skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Actually, computers are conscious as well. Consciousness is simply a system of information that operates on a continuous sense/plan/act loop. You could argue that they are "less" conscious, but to say that they are unconscious is to make the same mistake as people have made for years by saying that computers cannot "understand" anything.

Some people push back on this by saying computers have no sense of self. Thats not true. Most computers do have internal state representations about themselves. Take a driverless car for example. When it does localization, it's constantly referencing its own shape and speed and comparing it to the environment. That's a sense of self.

Whatever philosophical barriers we place between ourselves and machines (and animals/nature for that matter), one thing is for certain: they will eventually debunked.
This isn't 2010, when US smartphone adoption was growing exponentially and the "app economy" was in full swing. The majority of smartphone owners have had phones for a few years now and know exactly which apps they need on a daily basis, be it messaging, social media, games, note-taking, nutrition, transportation, etc.

For everything else mobile websites are more than good enough to cover their needs I imagine.
Um, we have those languages NOW. We've had them for decades. You just need to use them:

https://www.haskell.org/
Yes, I too would be interested in more details on how to implement the bokashi method of composting. I googled a bit but did not find detailed instructions, though will try again.
And your time commenting would be better spent doing pushups. But that's not really how motivation and interest work.
Licensing is a problem for SOME formats.

ZFS, ext4, and plenty of others used by BSDs and Linux distros have no licensing issues.

Also, if any player cared to win the filesystem war, they'd open up their spec royalty-free.
This is oldish

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2015/06/where-electric-v...
Interesting. Would that work on humans too?
What about the banksters from 2008? Inspite of trillion dollar frauds, money laundering and what nots no banker has been prosecuted.

Is it because the engineering companies do not bribe the legislature enough, or because there is no threat to the stability of the financial system if they are prosecuted?

The moral of the story is if you are going to engage in major fraud, make sure the economy will be seriously destabilized if you and your cronies are prosecuted.
Your last claim may be true, but your assertions don't constitute any form of debunking. We don't have an objectively agreed upon way to measure consciousness (though some have been proposed) so making bold claims like "computers are conscious as well" doesn't make much sense until we agree on a way to measure and experiment on the presence of consciousness.
So it's a hack, basically. An improvised solution that exploits the shortest path to getting something done rather than taking extra time to do it the "right" way.
Glendo, WY (Pop. 202) used GoFundMe to defray eclipse costs (portapotties, etc.)
Gitea is quite neat.

The Github Integration makes it easier for people to contribute.
Even in Tsr's ad2nd ed - the book starts by saying all rules are optional and up to the dm and players discretion.

Mage can be played like a straitjacket rules heavy game - but it really lends itself more to storytelling and meta-philosophical gaming IMNHO.

This goes for all the storyteller settings; they're bad "world simulators" but great "story facilitators".

If you want the former, you'll be disappointed.
How would there be one? It's not like you can easily write a program that infiltrates a random program A that happens to interpret a language in which a random program B is written and infiltrates the B program afterwards. You'd probably need a general-artificial-intelligence-level in your malware.
OP literally started their comment with "No." and followed it up with 3–4 blanket assertions.

Slatestarcodex has a comment policy (http://slatestarcodex.com/comments/) that I think is very relevant here too because I think that's how people implicitly judge most comments—"If you make a comment here, it had better be either true and necessary, true and kind, or kind and necessary."

OP's statement was not 100% true so it should at least have been necessary / relevant AND kind / humbly put. It wasn't kind.
> DL is just partitioning space according to some pre-baked associations given to it during training

What I wonder is whether that's not also maybe the cornerstone of human understanding. If I understand correctly, you are essentially saying that DL is forming categories, or developing a classification scheme. Granted, if we're only talking about supervised DL, and the program is practically told where to form the boundaries—then it's not very impressive. But if the software is extracting statistically prominent commonalities and using those to form category boundaries, and arranging them hierarchically—then while the implementation may be totally different from human understanding, the effect seems to strongly overlap.

I assume I'm probably just missing something—anyone know what it is? (It seems clear that at least part of the problem here is that 'human understanding' has been left far more vague than DL, and in order to say one way or the other how much they have in common, we need to better define 'human understanding'.)
Exactly. I recently started a project that's not yet public (will take on the scale of years to get to that point), so the first thing that I did was to register the domain and the Github organization matching the project name. Would be extremely frustrating to find out that someone took it over a year after you started, and you have to go back and change the name all over the place.
Some animal don't have a nervous system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge and some have a system that is extremely simple https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . Saying that they can "think" is extending the concept too much, and will not be a useful concept.
Awesome, I'll be glad to answer these!

1. I'm not planning for this, as it has a runtime cost, but it can easily be done with a plugin[1].

2. I'm not planning to implement filters, as you can use methods instead. Refs might be coming if there is enough demand.

