skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> The intelligence of a human is specialized in the problem of being human.

And then you have people able to express and derive complex theoretical relationships by manipulating mathematical symbols, or automate processes by programming machines, or capable of utilizing their spatial visualization to massively boost their memory. We invented that stuff. We know artificial intelligence is capable of inventing stuff because we are.

The author seems hilariously unaware of the fact that humans can learn to solve/optimize many arbitrary problems. Like, holy shit, have you ever played video games?

> In practice, geniuses with exceptional cognitive abilities usually live overwhelmingly banal lives, and very few of them accomplish anything of note. Of the people who have attempted to take over the world, hardly any seem to have had an exceptional intelligence.

The author conflates intelligence and purpose. Being smart doesn't imply the motivation to accomplish grand things. In fact, we're biologically hardwired to enjoy entirely mundane things: food, sex, love, relaxation, conversation.

> A single human brain, on its own, is not capable of designing a greater intelligence than itself. (...) Will the superhuman AIs of the future, developed collectively over centuries, have the capability to develop AI greater than themselves? No, no more than any of us can.

Human brains don't scale vertically (or otherwise). Meanwhile, once you have a satisfactory facial recognition algorithm, you can run it to recognize faces in a video at 1000x realtime speed, or in 1000 simultaneous realtime streams. The AI doesn't even have to be smarter than human! 1000 dumb humans communicating at gigabit speeds and solving problems while you're wondering what to have for lunch is a force to be reckoned with.
The mass that's converted to energy in both chemical and nuclear reactions comes from differences in bond energies. Nuclear chemistry is about the bonds between subatomic particles, ordinary chemistry is about the bonds between atoms.

Mass-energy conversion isn't a special thing, it's universal. All energy has mass. When energy moves, mass moves, always.
> when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way

You are, of course, correct. Why? Because the investment usually needs some form of capital outlay and folk don't have the capital nor have reasonable access to capital. And UBI, assuming it's at a non-trivial level, will not solve the former problem but most definitely will the latter.

Again, imagine what happens when you give a lot of poor folk access to a regular, guaranteed, future income stream. Overnight, you've pretty much taken all the default risk out of the payday loan business. Let's assume the first call is from a septic tank company. You can have that $15k tank installed next week! What's the monthly payment on that going to be? And what if it's not the sanitation company who calls. What if it's a white goods company or an AC company or an auto financer?

And note, I'm not arguing that poor people make poor financial decisions. Some do, some don't. Like rich folk. But these are all things that would genuinely make their lives better. And, they are very likely to get offered them. At a "reasonable" interest rate.

So there's no solution? I don't know. I do know that it can be substantially better than it is today without diving into the unknown. It's not as if no welfare state models have been attempted to varying degrees of success (for varying definitions of success).

But that's really the point. If you want to "fix" poverty, the problem isn't the distribution model, it's actually having people want to fix poverty.
I've got a first-gen Intel Mac Pro. My first real computer splurge, August 2006 right when they came out. Currently with 9GB of RAM and the twin 2.6ghz processors it came with. The computer and the Dell 2407WFP still work great to this day. I did, however, buy a new 5k iMac last March because the Mac Pro was simply getting too slow to edit the 20MP photos coming out of my pocket camera.
On the other hand, China's implementation of socialism has taken it from a third world country to the most powerful nation in the world in a little under 40 years.
Nah. I understand how this all works. I am a bit naive and hope that someday we will find a way to make everyone happy :-)
A single person capturing a few ten-thousandths of a percent in a country of over three hundred million people seems like a pretty large sliver to me, relatively speaking.
Not quite the same but I would really be interested in witnessing an atmospheric nuclear explosion. Why? Simply to get an idea of the actual scale because I think that is something that is impossible to grasp without actually experiencing it in person.
Those interested in these topics may want to research Robert Shiller's idea of a GDP-indexed "bond", which in some ways is more like equity.
Why Abandoning Net Neutrality in the U.S. Matters in Canada
SketchUp might be the closest thing to what you're looking for.
Just an aside: Someone could make this a neovim, emacs/spacemacs, or sublime plugin in a heartbeat. It's easy to encrypt the traffic (although key-sharing is harder).

Collaborative editing is "solved" enough now that it's essentially a library to include, not an open engineering task.
This is very different from socialism you're referring to. It's just an increase in the amount of money that goes to welfare. A minor parametric change branded as something new.
No sorry, this was probably 10 years ago and in German.
Free press is the wrong term to use here. Gawker was a corporation that was fragrantly skirting the law. If they were only in business because they targeted people who didn't have the funds to sue them then they're better off gone.
It's brutal with respect to the "new spirit of capitalism" image that the tech industry represents
Similarly, when a tree grows, where does most of the mass come from?

a) the soil

b) water

c) the air

d) other
could help juice the birth rate.

more kids = more shares
Guilty as charged lol
> We can not simply look in our brains/minds and read our source code, nor easily tweak it to see what would happen without great risks to our lives. A computer could.

