skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Human skin cells transformed directly into motor neurons
> The prices are too high these days for "Meh. Why not see this one?"

So much this! I took my kid to see a movie. Two tickets, medium bucket of popcorn, a drink, some sweets: £30 ($40). (If you don't get the food and drink it comes down to about £15). In a 90 seat cinema room there were only 7 people.

I'd go far more often if they could bring the cost down a bit, even if it was only for weird times.
If you read the paper, the photos and labels were sourced from a dating website. In my opinion, there is a good chance that the model may be overfitting to how people wish to present themselves in that context. - e.g. framing of the photo, facial expression etc. Things with a heavy amount of cultural conditioning.

Some of the press around this seems a bit alarmist - I doubt you would see anywhere near this accuracy out in the real world.
If no Bitcoin is being minted and a certain amount is lost every year to burn addresses or mistakes, it stands to reason that at some point the amount Bitcoin in circulation would approach zero. A hacker group could grind the economy to a halt by gaining control of people's wallets and burning money, creating much larger deflation than what is caused by the economy growing.

On the other hand, as far as I understand there is a huge number of inactive coins that no-one knows whether they've been lost or not. If those coins start moving it would effectively create a large inflationary pressure.
> The original parent posited that we have multiple identities, as in: multiple sets of attributes, each of which uniquely identify us within a certain context.

In which case it's just not a refutation of the tautological impossibility at all. Either something uniquely identifies someone, or it does not. Uniquely identifying someone while at the same time being (trivially) being replicated by somebody else is just a contradiction.

> If Alice is the last surviving human being in the universe, it does.

Seriously?

> If Alice isn't the last surviving human being in the universe, than the premise of "is a human" as an identity is already nonsensical (because it no longer identifies), hence also any conclusions you derive from that premise are also nonsensical.

Which is exactly why "was able to tell us the DoB of Alice" as an identity is nonsensical, and hence any conclusion of the form "therefore, Alice's identity was stolen" is nonsensical as well, correct.

> You haven't checked that it's me, you've checked that it is someone who looks like me.

Which contradicts the claim that the verifier does not need a replica of you how exactly?

> Within any given context, that may or may not be treated as my identity. Hence, we're back at multiple identities, each in their own context.

Which still cannot be stolen. So?

> Which says nothing about identity, only about possession. Whether this possession is taken to be sufficient proof of identity again depends on the context.

Which contradicts the claim that the verifier in a context where it is taken to be sufficient proof of identity does not need the private key how exactly?

> Do you believe this hypothetical example to be true? If not, what's your point?

My point is that I am responding to your argument that was about an implication from that hypothetical case.
This was superb. Love the analysis of how to do your job with clarity and panache. E.g.: "Think of your feed as a news brief. Begin with a lede or transition, even if it is very rudimentary. That will make it easy for the anchor to cut and paste. "At Hollywood Regional Conglomerate Memorial Medical Health Center Complex and Ale House, emergency room workers performed battlefield type triage on dozens of injured passengers." Fact, color, quote. Fact, color, quote. Kicker."
Not only that, but saying "rich" is usually shorthand for famous and/or having high social status. The money itself seems to me the least interesting aspect of "making it". Especially in the startup world, what most of us dream of (in my experience), is recognition from our peers, attention, etc, not zeros on a bank statement.
I use linux, and while I use docker-compose for running many services together, I rarely bother with it for other work. It can misbehave pretty badly and making changes can mean long build times, so I still keep a surprising amount of stuff on vagrant setups.
He comes from a country called South Africa. He's literally an African-American. There would be a birth certificate issue.

I suppose he could be president of South Africa.
Sexuality is fluid, non-binary, with most of humanity probably some degree of bisexual. The categorization of one or the other is a cultural superimposition championed by the ancient stupidity of world religions. Let's try not to program our machines with these ludicrous biases please.
The first author of this also developed tools that allow you to analyse all sorts of personality traits (including sexual orientation) via FB likes. He was aware and publicised of the potential consequences and risks here, but I seem to remember thinking his reasons for publishing were justified at the time. As he was part of the psychology department during his PhD, I think his papers will have been extensively scrutinised by ethics boards and the like.