3. Moon is actually going in a different direction from Vue now. The core API will be very similar, but it might not be a drop in replacement for some of the advanced features of Vue. Most directives work, components are similar, but it won't be fully compatible.

[1] https://jsfiddle.net/btoegknn/

EDIT: To answer your edited question: I agree, Evan is a super smart developer, kudos to him for building Vue!

Applying some of the performance improvements might be a little complex for Vue, because Moon's compiler is fundamentally different in a couple ways. It generates code for a stricter HyperScript-like syntax (called "HyperMoon"), while Vue aims to be compatible with JSX as well.

Differences like these, while might seem small, are actually pretty complex when implemented in code.
McGregor vs. Mayweather Live Stream
Something other people haven't brought up but I think is important:

Military aviation is still in the exponential part of the technology S curve. Each new generation isn't just a little better than the previous one, it is massively better and embodies some new piece of technology the previous generation is nearly helpless against. The Fury is multiple such technology leaps out of date, and as a result is basically helpless in the sky.

Consider:

The Sea Fury has a maximum takeoff weight of 6,600 kg. The F-22 has a maximum takeoff weight of 38,000 kg. How do you take a plane like the Sea Fury, and let it carry 6 times the weapons/sensors/gadgets? A revolution in engine technology.

The Sea Fury's skin is made from duralumin, and sticks out like a sore thumb on radar. The F22's skin is made of a composite material that makes it nearly invisible to radar. How do you take a plane like the Sea Fury, and let it operate with impunity against radar? A revolution in materials technology.

And so on and so on. The F22 embodies something like five separate revolutionary technologies, any one of which would enable it to defeat nearly unlimited numbers of Furys. But all put together and it's - well, the Furys become so outdated they're almost not even worth killing.
PDF Annotator 6.1.0.615 Crack Full Version Is Here [Latest]
You will never believe what happens to this falling feather in a vacuum!
State of the art in deploying Elixir / Phoenix applications
I saw this as well when using a self-owned domain with Github Pages. Any idea why the spec forbids it?
Why would generalizing a type definition make an error?
The source seems to be here: http://euanmearns.com/co2-intensity-of-electric-cars/

It's unclear on a first skim whether the (constantly rising) energy costs of fossil fuel extraction are included.
Yes, much better, thank you! Perhaps the menu to the left could get the same treatment? :)
This is what's often referred to as the easy problem of consciousness—there is also a 'hard problem' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness). The tricky thing is people often just use 'consciousness' to refer to either, so most discussions of the subject are talking about completely different things.
Honestly, I don't think it's such of an issue. If there's a real difference between the kind of information processing that occurs within a cell from that which occurs within the brain, it doesn't really matter what it is called.

Of course, the language within any field matters to the practitioners in that field. Things can be as easy or as hard to understand as the strictness and clarity of the language in that field allows it. But what do I mean is that, if any expression in a field ever fell in to such a degree of obscurity as to be said to have "lost all meaning", whatever it described still might be independently rediscovered later on. So meaning isn't something that needs to be formulated into a categorical imperative, or otherwise we might lose it forever. Striving towards clarity and towards a discriminating usage of words is a practical rule, not a moral one.

Plus, arguing definitions is never a sound choice.
You could, but the strings are not the language proper. There's, e.g., no relational expressions in your import strings (yet!), so there's no ambiguity in parsing it. I'd actually use parentheses anyway, since type parameters are still parameters (this could give the parameter list a "Pythonic" syntax which has been shown to work well already).
It seems that when this guy says "flexibility at work", he's talking about the gig economy, not being able to come four hours late into work because you need to get some dental work done:

> Meanwhile, freelancing and flexible work is becoming more common. The number of self-employed people, approximately 4.8 million in the UK, is at a record high and around one in five British workers now have so-called “non-standard work arrangements”.

> He will also examine how flexibility can be maintained, while also supporting job security and workplace rights.

> “As long as we get the right framework and people are not being exploited, I think flexible work is a great thing. I also think it’s a great thing if it’s increasingly possible for people to work for themselves. I’m in favour of self-employment, I’m in favour of flexibility at work as long as we make sure it’s not exploitative and that it’s not having detrimental effects on the capacity to raise taxes to pay for services. If you can do the work, make the contribution and be your own boss, for many people that’s a liberation.”

