skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Magenta AI Jam Session (2016)[video]
Warning: article behind a paywall.
Founder here. That list is a lot of cart before a horse. You could master all those points and still not have a company on your hands.

#1: Solve an important enough pain point that companies or consumers will pay you for it.

Sorry it's not more catchy.
I think you should think of UBI not as "everyone gets $X more" but rather a redistribution of income. The lower half of income earners will in sum receive more than currently while the upper half will have less due to higher taxes.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/mir/+bugs?orderby=-date_last_upda...

Mir on the other hand, looks quite active.
Just cook your own food for a few months and you develop enough knife skills to never look back.

I don't even have fancy knives--ever--I buy the $3 knives from the Asian grocery store. They dull after a few months, and sometimes I sharpen, sometimes I toss.
I always found his type of talk to be pretty...vapid. He basically takes a trend in technology, turns it up to 11 with crazy ideas that his "sources" have "seen", and blasts it EVERYWHERE.

Today it's AR this, AR that, secret company X has AR that will REVOLUTIONIZE EVERYTHING in 6 months then when it passes 6 months it's "oh well they're still working on it. I mean he said FOR SURE a clear or see through iPhone would be announced in 2017. How does that even make any sense? He later claimed they were still working on something like that.

It's essentially a way to be famous for being famous and offering nothing of value to anyone.
Plus the supply chain which also have global value when it's time to acquire parts wherever you are located when the plane breaks down (or just need new parts).
There's around 512 G-type stars in 100 light years radius around us. That's not many.

Milky Way radius is 100 000 light years.

If our galaxy had lots of civilizations that just learned radio in last 100 years - odds are quite high that we wouldn't be able to detect them YET, even if we had the technology to do so.
...and he deleted it, which is very uncharacteristic.

Screenshot: https://twitter.com/minimaxir/status/921265767282221061
Footnotes are supported, an example in Phil blog: https://os.phil-opp.com/multiboot-kernel/

Search for small hack and you can see one
Confessions of an Impostor
Are the references oblique? I don't see them mentioned. Perhaps they have been removed from the article.
Isn't it better to compute now with lower efficiency than waiting millions/billions of years doing nothing?
JavaScript Allonge Six
Mssrs. Barnum, Menken, and Gresham would like a word.
I guess you can think of it that way, but it probably depends on the technology used by the printer at that point. My thought was that for the 3d printer, at least it's one consistent piece with no seams or edges that are later welded together. The welds can have imperfections/weaknesses and need to be inspected. Materials can also have weaknesses and imperfections, either on a batch level or individual area level, and need to be tested/inspected. For a printed piece, I would expect the strength to be generally consistent throughout the piece (of course still might be weaknesses based on design shape, thickness), but of course, you'd still want to inspect it.

PS - totally not an expert on 3d printers or materials or welding
This is a somewhat sensational reading of what this is about.

There are some tests; ie. essay writing where students sit in a big hall for up to 4 hours and write their essay (as shown on the photo).

Here they are allowed (but not required) to write on their own computer but they are of course not allowed to use the internet to get someone external to write their essay for them.

The possibility of control is a measure to prevent that.
Unless I misremember, there was a posted-and-then-deleted message even before OP's, or at least it was reworded.
The paradox itself makes no such assumptions or speculation. It simply says that everything we know indicates that life and presumably technologically advanced life should be everywhere, yet we see it nowhere. There's an absolutely phenomenal article on the Fermi Paradox at WaitButWhy [1]. Your objections are mostly just scratching the surface of the wide array of possible explanations for it.

[1] - https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
This is an extremely touchy subject but something always pops into my head when I read stories like this and I haven't seen it brought up. I'm hoping this doesn't get buried; I really don't have an axe to grind here, but I want to hear how people think about this dynamic. It is something that's hard and not PC to discuss publicly.