That is not a given. The neural network type of AI, which is so far the most promising avenue, is about as opaque as a human brain. It is far from obvious that even a superintelligent AI could understand what its own brain does, let alone modify it in a way that has positive implications for itself.

Hell, it's not even a given the AI could read its "source code" either. We often say we shouldn't anthropomorphize AI, but we shouldn't how-current-computers-work-ize it either. Future AI might not actually run on computers that have a CPU, a GPU and RAM that can be read freely. The ability to read or copy source code isn't cost-less, and several considerations may lead AI hardware designers to axe it. One consideration would be leveraging analog processes, which might be orders of magnitude more efficient than digital ones, at the cost of exactness and reproducibility. Another would be to make circuits denser by removing the clock and all global communication architecture, meaning that artificial neurons would only be connected to each other, and there would be no way to read their state externally without a physical probe.
Ok, that’s certainly a reasonably cautious stance, although st this point I wonder if that can be Bitcoin.
I don't consider selling products to people to be a crime.
Show HN: Scraping recipes to get live radio metadata
It's fine for the free press. Free press shouldn't be outing people or thumbing their nose at revenge porn victims while ignoring court orders. They got used to being untouchable millionaires since they could just bury anyone in legal fees.

> The sad take-away from Hogan v Gawker isn't that a millionaire can spend money on a whim to exert justice where he so desires, it's that you need that level of money to seek justice in the first place.

I stole that from somewhere and had it saved as it sums up my thoughts better than I can write. If I had a legit civil lawsuit against a large misbehaving company you bet your last dollar I'd love to have a Thiel in my corner funding it. I see absolutely zero moral problem with that. If there is a moral problem or anything needs fixing - perhaps fix the court system that enables constant perversion of justice unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to throw at attorney fees for even midrange lawsuits.
This is the problem with modern media IMO, each side presents their own side to their viewers in a logical matter-of-fact way (almost dismissively, though, of finer details) but only picks the most egregiously bad logic / moral failings of the other side to show to their supporters. So each side thinks the other is crazy because they only see the ~1-5% of the other side that gets paraded around for their idiocy. Even which pieces each side chooses to cover are completely different: it's almost like they're not even reporting on events occurring simultaneously much of the time.

I only trust a very small number of publishers these days, such as the Atlantic and the Economist. Everything else is some sort of curated echo chamber
That quote is deceptive. An hour's jogging will burn at least 500 calories even for quite small people going quite slow, perhaps 700-800 for larger or faster ones. That would be a massive muffin and significantly more than 20% of an average calorie consumption.
Portfolio only buy a small amount of shares which have low return. Try buy some from Stash which offers a basic way to invest in stocks. You certainly are welcome to invest in the high risk portfolio, but it's so risky you are likely to lose over time if one of them crashes.

If my ideas are strange, no one lives in a house. We'd all be living on the street, because why would anyone bother to buy a house and rent to people? Look at New Zealand which recently bans foreigner investing in new properties, because they are rising property price, knowing people need a place to live. Why does university have campus housing? Because university can make income.

The point is, a land is worth more than a stock. Your mortgage market can fail, but the potential sell of a land is guarantee to be high after the crash. Don't buy a house if you cannot afford it yet.

Older generation knows how to make money, yet, new generations like so many here are clueless.
Did bill gates build Microsoft? He had a larger part than probably anyone, but he wouldn't even be remembered if he ran it on his own. The reason people think it's something to be solved is because for some reason our society attaches all the reasons for success, and the associated benefits, to a handful of people for enterprises that are a group endeavor
> So if I was unlucky enough to be near a couple of the robbery locations, I might be swept up in the dragnet based on my phone location. Even if 6 of 8 robbery locations my phone was clearly elsewhere the police may still try to make a case that I only participated in two of the robberies.

I don't think you are reading this right. This wasn't some random person who happened to be in the same place as the robberies. I believe one of the robbers testified that he was their ringleader.

I feel like the cellphone data needlessly jeopardized the whole operation. A judge would probably have given an actual warrant to search online data for 12 people on the contact list of the robber. But this is the thing: the police in this case were used to getting by without a warrant and so probably didn't think twice about getting all that data (which they should). The question being considered is whether that warrant less search is illegal.

If SCOTUS does overturn this decision, the guy's conviction would be thrown out causing much outrage. I hope they do: the privacy laws are clearly not strong enough.
asthmatic - how did you get it diagnosed after 40 years? just wondering, pure coincidence ?
The event I'm discussing was pretty much all locals and has nothing to do with tourism, but that is completely beside the point. Googling for 'event where guys drive bikes around circular wooden structure' to even see if I could find it online gave me Burning Man, though the second hit - what wiki calls a 'Wall of Death' is correct. Though, then googling for 'Wall of Death' gives me metal concerts. Anyhow, that's a tangent - but one I found amusing!