So everyone who's giving examples of their bosses coming in late and staying late, or claiming that flexible work schedules solve diversity issues - neat, but you should be talking about your bosses driving for Uber in the morning, and non-white-males being bike messengers over their lunch hour.
The Chinese Room Argument is deeply flawed because it assumes that language translation in humans is a conscious phenomenon. In fact, if you're proficient in a foreign language, you can relate to the fact that for the most part translation happens in the black box of the subconscious mind. The words "bubble out" naturally. The black box of the subconscious mind is no different than the black box of the Chinese room. "Understanding" in the traditional sense is absent from both processes.
I didn't literally mean do it for free. There's a tradeoff between comfort and freedom that's different for different people.
Well, it's not really an idea. It is what HeapTrack and MTuner do. You install them, inspect the result, fix the worst offenders, repeat. There isn't much to it.
>Long distance semi tractors drive 500-800 miles a day. That doesnt require a huge battery.

You're joking right? Do you realize how much weight they tow compared to the weight of a Tesla? On top of that most of the Tesla weight is the battery itself.

Battery powered semis for long haul is absolutely not a solution.
LIGO didn't announce because they want to be sure. But one of the most valuable aspects of LIGO is as a trigger for optical astronomy of transient, time-sensitive events. So, when they see something, they have to tell a wider astronomical community---the other observers who look in non-gravitational channels---though they might not be ready to make the information public. Each observatory comprises hundreds of people. Suddenly your message isn't contained to just the hundreds of people loyal to LIGO, but to thousands of people. Moreover, these observatories tend to be publicly owned and funded, and transparency and modern open-science practices often mean live updating of the status of these observatories. Finally, there are the scientists who have nothing to do with this physics, but fought hard for some observation time and had their scheduled observations interrupted for something high-priority. These people can infer (or are often told directly) why their allocation was preempted.
You're criticizing that solution based on the name instead of based on its flaws and then you proceed to make absolutely baseless claims like the one about the acid rain, which completely disregard that the amount of sulphites needed is far less than what we already dump into the atmosphere on a yearly basis.

Please do more research before stooping down to sensationalism and fear-mongering.
This varies hugely by employer. We have two coworkers off for long vacations right now, during a semi-crunch. My boss and another coworker took Monday off to see the eclipse. Nobody's judging anyone, and my boss leads by example.
I agree, but I think human knowledge can be represented as either a graph, hierarchy or network of patterns. Like my knowledge of the letter 'A' is a network of connections to patterns 'language', 'english', 'alphabet', whatever else, and if the computer can do the same, it can use that knowledge of that network (as a whole separate entity) to make a decision, so to speak.

Consciousness does come into it since we have a pretty visceral sense of it, and especially when we mentally trawl through our patterns to make some story, but really understanding should just be creating new patterns from existing patterns and the ability to utilize them as distinct entities in some way (rather than being emergent in the system implicitly and only being utilized by accident, say as emergent behavior randomly occurring because of local constraints)
It will hasten the end because?
Electrifying all of the highways and roads trucks drive on would basically be building an entire grid again. That doesn't really fall under the technically feasible category.
I know what my cat is thinking. He's plotting to sell me to the cat food factory.
You're trying to explain why you think animals can think. The desire and the ability to explain things, and not thinking per se, is (I guess) what distinguishes humans from animals.
Its all about proper management of inputs and outputs. The best part is, it doesn't take much to use a raw input like food scrapes, you literally just toss them on a pile.

Grass clippings, Leaves, and other yard waste are the biggest input we humans like to truck around aimlessly. Chop and drop in a semi organized way, and you too can grow a forest.

#permaculture
If you're naive, but not being greedy doesn't require naivety. In fact it probably requires some awareness to understand that money can be an anchor.

You're making $140k a year. Nice. How much of your time and attention and energy are you trading for that? Is it worth it?
But I also do push-ups. See, it is rarely an either-or proposition. One could push vue.js to the limit and then decide to do a rewrite. But to take the rewrite option as the first available exit whilst explicitly referring to the original is fragmentation where I wonder if it is actually needed.
Good question. Imagine plants feel pain like other animals and like we do. If our objective is to avoid suffering and environmental damage as much as possible, which one would you choose:

1) Eat animals and plants. Remember the animals you eat also eat plants. This creates maximum suffering and damage.

2) Eat plants only. This creates less suffering and damage than option 1.

To answer your question though, if it's scientifically proven that plants are sentient and feel pain like we do (i.e. suffer) then I would only eat what plants produce (e.g. nuts, legumes, apples, etc) rather than the plant itself (e.g. carrots).
Yep, thanks for pointing that out!
English isn't my first language, but this title doesn't sound right. Not sure if it's incorrect but it just doesn't taste right.

I'd say "where [..] are electric cars a good idea" or "where [..] is an electric car a good idea". Am I crazy?

(This OT grammar nazi question was triggered by the author pushing his grammar book right at the page top)
Well, I'd actually rather write unit tests than shake out type trees too, so no, the two statements aren't equivalent.

