually were separated by bushes, patches of rocks, tiny rivers, whatever.

My point is that the modern prairie is far more divided than it was 200 years ago. And groves of trees are not just for snow drifts. They provide much protection from wind. To protect from snow drifts, you typically build a very distinct looking snow fence which allows you to control where the drift forms (e.g., not on a road).

If you look at pictures of homesteads of South Dakota in the 1880s, there are virtually no trees anywhere, including around farms. There are far more today. Hence why I am asking where the OP is talking about.
> Look at a city with a massive population of eligible young people, like say NYC.. and then listen to what people in NYC say about the dating scene there. It's not pretty. Having such a huge pool of potential mates discourages people from committing. In other words, it makes it harder to find a long term mate, and it makes you less satisfied with whoever you're seeing.

I disagree, this just means you are not optimizing properly. You should optimize based on desired characteristics. It is a binary search. Based on my, abet fairly limited set of anecdotal evidence ( including my own ), it works very well.
Getting facts is hard!
Iteration is also self-referential. New iterations refer to prior values, and jump backwards to prior code.

I think the way to teach recursion to programmers who have mastered iteration is to teach the tricks for transforming loops into tail recursion: start by equating the self reference with the establishment of new values for the loop variables and the backward branch.

E.g. given a working dot product:

double dot(double *a, double *b, size_t n)
{
double acc = 0;
while (n-- != 0)
acc += *a++ + *b++;
return acc;
}

We identify the loop variables: a, b, n, and acc. First, we can rewrite this using a form of "goto with parameters".

#define dot_rec(label, na, nb, nn, nacc) { \
/* capture argument evaluations into fresh temporary variables */ \
double *tna = (na), *tnb = (nb); \
size_t tnn = (nn); \
double tnacc = (nacc); \
/* store temporaries to loop variables, and jump backward */ \
a = tna; b = tnb; n = tnn; acc = tnacc; \
goto label; \
}

double dot(double *a, double *b, size_t n)
{
double acc = 0.0;
again:
if (n != 0) /* we can now use (n > 0) since n isn't decremented! */
dot_rec(again, a + 1, b + 1, n - 1, acc + *a * *b);
return acc;
}

Thus if n is not zero, we update a with a + 1, b with b + 1, n with n - 1, and the accumulator by adding a + b.

The dot_rec macro ensures that the expression * a is not affected by a receiving a + 1; it mimics the binding of argument expression values to fresh arguments.

From that we can go to recursion:

double dot_rec(double *a, double *b, size_t n, double acc)
{
if (n > 0)
return dot_rec(again, a + 1, b + 1, n - 1, acc + *a * *b);
return acc;
}

double dot(double *a, double *b, size_t n)
{
return dot_rec(a, b, n, 0.0);
}

Get people comfortable with mechanically converting iteration to recursion, even in cases where recursion isn't all that nice, and requires additional parameters and possibly the splitting of a function API into a non-recursive and recursive part.

Then go into non-tail recursion; recursion in which the parent actually does something with the return value other than just return it: those true divide-and-conquer problems.

Then mutual recursion among two or more functions, starting with something trivial like odd(n) and even(n) that mutually tail recurse.
I thought of your site as soon as I saw this, though, tbh, I don't think of it is a site. I know it from Twitter and somehow it is weird to me to think of it as a site. I can't quite put my finger on why that is.
The software industry still trends toward libertarianism. A tiny slice of it in a specific area does not in some marginal ways on a small subset of social issues.

As a leftist, I find the notion that SV, northern California, or the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. have a left bias to be hilarious.
> this isn't a property that is enabled by anything specific to gold

With money, you want five things: fungibility, durability, portability, cognizability and stability [1].

On fungibility, gold is an element. It can only be extracted, not produced in a conventional sense. In fact, before the 1669 discovery of phosphorous, humans had only purified, from oldest to newest, copper, lead, gold, silver, iron, carbon, tin, sulfur, mercury, zinc, arsenic and antimony [2].

Out of those, lead, gold, silver and mercury are chemically stable, though only gold and silver are also physically durable. Both are easy to recognize, though more metals are "silvery" in color than yellow.

Gold won due to stability, in large part because of a few flukes. For most of human history, growth was flat and gold mining was minimal. When we actually started growing, the major powers were using gold. The rate at which they added to global gold supplies happened to mirror their economic growth; this gave gold a few decades of price stability. That memory, together with the millennia of use, forged a cultural memory in the furnaces of the industrial revolution that remains, vividly, to this day [3].

