skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Sure, let me elaborate.

We are already quite far into the 21-st century, and there are several directions in which the "large format" publishing (i.e. that of monographs, teaching materials, etc.) should be going by now instead of sticking with the "old ways":

- abandoning the limitations specific to the old tech; the authors tend to show the reflexive desire to be minimalist in their exposition which results in a coverage of the topic that is sorely incomplete and/or unclear;

- transitioning to new ways of information delivery, the ones that are only possible with the use of electronic devices; instead of bundling massive amounts of the material into a single package (a book), authors could follow the example set by Wikipedia, say, and create a much more fine-grained, yet naturally loose, collection of "articles" each being unlimited in size and therefore (unlike what we see in Wikipedia) detailed, thorough and thus accessible to anyone willing to spend time studying them;

- using completely new ways of presenting information afforded by computers, which, incidentally, would be nothing new as an idea, because the thought of computer-based education/training has been around since at least 1960s; yet, it is still waiting for its practical application on an adequate scale; from this perspective, teaching methods based on absorbing text - whether in printed or even electronic form - can truly be seen as backwards as thinking of a car as being merely a "horseless carriage".

This process is not happening in any perceptible manner, and I wonder what's holding us back to the degree it still is.
If it had no sodium, then it would be good. Most people already have way too much sodium in their diets.
Artificial intelligence will come from understanding natural intelligence.
In an academic/learning environment I agree. But, for professional purposes I wouldn't hire even an entry level person who didn't have at least enough of a basis to know when those concepts apply. I also wouldn't hire a data scientist who can't at least tell me the high level workings of an algorithm they might choose. I interview for both types of positions and know what it's like to have to compensate for an amateur.
Haha yeah, this generation is extremely lucky :)

Other than JS, I love Python for AI, and C/Assembly for systems (I'm writing an OS). Check out my Github! It has most of my projects.
I am a little confused. by "he" are you talking about the commenter in this thread or the person who is said to have had a trademark for "Internet Explorer" ?
Telemetry isnt the whole story, especially if it is being interpreted by somebody looking to justify decisions.
and since you brought up Mr Lowe, here are his articles on "Things I won't work with":

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/category/thing...
One solution would be to have the city levy the fines against the tenant, not the owner, because it is the tenant breaking the law.
Once they're safely out of Boost and implemented by the stdlib they're an order of magnitude more convenient to use. You can also be more confident in their future stability.
QuanTemplate | Scala full-stack developers | London, ONSITE | Full-time | £60K to £75K

QuanTemplate [TechStars London 2013] are looking for sharp full-stack developers with a passion for building complex web applications to continue to build out our data and analytics platform targeted, initially, at the needs of the insurance market. We're using cutting edge UX design combined with machine learning techniques to simplify data transformation and analytical workflows over increasingly large quantities of data.

You'll be working with a high-calibre and friendly team out of our slick loft-style office in the heart of London's vibrant Shoreditch.

-- Stack --

Frontend: Web, React, Redux

Backend: Scala, Akka, AWS, RDS Postgres, Presto

Tools: Docker, Ansible, GoCD, Jira, Git, IntelliJ, Selenium, Rollbar, Datadog

-- Apply --

Full profile, and link to apply here: https://www.quantemplate.com/careers/full-stack-engineer
Webster lists in part:

Compiler: one who compiles - first use 14th century

And for compile:

transitive verb

1 : to compose out of materials from other documents

2 : to collect and edit into a volume

3 : to build up gradually <compiled a record of four wins and two losses>

Origin: Middle English, from Anglo-French compiler, from Latin compilare to plunder.

Synonyms: anthologize, collect

Note, I've skipped the dictionary references to computer use, as the seem overly (wrongly) focused on "top down" compilation...
My wife is Chinese. None of my Chinese relatives has ever had a vote for anyone in government.
I apologize for not being clearer – I'm not claiming that they're fundamentally different. My original comment, to that point, agrees with the original article's author: compilers are just mappings to and from programs.

re: transpiler – all I'm saying is that the term arose because people associated compilers with low-level outputs.

In summary, there don't appear to be canonical definitions of compilers as having low-level outputs, but for some reason many speak of them that way.
To be completely fair: many projects at many companies turn out to be failures. Rust could've been bad and Firefox OS could have ended up ruling the world, and suddenly your comment would look very different. There's just a fundamental risk in projects, and viability often only becomes later in hindsight. (Most other companies failures just happen to be a lot less visible since they're not developing in the open.)
Well these slides seemed to give all of the most relevant details.
æsthetic?
this is a fantastic book, anyone remotely interested in space should read it.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Just because something can be abused for nefarious purposes doesn't mean we should ban it or abandon it. People use cars to kill people -- perhaps we should ban those? People use binoculars to violate privacy -- maybe we should ban those, too?
Ok but I am talking about general human intelligence when I say AGI and 'recently emerged', not mollusks. You could easily argue we will find out how higher-order intelligence emerged one day, as some researchers already have models for that if you've read a college anthropology textbook; may not be right, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that it emerged recently due to new structure(s) ('design') coming about in a relatively short time period, so making the claim "Since we don't know how it happened, therefore it must be like X" is flawed.