It absolutely is the duty of the government to clamp down on fraudulent and deceptive behavior. However, I do not see at as the role of the government to clamp down on behavior that two individuals mutually consent to with a shared understanding of the risks involved, so long as that behavior stands a negligible chance of impacting non-consenting individuals. And as mentioned, this could include things like requiring private health insurance of the deal might involve one participant or the other injuring themselves since requiring public healthcare would enter into the realm of impacting non-consenting individuals. Be stupid if you want - society doesn't pay for it though.

Danger itself is not inherently exploitative. If anything, I suspect exploitation may be rarer in dangerous fields than other simply because adrenaline is something many people live for -- and if you don't then you're probably not going to get involved in whatever career path has you careening one handed around wooden structures. That's not something most people could do, even if they wanted to. For example wingsuiting is incredibly dangerous, incredibly fun, and can be incredibly lucrative for the top few through sponsorships and advertisements. But it's obviously not little guys just trying to feed their families; for the most part it's also primarily something only people who are pretty well off can even get started in.
My React todo app is just as important as Microsoft.
As a dev, that was my favorite part of Code Sponsor: being able to see which repos were doing well and on what days impressions/clicks increased.

I could see a correlation between posting to Hacker News and the amount of impressions/clicks for that day.
Slightly off-topic, but I just went on http://www.gazetaprawna.pl/ and was rather turned off by the auto-playing video/audio (that I could not find the source of).
Of course. But nobody is doing hit and runs so they can make a living.
The same way we fight against sexual harassment we can just raise the standard for everyone.
Comcast Hints at Plan for Paid Fast Lanes
CLIget: Download login-protected files from the command line
Video Startup Can’t Outspend YouTube, So It Created New Currency to Pay Creators
Except neoliberals and right-wing libertarians (for most part), as their idiology is based on the belief of an unaltered freedom of choice afaik. The good old myth of pure freedom of choice is not dying anytime soon.
Gawker (apparently) said that Thiel was gay. That's not defamation, it's a fact, so you can't sue.
I encourage you to request support for WebRTC.
> That is very interesting. Is it related to coal? Will the trees today nor form coal because they will be processed by fungi?

No, coal has formed after fungi found how to break down lignin (lignite is usually "young" coal, having generally formed between the disparition and the dinosaurs and modern day, generally speaking the better the coal the older it is as coal is a metamorphic process, so given similar conditions time is the factor for the rock going through the grades), lignin isn't the only organic component even in carboniferous coals, and these coals have lignin-rich and lignin-poor epochs and locations. And peat lands exist today which perform the first "step" of coal formation.

The trees today are unlikely to form coal because that first requires quickly putting the trees in anoxic conditions (e.g. acidic waters or low-permeability soils) over a sufficiently long time that good-sized layers can build up, then shifting those layers way down so they can be converted by heat and pressure over millions of years.

Carboniferous had lots of low-lying forested wetlands and swamps which provided the vegetable matter in anoxic conditions, and the subduction zones of the forming pangea proceeded to shove much of it under (when both happened in the same place), that is why it's the source of so much coal.

But few of our peatlands are in subduction zones, and even if they were it's unlikely we'd give them the time to accumulate and slide down for processing.
You do know that Amazon does that right? Some sellers offer free shipping, but their price reflects the added shipping.

Before you say 'I meant UPS charging one price to one manufacturer, and another to another', then UPS does that too. You can be very certain that UPS charges Amazon much lower shipping fee (due to the bulk business) than an independent seller on Amazon.

Vendors have been charging different fees to different businesses since forever, and we never had a problem mostly because nobody ever finds it more profitable to charge for printing Bible more than printing Sears catalog just because they don't like Bible.
I guess it's nice that they're taking the part of GPLv3 that they like, i.e. not getting sued as easily, while leaving out the parts that they don't like, e.g. making it more difficult to control users by tivoising the hardware.

I suppose it's an improvement, but the GPL is supposed to be no-more-Mr-nice-guy when needed so that things like Intel ME can't happen. The idea was to have so much GPLv3 out there that it would be infeasible or impractical to go against it and try to tivoise the hardware. The GPL vaccination is supposed to provide herd immunity. Instead what happened is that through a subtle anti-copyleft campaign, big tech companies have spread to their employees the fear of touching anything copylefted, making it much easier to subvert our computing to the very core.