> That's recursive

Cultural memories, like trust, are re-enforced by network effects. Your observation is correct. Gold got where it got, in part, due to luck and then just stuck.

Can that be replicated? Perhaps. I personally think our obsession with gold is silly. But engineering that properly means understanding why it happened in the first place. At least amongst Bitcoin enthusiasts, I come across the types of comments you see others making in this thread, as opposed to bona fide introspection and defenses.

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

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

[3] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/6252203.pdf
I don't think you made much of an effort to understand me. Which of the following aspects of my comment was "delusional"?

1. Posing the question, "Was the bar lowered to recruit female or minority candidates?"

2. Stating that I did not have an answer to that question.

3. Suggesting that the author believed the answer to that question was "yes."

4. Asserting that it was not wrong for the author to dispute the merit of policies that he believed had lowered the bar in question.

5. Disputing the idea that the original memo was "aggressive."
Hotel rooms, too
I don't disagree with you. I was speaking solely about full mortgage -- ie, minimum down payment. Turning a positive cash flow with a large mortgage is very difficult, especially after accounting for all costs. (Mortgage, taxes, insurance, maintenance, hoa, vacancy...) Turning a positive cash flow without any mortgage is very easy, but kills your ROI. So you're going to end up shooting somewhere in the middle...

EDIT: Here's a fun Reddit thread on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEstate/comments/36ikp6/landlord...

Here's an example from that thread on how quickly the math takes you to roughly cash-flow neutral -- and this is with 25% down and 1% rental price:

https://www.reddit.com/r/RealEstate/comments/36ikp6/landlord...
What Do Employers Really Think About Coding Bootcamps?
Thanks, really appreciate you signing up to give me a response.

I won't then. I will stick to contributing to open source and asking for more challenging tasks at work.
Actually, the equality is part of Euclid's definition of the right angle:

῞Οταν δὲ εὐθεῖα ἐπ᾿ εὐθεῖαν σταθεῖσα τὰς ἐφεξῆς γωνίας ἴσας ἀλλήλαις ποιῇ, ὀρθὴ ἑκατέρα τῶν ἴσων γωνιῶν ἐστι, καὶ ἡ ἐφεστηκυῖα εὐθεῖα κάθετος καλεῖται, ἐφ᾿ ἣν
ἐφέστηκεν.

On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with leaving the property of an angle being 'right' undefined and postulating that all angles that possess this property are equal.

(The notion of acuteness requires the ability to compare angles; those 'smaller' than the right angle are 'acute'.)
Slightly off-topic, but popping a paid subscription modal when I'm barely more than a paragraph into a long-form article isn't exactly a good way to get me to stick around.
While the author used dubious rhetorical tactics (e.g. stating scientific "facts" without citation), he was never hostile towards any one person or group of people. Even if the argument he was making was that Google should fire or cut the pay of its female software engineers (which it wasn't), it wouldn't necessarily be aggressive. That word is not applicable here.

And yes, I have been in a situation where my merit as an engineer was called into question (I'm sure most engineers have). At the time I felt that the assessment was unfair. However, even if it had been demonstrably, objectively unfair, it would be incorrect to call it aggressive unless the intent had been to cause or threaten physical or psychological harm.

Aggression is an accusation that hinges entirely upon intent. Even an act that actually causes physical harm is not aggressive unless the intent of the perpetrator is violent or hostile. Similarly, even a memo that actually causes psychological harm is not aggressive unless it was the intent of the author to inflict that harm.
Network, not circle. The term 'social circle' isn't really well defined, so I'll define it as "people with whom you have social interaction with on a regular or semi-regular basis". A social network is anyone they are connected to, and them to them, etc. Your social network is much larger than a social circle. Think six degrees of kevin bacon.

In order to dramatically grow a social network you might only need to make friends with 1 person who is outside your normal social network. For example, if you joined a gym and made friends with one person whom you then played squash with every week, and that person is otherwise unconnected to anyone else you know, now there is at least a plausible chance to meet any of the people in their social network. I'm no expert here, but surely someone at Facebook can give an example of how adding a new friend who isn't in your normal group of friends can drastically increase your connections.

If you can use this social network effectively, you have (I think) a much better chance of finding a lifetime partner than using a dating site, both because of how difficult it is to identify an appealing personality online, and because social network connections are (I think) much better paths to a potential match.
>>an average increase of just over 4 million per year. However, 1997 was a turning point for the relatively stagnant ridership growth experienced by New York City’s subway system. In 1998,just after the introduction of the MetroCard, over 137 million more rides were taken than the year before.