Mini disclaimer: I vaguely knew him from university and didn't get on with him. However, I don't think he was the type of person to put people at risk for personal glory.
What do computer scientists tweet?
Well, don't forget self-selection effects in the population sample. It's highly possible those who are better looking are more confident about posting their profiles openly for analysis. The confounders for studies such as these are multiple and treacherous.
Maybe I misunderstood the model. But i would guess you'd need lots of relevant sites offering to sell access to their content to make it worth a reader signing up.

But for the sites to use your system they'd want to know there are lots of readers signed up so they'll make a reasonable amount of money.
Who Believes in the Storybook Image of the Scientist?
Xebian is an Xfce Debian based system that is much like Xubuntu
Google Webmaster Ad Experience Report Tool
I was just imagining sourcing mugshot sites and then tracking those who were tried and considered guilty of whatever they got the mugshot for to train a good/bad person model.

It's fun, but I'd never dare to make such a dumb thing public.
The bios of those three say they have degrees in mathematical sciences, physics, and algebraic geometry, respectively. None of those are cryptography. On top of that, they're pseudonymous, so we can't even verify these claims.

ZCash has well-known people, employed at places like Johns Hopkins and Berkeley, who specialize in cryptography and have long lists of publications to their names. If anyone is going to be called "sketchy" it should be the people hiding behind pseudonyms.

I don't own ZCash or Monero, so I don't have a dog in this fight except that I get annoyed at the Monero community's strident insistence of their intellectual superiority over ZCash.
How to Create Augmented Reality in Kotlin Using ARCore SDK?
I'm a happy follower of https://legacy-developer.atlassian.com/blog/2016/02/best-way.... Just a plain Git repository in $HOME, no other tools required. This makes it instantly portable to any machine (with git).
Line 210:
> "Gay and heterosexual people were represented in equal numbers."

According to Gallup Polling, around 4% of the American population is homosexual. So, let's be generous and say that their classifier has a 80% accuracy given balanced inputs while humans have 60%.

Let's sample 100 people of the dataset, 50 of which are homosexual (and the rest heterosexual). If the classifier has 80% accuracy (let's assume false_positive_rate = false_negative_balance since I didn't find information about that), it means that 80 people were correctly classified, 10 heterosexuals were misclassified as homosexuals and 10 homosexuals as heterosexuals.

According to the Bayes theorem, "Given a random person, probability of being homosexual assuming that the classifier said so" = "Probability of being homosexual of a random person (the so-called prior)" <times> "Probability of classifier saying it's homosexual, assuming it's indeed homosexual <divided by> "Given a random person, probability of saying it's homosexual".

Substituting, we get: P = 0.04 * 0.8 / 0.5 = 0.064

If instead of the classifier we use human "feeling", we get: P=0.04 * 0.6 / 0.5 = 0.048

In summary, 4% of the people are homosexual. If a human thinks someone is homosexual, the probability "increases" to 4.8%. If on the contrary their algorithm believes it's homosexual, the probability of actually being homosexual increases to 6.4%.

Not very groundbreaking...
Uhh, they absolutely don't. Real Madrid held the record for the costliest summer at €250m-ish IIRC.
Kinda like all the browsers in the IOS App Store.
Polymorphic Clones in Modern C++
Interesting site. It should have another graphic on the final page like what if i had invested the same amount in [google stock¦in a property in ny¦govt bonds¦etc] as comparison.
PDF and formats like EPUB are different use cases.

Definitely without PDF, audiences would not benefit from the very careful editing that has been done, plus other tools associated to fixed-layout renderers, like freehand drawing.