Why? Unit tests also check a lot more than the types being passed around, so they are a lot more useful in the long run. There are some type systems where this is perhaps not the case, but they certainly aren't the majority. The majority is "so do I go with a float or a double" or "I have to cast this int to an uint64 for this one function".
Hard forks are a feature of cryptocurrencies. Their overall impact is broadly positive.

In fact, Bitcoin Cash and Ethereum Classic bring some benefits and increased competition to the main blockchains, so we'll probably continue to see hard forks of Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Building a RESTful API with Node, Koa, and Postgres
Clojure doesn't do the image-based persistence thing. You can ahead-of-time compile to Java byte code if you want, but that's probably closer to the .fasl files created by some Common Lisp implementations. No old bits of state floating around when you deploy a new server. Do occasionally miss the ability to save an image, but it doesn't seem to be the modern way (and would be a nightmare to implement well on top of the JVM).

Can easily add a REPL to any Clojure program though.
"Take a dummy organization that is used to avoid taxes."

See, that right there is where the analogy falls apart. Tax evasion is (usually) illegal. Writing software to translate between two independently-developed programs is not, last I checked.

"If the end result is a de-facto derivative"

You'd need to prove the blob is derived from Linux. If it's not, then there's literally nothing illegal happening here. If it is, then - again - the shim is not the illegal thing; the blob is, and the shim is entirely irrelevant in that illegality.

The usual reason for the shims, by the way, has very little to do with licensing terms (at least not directly) and very much to do with the fact that Linux does not provide a stable API (let alone ABI) for kernel modules. The intent of the shim is therefore almost always technical rather than legal in nature.
Portland, Austin, Boulder/Denver, Victoria, Edmonton, Saskatoon. "Good set of tech opportunities" is always relative and based on opinion, but these lower cost, high quality life cities do have some tech opportunities based on my experiences and info I have come across.
As for your concrete question, I feel your missing (but touching on) the most central aspect of magic in Mage; the paradigm. The jetpack can straddle the gap between magic and shift in paradigm just as, in the world of Mage, airplanes did when they first allowed humans to take to the skies en masse - as opposed to being reserved for a medival arch mage wearing an "icarus outfit", or riding a broomstick...

As with all rpg rules if the gm and/or group haven't internalised the rules - make it up as you go along! Create house rules, and make tweaks if the game leans too heavily in any given direction.

Ed: which is why:
> Tell me, in concrete, non-ambiguous terms,

Doesn't make sense; I can't know what your game world is like, and what feel your campaign has.

If you do want a more regular rule system that might work in a similar setting I advice having a look at Ars Magica - which appears to have been a major source of inspiration for Mage.
A huge benefit of electric cars is removing pollution from cities; this seems to be forgotten.

Surely if the pollution is killing thousands of people a year this is an issue.
Thanks for the fast answer!

That's a tough path you took and I wish you'll reach your goals. There are currently many frameworks who want to get the mind share. Would you mind to share your mindset behind the decision to split and build a new framework?
Is there something in Vue you oppose or new concepts you would like to introduce?
Would be very interested to hear your thoughts, I'm always on the lookout.
> Now I find it hard to hold on to the belief that I understand what is "A" and what is "B", while computer can only compute.

Humans being surprised by the computer should not be the yardstick for AI. A trained neural net can recognize the letter "A" and differentiate it from things that are not "A" but it does not know that "A" is part of the Latin alphabet and that there are other alphabets that form written human languages.

The day the computer spontaneously invents a new and usable alphabet without having been specifically designed to do so is the day I will concede we have hard AI. We have a long way to go. Until then it's just a bunch of hotdog/not hotdog classifiers.
> Since I'm in the position to use Swift, I often define small functions WITHIN functions, in order to give the behavior of a code block a name. I'm also using LOTS of immediately executed closures (is that the correct term?) to reduce scope and profit from slightly easier control flow. And I don't see how this would be bad.

You don't need a language with closures even. Many C-style languages [1] allow you to add curly braces around a couple of statements without using any other control structure (if, for, while, etc.), just to force variables declared inside this block to go out of scope at the end of the block. I've used this for complex functions that do not lend itself to useful modularization, to indicate which variables are short-lived, and which are carried forward to later parts of the function.)

[1] e.g. C++, Perl; not sure about C itself
I agree it will be a few years, but these folks are building projects right now that they plan to be operating for 20-30 years. They claim to be planning ahead.
Perhaps i'm arguing semantics and this is what the author means but... in your primitive mind, you are able to recognise something even if you have no idea what it is, you can learn to recognise.

The ability to introspect and analyse what makes that thing unique or understand what it's purpose or origin is has everything to do with being sentient.

We might not know what exactly being sentient is but recognising an image is like lobotomising the brain to just be a visual cortex, it can match but the other networks that work in the abstract are not there.
When it goes wrong, and you're wondering who to complain to, then the decentralisation might start to matter.