That is a huge change. Frankly, knowing nothing else I would almost be willing to guess that what accounts for the change is better tracking due to the new MetroCard system.
This is an intentionally obtuse perspective. Marriage is a significant social institution in a way that a mere interpersonal commitment can never be, because marriage is a commitment with a third entity: the community at large.

The social structure accepts and enforces the marital union, providing significant legal protection to itself, the children, and the married partners.

This grants a solid staying power, borne of the subconscious knowledge that no party can really "just leave" and be done with it. This staying power should not be underestimated; it is effective and real regardless of how little one believes they will need to rely on it.
Well the context of this discussion is marriage, so I was meaning people looking for that. Is the dating scene ideal for that.
The Army Grounds Its DJI Drones Over Security Concerns
As tha article said it was for a study on driverless cars.
There is a fourth - you are in a constructed bubble like the movie Truman and none of this history actually happened.

And a fifth - the backup plan was to use alien technology on loan from the Men in Black so we it would appear we went to the Moon ourselves.

Really, once you start with hoaxes you need to figure out which hoax to triangulate. Why single out the "it was all a movie stage" hoax?

What is your point about the two links? Quoting from the first link: "Modern historians are divided on the degree of truth behind the Potemkin village story, and some writers argue that the story is an exaggeration. According to Simon Sebag-Montefiore ... the tale ... is largely fictional.[3] Aleksandr Panchenko ... conclude[s] that the Potemkin villages are a myth."

I think from your last links you mean to imply the assertion that the nuclear bomb project was a well-kept secret.

This isn't true.

Quoting from the second link: "By early 1943 newspapers began publishing reports of large construction in Tennessee and Washington based on public records, and the office began discussing with the project how to maintain secrecy."

Also, The Atlantic has an article titled "The Time a Cleveland Newspaper Divulged the Manhattan Project". It start "Before Woodward and Bernstein, before Glenn Greenwald, there was John W. Raper, a columnist for the Cleveland Press, who stumbled across something very odd while on vacation in New Mexico." - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/09/the-t... .

And of course the British and Soviets knew about it.

In any case, enough information leaked out that less than 25 years later "three newly graduated physics students were given the task of developing a detailed weapon design using only public domain information. The project reached a successful conclusion, that is, they did develop a viable design (detailed in the classified report UCRL-50248) after expending only three man-years of effort over two and a half calendar years." - http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html . http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4.html and http://io9.gizmodo.com/this-experiment-proved-that-anyone-co... .

If the US couldn't keep the nuclear bomb design a secret, how would anyone high-up in government think that plans for a faked moon landing could be keep secret?

Here's another example you could have listed - the secret war in Laos and Cambodia, with bombings from 1964 to 1973. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Menu . That secret lasted for about 10 years, though declassification in 2000 shows that many things were still secret 25 years later.
Thought experiment:

Imagine you are not dependent on your current partner in any way. You are financially stable (let's say you a multi-millionaire). Either you don't have kids or if you do, somehow they're not dependent on you (or something).

Now think of your favorite media personalities that you have a crush on, and imagine one of them meets you in person and takes an elevated level of interest in you.

If you don't have any celebrity crushes and that there is no one in the world you find more attractive than your current partner, I give up.

If there is, would you be tempted to cheat? If not, I give up.

If yes, I rest my case.
@davemp, I just uploaded the new code, a total rewrite.
Huh? I assume you're talking about footnote #7:

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

That's a pretty standard, if exaggerated, take on the decline of communism from a capitalist perspective. Would anyone on the left even disagree with what he says about how Marxism was expanded?
But you're drawing a distinction where none exists. When a thread in a thread pool is "free", what it's doing is waiting for the next item of work to arrive -- and in implementation terms, that means the thread is blocked in a "take" operation on a currently-empty work queue. So it's totally correct to use the term "blocked" in that situation.
The 'old way' is exactly how I traveled Vietnam. My and my friends didn't have any plans at all, all we had booked was our first night's accommodation in Saigon. The rest we planned from talking to people at hostels, we ended up with a big group of about a dozen of us by the time we got to Hanoi.

In my opinion, it's the only way to travel.

I have never understood planning in advance your entire holiday down to the hour. I guess it's more important if you're American and only get 2 weeks of holiday a year.
It's the other people in the house...