Do women react to alcohol differently? It seems like our culture and our legal system treat an inebriated woman differently than an inebriated man when assessing a situation. It seems like if a woman is wasted and making out with a guy "consensually" she is being victimized because she cannot consent when she is drunk. But what if the guy is also inebriated and he cannot consent or decipher consent. I, for example (I'm male), would have to be extremely drunk to PDA like that in a professional setting. Even then it's hard to imagine. What if it's just two really drunk people hooking up? Is it one of those "I know it when I see it" situations? This is fine for me, but it seems like it is only applied with women being the victim and a man being the aggressor. Maybe that is because of the natural sexual dynamic of the onus being on the male to seduce the female. By saying that the woman had no control because she was inebriated, but Scoble did, aren't we denying the woman of her agency? Unless of course Scoble plied her with alcohol/drugs a la Bill Cosby?

To be clear, and this goes without saying, I am NOT condoning Scoble's actions, I really don't know anything about Scoble other than this story but from what it sounds like he has a pattern of transgressions, including a completely inappropriate groping of the author in this story.

I'm also not trying to deflect off of the serious issues at hand here, but the other comment threads are doing a good job of covering those.

But I also don't think I am "victim blaming" either. Unless we grant that women inherently have less agency than men. Now this Scoble situation might have been a black and white case, but it seems to me there is a lot more grey area in these situations than we let on as a culture, and I am just wondering what the "rules" are.
My humble impression is that each and every philosophical hypotesis we make is somewhat based on human paradygms, structures, and super-structures.
Why can’t we accept that we populated this world for the equivalent of a cosmic blink, and we are therefore unequipped to even grasp the existence of other life forms?

I am a fan of Bostrom’s conjecture about the simulation, though. 1/3 is a damn high probability.
At the same time all the examples we make to wrap our heads around these mastodontic concepts are so trivial and so inherently human, that I wonder how can we really take our own musings seriously.
We might be able to escape the boundaries of Earth’s gravity at some point, but will we ever be able to escape the boundaries of our human thought?
Teachers confiscating the [prohibited thing] has been around since... practically forever. I don't know what the fuss is about?
> But that’s the thing, if our galaxy had lots of 20-21st century Earth level civilizations, we would be able to detect them with our existing SETI programmes.

But we couldn't. In general, SETI couldn't even detect such a civilization even if it was in the star system closest to earth:

> If an extraterrestrial civilization has a SETI project similar to our own, could they detect signals from Earth?

> In general, no. Most earthly transmissions are too weak to be found by equipment similar to ours at the distance of even the nearest star. But there are some important exceptions. High-powered radars and the Arecibo broadcast of 1974 (which lasted for only three minutes) could be detected at distances of tens to hundreds of light-years with a setup similar to our best SETI experiments.

The OP is right, in order for their to be a paradox we have to assume that civilizations much more advanced than ours are using a particular type of tech (the kind we're looking for, like radio broadcasts), that their using much stronger signals that we have ever used, and that the time period they used these hypothetical super powerful radio signals happens to be at the right time for us to encounter them. IE, let's say they used them for 2,000 years before moving on to other tech, but the signals only reached earth between 1,548,000-1,546,000 BC, or 450,000-458,000 BC, etc.

People are making a set of very, very specific assumptions based on little evidence. Then they see that the evidence that is available suggests that it's unlikely that every single one of their assumptions is correct, and they respond by calling it a paradox.

[1] https://www.seti.org/faq
Good for them. I hope their longer-term employees who likely traded lower salary for stock options get a nice windfall from this.
The notion in the article is great fodder for a novel, but I think this perspective is sound. You've said almost as much, but I think there's a good argument to be made that societies which undergo an industrial revolution either collapse the ecology that supports them, or survive it by maturing and expending energy on QoL for the whole biosphere. In either case the window of time for making a cosmic racket is fairly small. It could just be that interstellar networking is generally quite rare.

Personally I think the same tendency which makes us so enterprising and leads to thinking up 'paradoxes' like this, is the same thinking that makes us not-so-certain to pass the ecological test.
The article mentions word "set" only in the statement of the problem. And even in that statement it's made clear that the choice of words is intentional, because the underlying data structure is not specified, so it doesn't have to be an array immediately.

