skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Some trains are very automated. And there is autopilot/autolanding for jets, BUT the pilot has to engage them, and they can't be used in all circumstances. That is to say that they are about as automated as the Tesla Autopilot. Once you get on the highway, the car can keep course and maintain the appropriate speed.

This is a long way off from the world of "Enter the destination from my garage, take a nap, and wake up an hour later at my destination," of "Full Autonomy." There is a distinct inflection point of utility where Autonomous vehicles require you to be paying attention to take over in emergency, and the point at which that is no longer required.
Imagine if some non-US government voided Intel and AMD's patents as a self-defence measure against these probably-backdoored 'features'. Why should they protect the profits of hostile corporations?
You're right, and we're already benefitting and have been for years: basic electronic cruise control saves a ton of fuel just by taking the job of maintaining highway speeds away from the human.

We'll continue to benefit at each level: speed match, safe-distance maintenance, emergency brake, lane follow - there are already people alive who would be dead without them - you can find them in 5 seconds on youtube. The fact that articles have to keep trotting out same sad story of the bloke who drove into a truck while watching movies when he should have been driving tells you a lot about how safe these systems actually are - if there were dozens of counter examples, we wouldn't be hearing from the head of Toyota's RI, we'd be drowning in dashcam snuff films.

All that said, yes, I agree it's obvious that level 5 is a different beast to all of the 'easy stuff' that we have now: classic case of where the edge cases cover more area than the core of the domain does.
It was also fun to notice the street lights & home outdoor lights all come on in what looked like sunny day. The brain really compensated for the dimness.
I mean "getting away with it" as this list recommends it with no warning about it being a subscription, contrasted with Sketch being given a hard time (despite not being a subscription)
I did not know about this and Googled the line out of curiosity. TIL
> s/FDA/regulatory agency with similar standards as the FDA/

That's more reasonable but not the argument the article is making, which could be paraphrased as "it's not being done the way we do it in the US, so it must be bad".

> it's sketchy as hell to have a drug that's
> likely intended to be marketed in the US
> not clinically trialed in the US or[...]

You can't trial a drug in some supposed banana republic and then market it in the US. Here's a nice overview of the hurdles the FDA puts on foreign-developed drugs, even those from mature developed markets like the EU and Australia: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/02/14/if-a-drug-is-good-e...

So the concern is not that FDA rules are being evaded for the purposes of marketing to US consumers, but rather that someone's running preliminary medical trials outside of the US. Presumably to test basic viability, or perhaps to initially target markets in other countries than the US.

> This could kill, and it's unethical to
> attempt to sidestep strong protections[...]

Herpes is already killing hundreds (if not thousands) annually, although it seems nobody has good numbers on this as the countries disproportionately affected are usually really poor [1][2][3].

> [...]for the sake of some minimal extra cash.

A lot has been written about how insanely expensive medical research is these days, and how big drug companies tend to focus on expensive drugs they can keep selling you at the cost of something like vaccines.

It's pretty telling that we're talking about Peter Thiel funding Herpes vaccine development at all, the fact that he's not a joke in that space being out-competed by big pharmaceutical companies should tell you something.

So this supposed trolley problem of "if we allow cheap research people might die" becomes less clear. People are dying right now, and apparently basic research to solve that problem has become too expensive for anyone to bother in major developed nations like the US and EU.

1. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347615...

2. http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/maternal_perina...

3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28153513
It really makes the insane gamble of the Uber VC's ultimately terminal.
Web and mobile prototyping, wireframing and UX: August’s best posts
the hype around it is fun, but the reality is that autonomous driving is harder than anything we've done before as a species and we have a bunch of the best minds working on it already (as the article notes).

rockets and electric cars are really cool, but those have largely been engineering challenges. autonomous vehicles are in the basic scientific research stage. i can't imagine we'll see true autonomous vehicles within the next 20 years.

i say this not to discourage the efforts to build this wonderful technology, but only to temper expectations, so that we avoid implausible conclusions like "uber will save itself by replacing its fleet with autonomous cars in the next 5 years".
Yeah, I had the same response. To use the phrasing of the article, I find the third non sequitur act to be a conflict in terms of simply being a mismatch from the pattern established by the first two i.e. a combo-breaker.
Chisio home, http://www.cs.bilkent.edu.tr/~ivis/chied.html
Can it be that railways are often monopolized, and getting access to the infrastructure is difficult for new companies, which hampers innovation?
Automated: yes. Autonomous: no.

There's a fundamental difference between the two. Airplane autopilots are basically scripted, and operate fully within the parameters set by the pilot. There is almost no intelligence, and very little adaptivity there. The pilot needs to reprogram the autopilot manually when the flight plan changes, for example. Flight conditions can change in many ways that require the autopilot to be reprogrammed, reconfigured, or even switched off. Airplanes have actually crashed more than once because the pilot configured the autopilot incorrectly.