No audience benefits from DRM, but definitely a part of it does from the PDF format.
And in the context of privacy with regard to public surveillance systems with facial recognition capability your point is exactly what?
This is the classic "false positive paradox"[1]. Commonly present in medical testing. Even if false positive rate is very low, if the positive value is very low too, the likelihood of being victim of false can be high.

The exemple in the wikipedia page are very good. I had to explain that to a friend which had tested positive on the HIV test and was waiting for confirmation over the weekend. Not easy to talk math when such things happens.. I found it very troubling that doctors don't even mention that to patient and present tests as 95% effective. (In fact she was fine)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox
The EU tries to do that by banning Member States from giving targeted tax breaks (see the Irish-Apple affair), although with dubious results.
12+ Epic Burning Man 2017 Photos which will teach you about this Craziest Day
Laravel Development Company
I don't know if I can follow. You say that if their classifier had 100% accuracy, then the probability of being homosexual would increase to 8%? That doesn't make much sense.
I'm a bit skeptical of their claim that "Human judges achieved much lower accuracy". The deep net likely found a some feature that correlated with sexuality presumably after looking at many tagged images.

I wonder whether the "judges" had access to that same training set. If they were people off the street that brought in their own biases, I would suspect they would do far worse than if they were able to view the training set themselves and teach themselves what hetero and homosexual people look like. Many heterosexual people have very limited contact with homosexual people. But given a training set (or sufficient contact with homosexual people), they could learn too, and I suspect they could learn better than the machine learning algorithm.

That said, this research is impressive, as well as terrifying and depressing.
The $10 pricing certainly seems extremely unsustainable. I don't get it.
Patent is only the first part of inertia to overcome here. You need insurance companies to agree to refund your alternative. You need to get doctors to prescribe it. You need to get pharmacies to stock it. You need to get patients to want them. Only one of these groups has any incentive to help you.

This is why some countries have enacted laws to help with that.
That is troubling. I always thought of zeromq as having as good Windows support as anything not written exclusively for Windows.
I think this is Google shooting itself in the foot.

TechAltar on YouTube provides a very good explanation of why Samsung (and probably other phone manufacturers) are cautious of Android[1]. This is especially true when Google acts as a hardware phone manufacturer.

The summary of the argument (from memory) is that Google provides Android to hardware phone manufacturers, and it doesn't compete with them in the hardware space. Google owning Moto (and now HTC?), makes Google a direct competitor with hardware phone manufacturers -- which you could argue are its main customers in the phone market. Google can give Moto (HTC?) unfair advantages because it owns/controls Android; even if it's not done maliciously (e.g. having access to Android source before it becomes public).

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_L9j6mDJBg
Talk – a self-hosted Disqus alternative by Mozilla
Look here [1]

Very good explanation (though the op's one are too)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive_paradox
Same, got a different one each time.
There is a tendency for machine learning (including neural networks) to over-fit data - i.e. the algorithm learns to recognise the particular data, rather than the real distinguishing predictors of the groups. As you say, these can be features that are by chance associated with what you are trying to discriminate.

This is why the model is validated on a separate testing group from the training group which created it. There are lots of ways to do this, and the more sophisticated continually iterate training and testing to improve the model.
But sexual orientation is fluid according to the fringe psycho-babble pseudo science crowd.
Oh, i see what you mean. In some distant future when a lot of people are using Datajoy(DJ) to block ads, content creators will (hopefully) want to let in DJ users despite them blocking ads.

The usual solution to a chicken/egg problem is to aggressively solve for one side of the equation and hope the other side is forced to engage. In the case of adblocking, the users of adblockers are actively seeking tools to block ads which means the content creators will be motivated to engage with adblock providers. Does this make sense?
This is what vcsh does, but wrapped up nicely.

https://github.com/RichiH/vcsh
Nginx Unit > G Unit
India just might be getting a Hyperloop
Yeah, and the longer the time between releases the more likely things are to break
Yes, you do need a Google login to view the tool.
So don't keep it in your house. Keep it in a safe deposit box, just like you would keep gold coins or bearer bonds.