Ordered collection != sorted collection, btw. Sorted collections are actually more like sets than like arrays. A data structure that stores the elements in a sorted fashion is actually able to store an unordered collection with naturally defined insertion / deletion operations. (In OCaml, Set data structure is represented as a balanced binary tree, for instance, and it requires an order relation defined for its elements.)
Blade Runner Rule: Public Perception and AI in Marketing and Brand Representation
One can express the states more clearly with a slightly upgraded Option/Optional/Maybe, i.e. a full sum-type/enum. For instance, that function could be, in Rust syntax (but the same thing works in Haskell, OCaml, Swift, ...):

enum ConductorTask {
Nothing,
Waiting(Train),
Driving(Train)
}
fn f(c: Conductor, task: ConductorTask)

I think this says everything that your text says, but in a way the compiler understands and can assist the programmer with.

Alternatively, since isDriving only makes sense when there's a train, t could be Option<(bool, Train)>, i.e. an optional train along with a boolean for if it's being driven or not.
Lol. Yes, you customers of mongodb ! You’re all wrong and duped by pretty pictures! If just you could achieve the enlightenment of munk-a ! Lol. I’ve seen this idiotic response from the very beginning days of mongo (I worked there). Marketing at mongo did little more than maniacally focusing on making sure our customers and users where tied into the community and supremely supported on any issue they might have. But go on - keep predicting imminent failure, your sentiment is shared by a lot of people who have never build a company and frankly never will.
Matta – Material Design Mobile UI Kit
"At one of my first talks on body hacking, one of the creators of VisiCalc sat in the front row and yelled out sexually explicit questions at me while everyone, not just me, grew increasingly uncomfortable."
I don’t hand wave the suicide. It is a horrible thing and all too common in some forgotten areas of the country. The lifetime scarring of a significant number of people is brutal. I dearly wish more attention were paid particularly when someone thinks it’s ok to send a bunch of partially trained individuals to stop a suicide cluster in a high school. I take suicide and the threat of suicide seriously.

If the result is the worst possible one way (suicide and perpetrator walking free) then the other way at least might have resulted in a better outcome. Reading anything beyond that into what I wrote is just plain wrong.
One analogy that might work is the difference between biking and driving drunk. At least here in Holland biking drunk is either not illegal, or tolerated within reasonable limits. Driving drunk, however, is outright illegal.

In general, I'd say men are more like cars and women more like bikes. Whether nature or nurture, in my experience men are clearly more aggressive, and clearly stronger.

They also seem to be more inclined to have and pursue a single obsessive goal (and perhaps especially when that goal is intercourse). But I'd say that's less clear and perhaps untrue.
Not sure I would describe such people as good. Obviously not bad either since they can keep themselves in check otherwise, but goodness shouldn't be a description of you only under normal/advantageous circumstances.
> numpads on a laptop are a terrible idea.

I disagree completely. Having a numpad on a laptop is the only way of getting cursors and function keys (from Home to Insert to Delete) in a sane place. On my current laptop, were it not for a numpad, I'd have to press a Fn key every time I wanted to use Home/End. I'd also need to hunt for Delete somewhere above the Backspace, and PageUp/PageDown being on both sides of Up arrow (and close to it!) is simply infuriating. And it's a Dell Latitude[1], much better in this regard than tons of normal laptops.

I'm not against remapping some keys, but you need the physical keys to be there in the first place to remap to them! Without the numpad, disabling the irritatingly placed PageDown/PageUp keys would leave me without the keys completely.

There are downsides - mainly the fact that it's harder to work with a laptop actually on my lap, ie. it's harder to balance the device when most of the applied weight is on the left side, but I can deal with this with a $20 laptop tray. For additional $10 I can even get a tray with a place for an external mouse, although as I use trackballs exclusively I have little need for it.