I don't like it, and I wish more people stood for proper copyleft. It's about the only effective defensive tool we have for protecting software freedom. Calling for weak licensing sounds nice, oh, the companies will give back source code when they can, we shouldn't be too mean to them and burden the poor tech giants with our evil licenses. No, this hasn't been the case. The tech giants are only nice when convenient for them, and very much not nice in the countless documented ways that they have been so far, as they create this very convenient but dystopian tech society we're fostering.
Indeed. And saving/investing is important! It's not a coincidence that the industrial revolution happened in a country with a secure established rule of law such that people could make investments without worrying about losing them at the whim of a dictator.

Much better to tax consumption.
I still use my 15 year old Dual-2.5GHz PowerMac G5 every now-and-then, as Adobe Creative Suite still works perfectly fine on it. Best investment ever, especially with the 30" Cinema display.
Really interesting article. I work on Stanford's campus and regularly check the Daily, and occasionally check the Review. Not because I have a problem with their viewpoints, but because they don't have as frequent or regular a publishing schedule. It's doubtful the economics will make it possible for the Review to be larger or to have a print edition. I wonder if Thiel has donated or considered giving a large donation (but one that would be trivial to him) not just out of nostalgia but to strengthen the Review as an institution that influences future Stanfordians?

I skimmed the story (`wc` says it is 5,700+ words). The most interesting thing I picked up on was how Thiel remains in surprisingly frequent contact with the Review staff over the years, even hosting dinners at his home.

According to a former Review editor, “he obviously had zero interest in getting to know us as individuals. He was there to figure out what was going on on the campus.” Another staffer adds:

> the thing which most Review alums are really interested in, not just or specifically Peter, is: they want to know what the issues de jour are, what the average Stanford student is like, and what we are doing to try and ensure that viewpoints that are usually not heard as heard

That's both impressive and...quaint? I mean, it'd be the equivalent of Barack Obama, now done with being President, hosting regular dinners and chats with the Harvard Law Review (he was the first black to lead the publication in its 104-years). Besides engaging conversation and socializing, what does Thiel have to gain from meeting up with students besides maybe being slightly earlier to sense a new political/societal movement (which is something he could get a gauge on in a variety of other ways off campus) .

Assuming his motives are as altruistic and casual as wanting to be a supporter of the Review and future generations, what strikes me is how much risk this social engagement is for Thiel given his public stature. An example of what I mean presents itself in the latter half of the article: an anonymous Review staffer spills the beans about the things Thiel said at a particular 2014 dinner (which was presumably off-the-record).

Thiel is smart enough to know this risk but seems to accept it anyway. If he's that sentimental about the Review, maybe he will make a donation.
In Europe and the US, our religious 'fanaticism" doesn't involve beheadings and bombings.
Would that be bad? ChuckMcM was arguing that BI would allow someone to worry less about where they would sleep and when they would eat. That they use their money to get more money should be good. Your opposition seems to be based on implied immorality of drugs.
Seal yourself in concrete after you die -- for the environment.
Oh of course, I just think people have a tendency to overlook how much of our productivity directly gets consumed.

I'm not strongly tied to the language I used, I just find the comparison interesting.
1) The Guardian doesn't have an 'owner'as such, it is owned by a trust.

2) It did make this deal offshore but it didn't save then tax. Good links above on this
The travesty is that Gawker probably would have gotten away with it based on the fact that Hogan didn't have the resources to pursue a lawsuit. It really has nothing to do with Thiel.
Perhaps that kind of distortion is a good thing. Perhaps the market isn’t an all-seeing all-knowingly omnipotent entity independent of the humans that created and participate in it.

IOW you should explain why “market distortions” are inherently a bad thing.
I agree. Ever since Snowden they have been going to absolute horse shit.

examples: https://somuchguardian.tumblr.com

most recent example: basically calling Taylor swift a white supremacist for being silent on politics https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu...

I can't take them seriously anymore, their editorial board has gone mad
Bill Gates is part of a system that built Microsoft. The system needs to be maintained if it's going to continue to produce outcomes like that.
In some respect these offerings are a lot closer to the technical side of what companies like Clearleap and Ooyala offer companies. The language and offering types match a lot more to what traditional, non-Internet content providers want minus the traditional overhead of long sales cycles, architects, account managers, PSO, etc. But that’s half the value of most enterprise companies anyway to be able to conduct business with large, bureaucratic, non-technical culture organizations anyway.
Is there a reward system for logistic improvements?
The G5 is cool and all, but my fanboy dreams really started with the 8100/110.

601 PowerPC baby.
Why would you name the book "Equal Is Unfair" if you wanted to explore the topic in a deep way?
Pretty standard Guardian opinion piece, well in line with prevailing centre-left views, moderate feminists etc. No idea what is atrocious or poor quality about it

That isn't to say the Graun doesn't do things badly some time but this sort of article is precisely their raison d'etre