Paper wallets are easy to make, and hardware wallets have been available for years.
If you know would show a list of 100 heterosexual man to this neural machine, it would probably qualify a high percentage as gay. Since it was learning on a 50/50 dataset.
This may be derailing the core of the intended discussion, but this is again one of those things which is only available in the US, whereas the rest of the world (at least western Europe) is lagging behind. It really makes me wonder why this kind of innovation isn't available here? I can't even get an unlimited pass to the only cinema I frequent.
My point is more about the rate of change. If computing power continued to increase in the 2010s at the same rate it was increasing from the 1950s through mid 2000s, that 10yo kid would be playing with terabytes of data on his laptop.
Check all the people worried that 'gay' may not be a 'lifestyle choice'.
SparrowHub has got new design
In the tech bubble of the early 2000s, everyone got burned. In 2007-2009, few in tech were burned. Not sure that's relevant.
I check HN 3-4 times an hour. :P
Which personal interpretations?
"How" is easy, you just sign up at an exchange like Coinbase. It's no different than getting set up with Ameritrade.
Are Americans becoming more conservative or liberal (right or left)?
"The ability to destroy a city is insignificant next to the power of a hurricane."
Well Ethereum's in the dropdown so they've got that covered.
It wouldn't take long for a government to replicate the study even if it is not published if it is sufficiently interested
> You seem more interested in scoring

I disagree. Care to back up that personal insult?

> Is there something I could say that would cause you to reconsider your stance?

Same to you.
When backed against the wall I have 101% of brain capacity. Otherwise it's 70% at best. And that's when my ISP is down.
I think you wouldn't get your answer from here. I do not want to disappoint you. Most time, you did something out, you can hardly get feedback, to say nothing of target.

You have to figure out yourself, try and try, stop to think and try again. If you don't know how to do, keep trying.
I bought a dozen coins at $100 a coin. I eventually sold when they reached around $800 per coin. My rationale was that I was far too obsessive about it, I checked the price every day, I read and watched articles and videos and kept up with all the drama. The amount of brain time I was spending on it was just too much. I would have remained a holder if I wasn't obsessive.

The technology and ecosystem is very interesting in many ways, buying into it is probably a good way to kick start your interest -- nothing better than having your money on the line to keep you engaged -- but who knows where it's going to be in 10 years. Which would feel worse: buying Bitcoin now and having coins worth nothing in 10 years, or not buying Bitcoin now and in 10 years looking back and thinking "I had the perfect opportunity and I didn't take it, I'm an idiot!"? I imagine for most people they'd take the risk and buy in (hence the price growth) but for me personally it's too consuming and that's why I'm out.
Necessary link to an article by Blaise Aguera y Arcas, the lead of an ML team at Google: "Physiognomy’s New Clothes" [0]

He gives several examples, and explains how these type of statements are extremely misleading (and dangerous!), and not something new at all...

https://medium.com/@blaisea/physiognomys-new-clothes-f2d4b59...
I have been curious how the community would hold up after Pieter's death. This project is a unique case because of how much work went into building community and welcoming contributions. That said, the world is a different place than in zeromq's heyday. Other commenters refer to Martin leaving the project, C++ regret, and a poor fit with node.js. Maybe in the face of all those changes zeromq's mature community is primarily why it lives as a project.
Massive earthquake off Mexico's coast
Here in the UK, it's available in a couple of the big chains.

http://www.odeon.co.uk/limitless/
https://www.cineworld.co.uk/unlimited
This is a very annoying part of non-explanatory models. I think the result defies common sense a bit, and the model can't explain why this is so.