You know what French Enlightenment thinkers were also against? Making headstrong claims (as an authority) without empirical evidence on your side :)
I'm really not sure and curious how much extensions are actually used in practice. Personally, I use Chrome with 1password, that's it.

Extensions scare me. They're a huge potential invasion of privacy, especially with recent hijackings of Chrome extensions in the store.

I'm also more confident that Mozilla will always listen to users, and give us the necessary opt-outs. I really don't trust Google as much.
This was poorly explained. My assumption is that it changes the population spreads of early stars that would have been expected to populate the galactic center: we now need fewer supernovae to produce the heavy element distribution observed, so we'd expect to see fewer supernova remnants.

Which then begs the question of why there is a dearth of neutron stars in the galactic center in particular. This effect would reduce the number of old neutron stars everywhere, which I guess we don't observe? Or maybe it's just that very old neutron stars are hard to find in isolation (i.e. once their nebulae have dispersed) and that in the center we could see them due to gravitation because of the star density there?
A lot of phone cameras seem to have come through (apparently) unscathed. Both pictures and video. Too small a collector/concentrator, or enough shaking because hand-held to keep the focal point moving?
Yes - it's even said in the PDF.

To be honest I feel whoever was talking to them was a bit rude... whether you like the products or not I don't see anything wrong with their business. It's like blaming Apple for adding a huge markup to their products which in terms of hardware are very similar to a Windows PC and even made in the same factories.
Hmm, interesting. I think this one is more "buyer beware".

Government corruption is a when a missile manufacturer donates heavily to a pro-war candidate, and then that candidate ends up in the cabinet. 6 months later, bombing campaigns are in full force.

A private company, or a private employee, selling eyeballs, legitimacy, and influence... it's extremely flawed, but I'm not sure it has a horrifically large effect on the world.
All those rules applies to our new non-side projects as well.

I can't even count how many times I seen projects with awesome infrastructure and basically zero functionality after depleting whole budget (and usually some more).
I concur. Poetic and succinct.
So, when when say AGI, what do we mean? Is it about creating a new intelligent "being" or mimicking what we perceive as human intelligence inside some hardware? I guess it's the the first one.

And I guess AGI would be just 1 intelligent being because there is no need for more as they would communicate and share intelligence, so de facto being only 1.

Can all human intelligence also be understood as only 1 in some sense, as an isolated human without access to culture wouldn't be more than surviving animal?

And when defining intelligence's ingredients, isn't necessary some sort of "motivation" than drives someone to get better at something? Humans have, genetic (survival), social, personal... motivations. How does that translate to AGI, what could be it's motivation?
TTN is more an open network where everybody can contribute.

The other project is just the server architecture to run a private environment.

The idea is similar, however when you need total control on your infrastructure I believe the the loraserver project wins hands down.
I think the answer is yes and yes. And I believe this idea to be key.

His artificial life slides do show starting with simulating very simple animals.

That reminds me of something I was thinking a few years ago which I wrote in this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/8uwcq/are_worms...

See this article https://www.inverse.com/article/35862-a-i-ben-medlock-machin... I think Medford is right when he points out

> “It comes back, I think, to what intelligence actually is,” reasons Medlock. “Intelligence is not the ability to play chess or to understand speech. More generally, it’s the ability to process data from the environment and then act in the environment. The cell really is the start of intelligence, of all organic intelligence, and it’s very much a data processing machinery.”
> The organic intelligence, he says, confers an embodied model of the world for the conscious organism. “The data that’s coming in [through the senses] only really matters at the point where it violates something in the model that I’m already predicting.”

So I believe that we should be emulating the capabilities of much simpler organisms. For me I would look at something like a lizard or simple mammal first for a practical starting point, rather than simulating billions of cells and DNA machinery. But the core aspects of intelligence are right there in the cell as he says -- the embodiment, the complex model, prediction and adaptability. To me crows are too smart for a starting point.

Personally I think that what typically we think of as general intelligence or strong AI is really just a very smart animal (human), but that is mainly a matter of degree of performance rather than a totally different type of intelligence from animals. What is missing from our computer programs is the type of things that a crow, your cat, or probably even a lizard, all do very naturally. And we may be able to technically bring that down to worms or the cell even as far as core capabilities (but not practical targets for emulating).