I don't know much about trains, except that fully automating without adapting all the rail infrastructure is more difficult than you would imagine, for example because there is basically no standardization in how semaphores are placed, for example.
The rate at which you have to update, and what you have to update doesn't change between retained and immediate mode. The only difference is that, with retained mode, the library you're using has, by design, all the knowledge it needs, so it can manage all of that for you. The whole point of using immediate mode is to get rid of this black box from your program, so that you can explicitly state what you want to happen, when, and in what order. It's only "a ton of code" if you write everything from scratch, so i fail to see how that's an argument.
Onyx, AppCleaner, and good-old find(1) all day. Mac directories are well-known enough that you can usually scrub cruft pretty easily.
To Survive in Tough Times, Restaurants Turn to Data-Mining
Well I just switched from ArtixLinux (arch-openrc) to Void. I simply reformatted my partitions execpt /home and viola. Its very nice. Nicer than Artix. Clean, the BSD-style bleeds thru. I know because I have installed a _lot_ of distros on this machine.

A few screenshots.
http://imgur.com/a/2IE94

Thank you very much VoidLinux devs and volunteers!
Awesome work!!
Gill Pratt is not "some dude" -- he's a robotics researcher with a PhD from MIT, and was a DARPA program manager [0].

[0] http://corporatenews.pressroom.toyota.com/article_display.cf...
I disagree about the graph theory as well. Unless you are doing things with learning on networks you won't need it.

I think a solid background in linear algebra, multivariate calculus, and convex optimization will take you really far.
That's a semantic argument. Your teacher is arguing that in order for something to be a story, it must have conflict, otherwise it's just a list of events.
Not fully intelligent. More like animal intelligence, and a subset of that. No off-roading (which animals have no problem with).
A thorough, intuitive grounding in statistics is crucial, IMO.

Doing any kind of ML means questioning all the assumptions that go into your results and understanding how those assumptions could affect the outcome. That process starts in stats.
They badly need to let their users override their system. I want to be able to mark something hidden and not see it again.
The ocean is a fantastic place. We've recently crossed the Bay of Biscay under sail and have seen many pods of dolphins, bio-luminescence in our wake at night and the stars in a way you can only see far away from any source of light.

Here's some dolphins for you (daytime though): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lWmOhS83kU
>in terms of the futurist vision of driverless cars everywhere, fleets of cars replacing private ownership, etc -- hard to see that happening.

Please tell this to city governors who are so keen at throwing money to stupid start-ups peddling this nonsense at the expensive of other things, like proven public transport, for example.

Stuff like this being "patently obvious" to you should be an impetus to get the word out, because those for whom is isn't are the ones making dangerously imprudent policy decisions.

Again, not to invalidate the use of level 4 automation and such, but ya'll need to crush this fantasy of level 5 in 2 years, for all our sakes.
Subway trains in my city (Vancouver) are autonomous
IntelliJ uses this model too.
I suppose, as they can clearly afford the time to do so.
I agree. JavaScript as a language may have its quirks, but still mostly enjoyable for me to work with. The problem is with its ecosystem. It has "growing pains" of sorts. I read someone comparing it to the fashion industry and it started to make more sense to me. People are building up hype, banking on what kind of code the big shots are "wearing" and the tools/frameworks become and end unto itself rather than the means to an end. A lot of places shoot me down because I only used vanilla JS and jQuery at the last place I used that language.

A C++ job would be interesting for me to take on (I have used C++ in projects mostly from the mid-late 2000s) but I need to brush up on current standards even there. Would I be at a huge disadvantage right now in most jobs if I cannot yet code C++11 compliant code?
> I think the internal algorithm for training their models will be to maximize "continuations" of watching series enabling binge-watching. While this may be a good measure of engagement for THEM, it hardly is for ME.

This seem inconsistent -- are you saying that you binge watch shows that you don't like?

There's also a well-known gap between what people say they want to watch vs what they actually watch, they should absolutely be optimizing for the latter.
It's from January. Could the title reflect that?
That checks out. Also, I think a lot of "western" stories have this structure too, namely: jokes.

Many good jokes are conflict-less stories, that create a contradiction for the reader to resolve with a double take.
You've hit the nail on the head - audio recognition is quite poor after (a lot of) concerted effort over decades. Driving a car safely is significantly more difficult (and dangerous).

That being said, Toyota's (and Subaru's) approach is the smart way forward - add sensors and capabilities that augment the human, but leave the human always responsible and in control. In order for a crash to happen, the human AND the machine BOTH have to miss it.