[1] https://www.computershopper.com/var/ezwebin_site/storage/ima...
Disregarding how easy it would be to hide stuff in the system to the extent that school staff can't find it I find it hilarious how attractive complexity is.

It used to be pen and paper, maybe a slide rule. You couldn't cheat except by bringing in extra books or papers which were easy to detect.

Then they allowed electric scientific calculators which were checked prior exams. You could theoretically store some meaningful constants in their memory but it wouldn't have been very useful.

Then laptops... what a can of worms! Even making read-only terminals available for students during exams would open up loads of potential holes for cheating. But that's nothing in comparison to private laptops. Even private laptops booting the school's own USB images would be highly untrusted but letting students run their own software and hoping school staff to find any problems by inspecting them is, from the policy viewpoint, just going bananas.

In fact, if I were a non-hacker student I would oppose strongly to the whole idea because I could be certain that at least some of my peers would be using their laptops to hack themselves an advantage over me and most others.
WeWork was way too expensive at any size. We cancelled it quickly. I can't imagine it being a functional solution for any company. Churn will kill that business.
There are highly skilled professional unions in Europe, such as for doctors, pilots or engineers.

Before striking, there's working to rule. The experiment can continue, but the extra hours spent grading papers or doing additional tutorials are not worked.
"It makes sense" in a way yes

In other ways it doesn't (depending on the techniques). Things like metallurgical resistance, defect creation and tolerances
If you set up your browser's default search engine as DuckDuckGo, this works from the location bar (at least in Firefox):

!mdn await

This will perform a query to DuckDuckGo (the non-tracking search engine) first, and automatically redirect to MDN.

No need for extra add-ons; this is one of the standard set of 'bangs' DuckDuckGo provides.
I also liked the message the first few times I’ve seen it.

But then I realized the parenthetical was false 99+ percent of the time (I’ll mostly see it when I’d just finished refreshing my repositories) and it became… irksome, exactly because it was mildly pedantic and technically correct.
Cool plot line for a SF novel. We advance VR so much that we end up meeting another civilization THERE instead of outside.
I would have loved switching to Sway back when I tried it months ago, but what held me back was the clipboard story between X and Wayland apps being either finicky or nonexistent. Has this been solved yet, as in, is there a way to copy-paste between X and Wayland apps?
Personally I don't put that much weight on the drunkenness excuse. I've done many stupid things while drunk but, even while black-out drunk, I've never raped, sexually harassed or even physically assaulted anyone besides a couple self defense instances when I was younger. In my experience asshole drunks are asshole sober people too.
You are simply mistaken. The article you link to filled with speculation concerning "type II" and "type III" civilizations.

If you assume earth-level civilizations as advanced, "where is everyone?" has a simple answer - "I don't know because we couldn't see them anyway". If you assume some other civilization as advanced, you are speculating. That's what speculation means.
Bell’s theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
> each and every philosophical hypotesis we make is somewhat based on human paradygms, structures, and super-structures

Unfortunately, we can't do it any other way, by the very nature of conscious thoughts.

> Why can’t we accept that we populated this world for the equivalent of a cosmic blink, and we are therefore unequipped to even grasp the existence of other life forms?

Why should we? We might be doing a lousy job, but we're doing the best we can.

> At the same time all the examples we make to wrap our heads around these mastodontic concepts are so trivial and so inherently human, that I wonder how can we really take our own musings seriously

It's not like we know of anyone else whose musings we could take more seriously than our own. The known universe, as beautiful and awesome as it is, is also dead.

> will we ever be able to escape the boundaries of our human thought?

If we survive long enough to achieve the ability to re-engineer our minds, I hope so, yes.
That webpage made my Chrome crawled to a halt. Had to use Safari instead.
>Do women react to alcohol differently?

No.

>It seems like our culture and our legal system treat an inebriated woman differently than an inebriated man when assessing a situation. It seems like if a woman is wasted and making out with a guy "consensually" she is being victimized because she cannot consent when she is drunk.