Can we build an artificial lizard that is able to process the same high bandwidth stream of sensory data as that animal? That can output the same high bandwidth stream of motor outputs? That can see part of a predator behind a rock and realize that it must move, and plan an escape route? That can do these things in completely arbitrary novel environments? That can perform that species' mating dance to attract a mate? These are the types of capabilities I believe we should start with, based on broadly adaptable systems like advanced neural networks. So I think his artificial life slide is mostly right, but we should aim to just emulate animals as a serious goal, with the types of high bandwidth inputs and outputs and complex environments, and make sure that all of the capabilities he lists on that slide like attention etc. are derived from/integrated with powerful general purpose adaptive computation like advanced neural nets so they can handle real world complexity and performance requirements.
Currently none, but 15 beta testers that will either convert to paying customers or cancel < 30 days.
being admired by someone is categorically different from being the philosophical root of something. The principle of individual self-interest being naturally channeled towards common goods is at the core of objectivist philosophy. However much Wales has personally failed at being an objectivist is irrelevant, because the key insight behind wikipedia (to be flippant: that clans of neckbeards obsessed with correctness would in aggregate create an eventually consistent, curated infomation store) would not have come about in its existing form without Randism. The connection between Ayn Rand and wikipedia is not just a casual association, wikipedia was STARTED as a proof of concept after a debate between Wales and Larry Sanger about objectivism.

As for wikipedia happening to be on the internet, well whatever. You could make the same argument about money in general, since that is backed by the state.

Moreover, your argument that ignoring rand has done more for X is not inconsistent with the fact that using rand's philosophy has done more than using george's philosophy.
The internal APIs will eventually change (break). They already did on major releases - one can find lots of "does not work on Firefox NN+ anymore, please update" comments all over AMO. (By design, this should be significantly rarer occasion with the WebExtensions)

Now there is no requirement to keep them stable even across the patch-level releases. Whenever things would break faster or at the same pace is unknown.
Whichever way you go, you're absolutely right to get what is correct for you, which (usually) requires digging on your own.

Luckily for me, as I say, my eye doc recommended that layout.
Senior Software Engineer, Test Frameworks | Hedge-fund | Chicago | Onsite | Full­ time | Best compensation in Global Finance with a top Hedge Fund

The Software Test team is tasked with the continual evaluation of existing tool chains and procedures to drive exceedingly high levels of test coverage with minimal impact to the software development life cycle. Members of this team spend time reviewing and analyzing existing tools developed both internally and externally to identify the best possible solutions. They will work closely with members of teams across the organization to drive continued improvement of our testing platform from both usability and transparency perspectives.

Key Responsibilities:

- From scratch, Drive the architecture & development of centralized testing framework.
- Collaborate across groups to drive centralized practices for varying business needs.
- Create modular & extensible test interfaces to enable rapid integration of new & evolving protocols.
- Develop integration test framework in concert with integration environments to provide immediate feedback.

Skill set Requirements:

- Minimum 5+ years of relevant Software or Software Test Engineering experience.
- Senior-level experience programming in Python, Java, C++ or C#.
- Proven track record building clean, scalable software.
- Experience partnering with cross-functional teams to drive large projects on a global basis.
- Excellent written and verbal communication skills.

If you are interested in discussing further, please send me an email at: kim(dot)boloorian(at)njfsearch(dot)com
All new APIs taken together, no, won't be stable for at least half a year still, very likely longer. They're still very much in the process of designing and implementing new APIs.

But the core APIs are the same as Chrome's. The implementation might not yet always be perfect, but the APIs themselves are stable. So, for the vast majority of add-on developers, the experience will already be much less burdensome. Or it will be in the future.

Yes, some add-ons will not happen or might only be possible long after the release of Firefox 57. But they're not going back on that plan. They haven't just forbidden these extensions for funsies. They've very much already used the opportunity to rip out tons of legacy code and refactor things that they could have never refactored before without breaking tons of add-ons each time. At this point, there's very few legacy extensions left that still function in Firefox Nightly, even if you tell it to load them.

Not to mention that this has helped them to speed Firefox up by a significant factor. All the performance improvements since Firefox 48 would not have been made without this deprecation on the horizon.
And considering that a significant chunk of Firefox users use no extension or just the obligatory ad blocker (or any set of extensions that's going to be easily replaceable with WebExtensions), this is also very much the decision that has to be made when asking yourself what's best for users.

As for people possibly leaving Firefox when their favorite extensions stop working, yes, that's possible, but Firefox's market share has been growing again since Firefox 48, and there's also just the fact that Firefox is still going to be the browser with the most powerful extension API.