So in the circumstance, why should we believe it's generalizable?
Outsource Manufacturing Software Development Services in India
É possível ter a conta do WhatsApp hackeada?
Dropping the Android Firewall ? if Google does, would any future partners trust it and collaborate with it ? and without that, many of Google's efforts, including it's moonshot, will have much lower chance of sucsess. Would they risk that ?
I think you're confusing biological sex and sexual orientation. The poster above stated that sexual orientation is based off your DNA. There is no gene that determines whether you heterosexual or gay.

It has nothing to do with gender. You're just trying to proliferate your opinion that gender = biological sex. Anyone that is transgender would disagree with your opinion.
If that were possible, humans could already detect homosexuals. It's likely in those countries that homosexuals do not present themselves the same.
Don't follow your full argument, but I think get the point: the computer is expecting 50/50 hetero and homosexual people, after looking at the training data. However, the human judges likely assumed that the percentage of homosexual people in the study matched that in society, roughly 4%, and would bias their guesses guessing that fewer people were homosexual.

Assuming that's true, no wonder the computer did better. I'd bet it would do far worse dealing with a more representative sample.

Still, even though it's not a perfect study, it's still impressive it can do as well as it did.
This article [0] discusses a paper by Chinese researchers [1] that did just that. (and yes, it is quite dumb/dangerous)

[0] https://medium.com/@blaisea/physiognomys-new-clothes-f2d4b59...
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.04135
But why does "Given a random person, probability of saying it's homosexual" equal 0.5? I'd say that should be 0.04.
> Moviepass is going to sink the cost in the hope that eventually, somehow, they will be able to make up the deficit by taking a profit share from other cinema-related spending.
Secure Private APIs with Client-Certificates and Nginx
It probably matters highly on the use-case, but for us (documentation): Dropbox Paper.

Linking between documents is super easy (as opposed to similar "low tech" solutions like Google Docs, Markdown files, etc), and features are sufficient for our use. Due to its simplicity, I find it one of the most exciting products recently. (Not affiliated whatsoever)
The list looks great! Some form of curation/recommendation (esp in the book section) would help in navigating the huge list
Reversion to the mean? Whatever exceptional attributes or good fortune led to wealth and power dissipated. Now the Rothschilds on the other hand seem to have managed to hold on pretty effectively.
A cancerous tumor or virus is essentially an organically programmed optimization algorithm. I can think of a few things not to like about them.
How is this remotely sustainable ?? I do not see avenues for Add on's which can still make MoviePass profitable !

And the article compares it to Uber , but I highly doubt that Uber is making that heavy of a loss when someone hails a cab ! Infact Uber even takes a cut of each transaction unlike Moviepass . What could i be missing ?
What Vitamin C Looks Like Under a Microscope
This article, in fact, reinforces the idea that chess has more commonly been seen as an intellectual pursuit. The amateur in historical criticism will point out that the existence of this article affirms the popular thing and milieu that it is objecting to, and in fact even says that

"Chess has acquired a high reputation as being a means to discipline the mind, because it requires a strong memory and peculiar powers of combination. It is also generally believed that skill in playing it affords evidence of a superior intellect."

hence we should not take this author's opinion of the general perception of the game in that period.
This is not accurate at all. Microsoft does the same. But every single laptop manufacturer uses Windows.
I tried really hard to follow your explanation, but I can't understand why it has to be so complex.

Why are you using the accuracy as a conditional likelihood?
>That said, this research is impressive, as well as terrifying and depressing.

I know why you say this, but it's only terrifying because there are so many idiots around. All this study says is that there is a strong genetic/developmental component to sexuality - something we've known about for decades.

Telling people they can't be gay is like telling people they can't be tall, or black.
Google has good marketing and brand recognition while HTC makes great products that they can't seem to sell. It could work.
Social characteristics are voluntary. People who are hiding won't adopt them.
According to them it occured through July. That means it probably took them a month to figure out exactly what happened and how to disclose it.
> 2.5 years later

In a scale that big, "2.5 years later" counts as immediate.
Start by calling them, I doubt you'll find support here.