Once the machine is good enough (and we figure out what "good enough" means), then it can take over driving. But not before.
Those are common along the Carolina coast (which gets hit with Atlantic hurricanes). They're supposed to be built with strapping that connects the roof to the walls, the walls to the floor joists, and then to the posts. Building up like this gets you above the storm surge and gives you a place to park the car (you'll lose the car and the lawnmower, but that's minor compared to losing the house).

They're also supposed to have hurricane-rated glazing. One thing that destroys homes is when an opening gets made, allowing the wind inside. So having strong glass (or boarding-up) is a big deal.
A conspiracy, if you will... :'D

But seriously, you seem to imply it's bad that people plan ahead, for when shit hits the fan, and somehow those people are the bad guys? Maybe that's not what you intended, but it's what you seem to imply.
Less crazy folk? I can't tell you many "less crazy folk" believe the most nutso easily-disprovable bunk on the internet because it reinforces their feelings and beliefs on something... Completely functional people making great money or running successful businesses or raising great kids, just totally believing whatever bunk makes them feel good. It's not about "crazy", it's about people just not being willing to investigate something further than what they believe, and trying to convince them of the "less crazy" way just won't budge them if they don't want to budge.
SDC's could be very disruptive to the the traditional automotive business model of selling a personal car to each adult who needs transport. Autonomous hire cars mean cheaper transport for users and and potentially a much smaller market for new cars.
While we have traditional manufacturers on both sides of the fence, I'm more inclined to believe companies like Ford who are running towards an autonomous future despite the effect it will have on the way they do business.
I'm not super interested in ML but I am very interested in applied mathematics in computer science. I've got a fair bit of linear algebra due to cryptography, but have had virtually no need of any form of calculus (unless I'm relying on it without knowing it) in my career.

So beyond just saying that you'd need grounding in multivariable calculus to do serious ML work, I would be super interested in hearing more about why that is and what kinds of problems crop up in ML that demand it.
As others have said, the scope of 'Anything that can happen on a road', while large, is a lot smaller than 'Anything that can happen or be imagined to happen'. Moreover, if a pilot AI finds itself in a situation it can't deal with, the failsafe of "hazards on, slow the car and pull over" is nearly always available. There's not really an equivalent for a general AI.
It's important to point out that the WayMo project in Phoenix is only barely getting started, only serves limited areas, at limited times, and presumably in limited weather conditions; and most importantly that there's still a human driver in the vehicle at all times. A full-scale metro-wide service would need to operate at all hours, in most any weather, and without a human driver. That's not happening within four years.
With software, it's always easy to make something appear to work. All the corner cases make something take 10-100x longer than the functional prototype.

This became painfully obvious with the article floating around where a car misread a stop sign with a small amount of marking as a 45MPH speed limit sign. It's pretty clear that if a car is mistaking a red sign for a white sign, we have a very long time to go before the car can safely drive itself without a human observer to intervene when needed.

When it comes to automated driving, we need to keep our optimism in check and know that it can take decades before we have safe robotic taxis. They may become legal in countries with lower bars for safety before they are legal in the US.

The big problem, I think, will be when the drunks get into accidents because they will turn on autonomous driving, and don't get pulled over. Instead, they won't be sober enough to observe and intervene when the car screws up.
One point would be that both planes and trains are professionally operated already. That means three of the biggest incentives to automate are missing.

First, they have few human-error crashes; they're both significantly safer than automobiles, so unless automation can do better-than-human disaster recovery (not likely yet) there's minimal safety advantage. You have to outperform well-trained humans instead of random people to save lives.

Second, they don't take much time per traveller to operate. Both often have 100+ passengers per operator, making it relatively cheap to employ skilled human labor. Cars average around 2:1, so there's a lot more time being wasted per passenger-hour.

Third, cars have highly flexible usage. Planes and trains are generally moving people or cargo to approximate destinations, and travel to places design to store them. Cars spend lots of time arriving in storage-free areas - what if your car dropped you off at work and drove to a garage outside the city? And they do lots of last-mile transit - what if your car could go pick up your groceries or dry-cleaning without you?

Broadly, I think there's way more safety and financial incentive for 100% driverless operation of cars than any other mode of travel.
> The main one being that airplanes are not equipped with sensors capable of detecting other aircraft nearby.

Well, there's ACAS/TCAS (airborne collision avoidance system / traffic collision avoidance system) and certainly we are moving towards ASAS (airborne separation assurance system), based mainly in transponder / ADS-B radio signals. But as others have commented, there are other reasons (psychological, economic, etc.).
It's a neat watch, but the display of opulence is rather disgusting. There are people literally starving, social mobility is declining, yet there are people willing to spend enough money that most people could retire for life for a status symbol. That's money that could be invested in the local economy to build industries and create opportunities for the people in the area, yet they've chosen instead to buy a shiny toy.