You're not getting more extensions by switching. You'd have to be fine with even less extensions in exchange for maybe a particular feature that you like in another browser.
I am not suggesting we ban anything. What I was saying is that while being able to conduct ourselves on the web (and be tracked and all that goes with that) is fine for many, actually most, people; for some it is not. I am not suggesting banning the dark web either as it is a better way for some to have access to places they otherwise would not because they are being tracked by someone intent on harming them. Or more simply put, people should be able to access the Internet or the dark web if that is the choice they make....no need to presume they are doing something wrong if they choose the anonymous one.
Thank you for this response. Naturally, I agree 100%.

You're right, I may not need a CTO. I would love to bring on someone to do part-time work as it comes up, until revenues start coming in. Scaling up from there and having that person become the CTO and grow into the role would be ideal.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but try just using the same profile for both installs. It contains all the information about your browsing session including tabs, bookmarks, extensions, cookies, etc.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-...
And I wouldn't be surprised to learn one day that some facebook employees would be running face recognitions for private detectives... Human nature is what it is.
The question is not about "XUL functionality" specifically, XUL is just an implementation detail, and html could work in its place just as well.

The question is how much the extensions can do, in the old model they could do anything firefox code could do, in WebExtensions model, they can do only very limited set of things.

On one hand it is quite sad to see firefox extensions go, on the other hand the old model was a maintenance hell both for firefox developers and for addon developers, because smallest changes in firefox ui were breaking bunch of addons, and even changes in addons themselves were breaking other addons, which all had incompatibilities and had to do lots of subtle hacks to work together.

I have worked on firefox addons for several years, and had to quit firefox when they started ignoring addons and investing in old addon sdk. But saying Mozilla is intentionally killing firefox is not fair the whole thing was shaky and full of hacks and would crumble by itself too.

What they should do now, is splitting their ui from the engine, so that advanced users can hack on the ui and get all the benefits of old addon system without the mess. If they fail to do that brave browser with https://github.com/brave/muon will take that niche.
Imagine it was a newspaper classified ad in your newspaper that someone has paid for all week and someone else phoned up asking you not to reprint it tomorrow.

Or the noticeboard in Publix
I dislike how they immediately lump "hackers, drugs and porn" together as bad things.

Hackers and others within that category are great. Thanks to hackers you can get full access to devices that would otherwise be locked down. Thanks to hackers you can take full control of your media content, playing it without constraints and on any device.

Drugs are a huge market, let's tax it. Most people buying drugs are likely harmless members of society. We're wasting time and money chasing down buyers, sellers, and service managers. There's an absurd amount of people in jail for engaging in fully benign activities.

Porn is a huge industry which pretty much everyone likes. A few rotten apples don't mean you have a rotten tree. Oh, we also waste a lot of money chasing down prostitutes and the like. I'm sure many sex workers would love to continue what they're doing without having to worry about the risk of cops showing up.
Out of interest, with computerised voting do they generally also protect the information of who voted for who?

I might be wrong, but I don't think paper ballots have any identifying information on.

Edit: Hmm, ballot papers do apparently have a unique ID on, which I hadn't noticed before.
Not optically worse.

CR39 has lower index of refraction (1.498 vs 1.54) and so it is heavier. It has worse chromatic aberration (Abbe 58 vs Trivex 45). So it's really only good for light prescriptions.

Trivex is also easily drillable making rimless easy, rimless->lighter; PC tends to crack easily.

But yes Trivex is a little more expensive than CR39 but in my experience a lot better. If your lenses last 2 years, lenses are not where you should save money.

http://www.mastereyeassociates.com/eyeglass-lens-materials
Food Rules by Michael Pollan - for understanding food and nutrition

Sapiens - for understanding what it means to be human

The Lessons of History by Will and Ariel Durant - for understanding groups of humans (civilization)

The Most Important Thing: Uncommon Sense for the Thoughtful Investor by Howard Marks - for understanding investing

Seeking Wisdom: From Darwin To Munger by Peter Bevelin - for understanding mental models in general
Machine Learning Research Highlights Over Last Weeks
It seems to me like Youtube's video ads fall squarely within Adblock Plus's own list of unacceptable ads, under "Pre-roll video ads": https://adblockplus.org/acceptable-ads#not-acceptable-ad

Have they given up on the guise that this is anything other than a money-grabbing extortion scheme?
I'm not involved in FF development, but I find it exceedingly unlikely that this will keep working for much longer than a few releases after 57. The whole purpose of all of this is to rip out all the XUL baggage to decrease maintenance cost and make it easier for the developers to focus on actual features and fixing bugs that actual people encounter (as opposed to keeping legacy code paths working where no one has a clue if they are even used anymore).