>But what if the guy is also inebriated and he cannot consent or decipher consent.

If the woman is initiating the contact, then it could be argued that she doesn't have consent, either.

>What if it's just two really drunk people hooking up? Is it one of those "I know it when I see it" situations?

In this case, Scoble proceeded to aggressively grope the author in between going after the clearly too-drunk-to-consent woman.

>This is fine for me, but it seems like it is only applied with women being the victim and a man being the aggressor. Maybe that is because of the natural sexual dynamic of the onus being on the male to seduce the female.

I think this is a correct interpretation. I also have trouble thinking of examples of times I've ever seen where a drunk (or sober) woman went out of her way to aggressively pursue a male, drunk or not, consent or not, and anecdotally it's much much much rarer. But in those rare cases, would still not be okay.

>By saying that the woman had no control because she was inebriated, but Scoble did, aren't we denying the woman of her agency? Unless of course Scoble plied her with alcohol/drugs a la Bill Cosby?

Holy shit this is scary. This is perilously close to "she shouldn't have lowered her guard" or "she was basically asking for it" or "it's essentially her fault for getting too drunk to resist." And thus, you're dangerously close to victim-blaming. It's not "denying agency" to factually state that someone could conceivably become so drunk that they are no longer able to willfully consent. "Denying agency" is a dressed up way of accusing the victim for not being strong-willed enough to know what she wants when she gets drunk, instead of recognizing that it's everyone's right (or agency) to enjoy themselves at a party and get inebriated without having to worry that your mental wits and physical fight ability are 100% about you throughout the entire evening, lest an aggressive man approach you and take your slurred protestation as consent.

>Now this Scoble situation might have been a black and white case, but it seems to me there is a lot more grey area in these situations than we let on as a culture, and I am just wondering what the "rules" are.

Is the other person so drunk that a reasonable observer would recognize that consent is extremely unlikely to be truthfully given? Then don't. That's a very easy rule. If your target requires significant enough alcohol to "deny their agency" or "let down their guard" or "consent" with you, then it's not true consent. And it's not a win. It's gross and disappointing and regrettable and predatory and frequently illegal.
There is a related problem on leetcode (Find the median of two sorted arrays):

https://leetcode.com/problems/median-of-two-sorted-arrays/de...
Maybe go working for a software development organization that does something not-just-for-money-&-profit, but instead because of a vision?

Then maybe you can focus on having an impact on other people's lives, rather than appeasing shareholders & hierarchical bosses.

For example: https://www.norrskenfoundation.org/ — I'd like to work there if I didn't have a job already :- )
Vastu Shastra Tips to Build Your House According to Vastu
The blue 'Download F-Droid' button on that page links to https://f-droid.org/FDroid.apk which, at the time of writing, gives an older version.

The 'Download APK' link below it links to https://f-droid.org/repo/org.fdroid.fdroid_1000010.apk which is version 1.0

EDIT: md5 sums below:

4b0cdb5a40fe3f964aebeca276291b80 org.fdroid.fdroid_1000010.apk

943f2edf663737a56f15f55739bcf148 FDroid.apk
With it can I access camera or send SMS through command line?
> it has never prevented me from distinguishing between right and wrong.

You saying that is meaningless.
Yup I agree with mayor of San Antonio. Amazon already knows where it will plant its 2nd HQ. Amaxon is just trying to get extra incentives from the local government.
Indeed, Amazon is too big for Little Rock.
That's a good point. I guess I just feel my computer / phone is an intimate part of my mind.

Maybe I'm over reacting. Probably.
Did this not work for Android? I seem to recall that every Android phone manufacturer shipped their own customized Android with different home screens, navigation, widgets, apps, etc. Did not stop consumers from buying the phones. Even today the number of Android phones released with stock Android each year is laughably low.
If there is no loophole to the speed of light limit and the Heat Death of the Universe is not just a theory I guess most individuals in advanced civilizations will decide to end their lives in some drug (or equivalent) induced nirvana.