The disconnect between rich and poor must be real, or else there wouldn't be a market for such things.
How to Build a REST API with Node.js, Restify and MongoDB
Ask HN: What are the best laptop brands to use for Visual Studio development
Ask HN: What are the best laptop brands to use for Windows development with tools to include SQL Server, Visual Studio, etc.? Thinking of retiring my 3-year old Asus Core i5 laptop and replacing with higher-end Windows machine.
The problem is really android permissions. If an app wants to identify me by accessing my IMEI the prompt shouldn't be "Allow this app to make phone calls". It is very misleading because it falls under such a large umbrella without informing the user of anything useful.
Do you mean with only balances? With scales you would just weigh each bag once and sort the weights. In either case, why would bubble sort be preferred? I'd think you would want to minimize how many times you have to move the bags on and off the scale/balance.
I think there are a lot of parallels with motor racing here. It was extremely dangerous on its early days, and didn't get safer when drivers got more experienced. It got safer when the cars got safer, and we still get deaths anyway (most recently in F1 the death of Jules Bianchi)
There must be an API for it though, right... That being my first reaction, after thinking about it again, well, a custom UI that is accessible and cross-platform... Maybe a semantic web site IS the holy-grail in that regard? ARIA[1] seems more detailed than Qt-quick[2], at least.

[1]: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Accessibility/A...
[2]: http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qml-qtquick-accessible.html
As someone who owns both of these devices you are incorrect. They are fundamentally VR goggles with cameras in the goggles allowing them to be self tracking. Microsoft's MR branding is confusing but it is a mistake to think of these goggles as AR.
That's what happens when you invest in hype. There's no way we'll be able to hail an autonomous Uber in the next 5 years, which is an eternity in startup land.
> When the organ is full of these bacteria, the bacteria glow and therefore stop the shadow of the octopi.

It seems weird because the animal itself would be a lot more visible.

This wikipedia article [1] about firefly squid says that the animal uses it's ability to match the brightness and colour of its underside to the light coming from the surface, making it difficult for predators to detect it from below

Is that it?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firefly_squid
The link for this HN submission is unfortunately not a good portal wrt plan9. See [1] and [2].

1. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/plan9port-dev/OqSvUD...

2. https://github.com/9fans/plan9port/issues/79
One argument is just scale.

So, if it costs a billion dollars to make a good AI driver, then if you put it in a million cars then it's costs 1000 dollars each and you could eliminate lots of jobs where the main cost is the human (delivery, taxi) so providing a ready sales avenue for your self-driving car (or tech). If you put it in trains then you can maybe drive thousands of trains, and the human is a relatively low cost element of a train service so there's less room to expand.

I don't know if this is true, or even if the logic I outlined above pencils out with real data but it probably contributes in some way.
I mean, just asking for a feature exclusive to customers with the HAP Program is enough to meet that goal.
Skydiving is actually a very safe and low-risk 'adrenaline' activity, from what I've heard. There are multiple redundancies and you are almost never at the mercy of randomness like with winsuits, climbing, or whitewater rapids. The deaths that do occur are almost always from experienced jumpers that not following recommended safety processes, often in the pursuit of pushing things to the edge. The point is that unlike some other extreme sports, most skydiving deaths are preventable by conservative jumping.
"Researchers from Akamai, Cloudflare, Flashpoint, Google, Oracle Dyn, RiskIQ, Team Cymru, and other organizations cooperated to combat this botnet." Kudos to that!
Where exactly does one go to school to be a watchmaker?

Is there a place to read up on gear ratios/design patterns for complications, and for linking complications together to form the mechanical watch?

Is there a watch designing application that would allow you to drop in a complication (however simple) and learn how all the gears perform the calculations needed for a complication?

I find elite watch designers to be fascinating.

Edit:

Never-mind this looks amazing and was posted lower in the thread:

http://www.clickspringprojects.com/
Information theory is pretty central to model selection.
This is really interesting. I wonder how it will effect Pages that are known for sarcastic/satire type of content on purpose. Pages like The Onion, Hard Times, etc. I feel like there would have to be a lot of work in the fact-checking part of this. At what point will it be too manual of a process, or will the algorithm start to fail on these "grey" areas?

Also, it's nice to see Facebook implement a feature solely for the user that could be costing them ad money.
Motivating Software Engineers 101
intel gets asked for features, intel develops them, intel gets paid. you can be sure that intel wouldn't develop ME for free. follow the money.
"Musk is a dumbass, but his idea self-driving is happening now may become a self-fulfilling prophecy."

If you thought about it for like 5 seconds, you just contradicted yourself here.

But your latter point is a good one. Part of what makes Musk effective is, even if he starts with just a half-baked kernel of an idea (usually borrowed from somewhere else), hyping into existence whole new industries (beyond just the companies he controls), which Musk can thus harvest for recruiting and better ideas, which makes those once-silly ideas actually work. That's kind of the opposite of being a dumbass.