skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Generally a sustained weight loss of 10% is considered to be a good target. It's the around the balance point of "real, tangible benefits" and "can actually be accomplished and maintained".

There are absolutely people who are successful at losing (and maintaining) more than that, but they are a pretty small minority.

I don't have sources in front of me, but this is based on many conversations with my sister-in-law, who is just wrapping up her dietetics internship (after completing her undergrad in nutrition). I'm sure I can get some sources from her later in the day if you would be interested.
> A high-potential human 10,000 years ago would have been raised in a low-complexity environment, likely speaking a single language with fewer than 5,000 words, would never have been taught to read or write, would have been exposed to a limited amount of knowledge and to few cognitive challenges. The situation is a bit better for most contemporary humans, but there is no indication that our environmental opportunities currently outpace our cognitive potential.

More crap. Our environmental opportunities don't outpace our cognitive potential? What internet is the author connected to? The author even goes on in detail in the very next paragraph about the possibilities around...E.g. there are literally thousands, perhaps millions of hours of instructional videos on YouTube, just for basic skills. Every field of human endeavor has uploaded the digital artifacts of its best minds in one form or another to a single global network of unimaginable, fractal, complexity. You don't think you can saturate your cognitive potential in your lifetime given this resource?
> Bill Gates' (to name a random American citizen) has a far larger share in the GDP than most other Americans. If you want to solve that raise your taxes on the rich and lift up those that are at the lowest end of the scale. That will have a lot more effect than some fiction where you get to do a bunch of make-believe bookkeeping.

Or go a step further do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth

That's what all these schemes are really trying to do, albeit in roundabout and inefficient ways. Taxing wealth has it's own complexities (unrealized gains and non-cash assets are the big ones) but it'd be saner than a negative tax (i.e. entitlement) calculated off GDP.
Sure, but Syria would have burnt out before that got started if we hadn't half-assedly propped up the opposition, just enough to ensure they couldn't be defeated but not enough to actually make them win. Year after year. Iraq was really bad and contributed to all this significantly, but in no way did it force us to turn the brief fire in Syria into a years-persisting human misery factory and radicalization engine of a smoldering brush fire as part of a proxy war with Russia.
If you compare Clojure and PHP, it doesn't mean that you think Clojure is like PHP. Germany is just a reference, many countries have rebuilt themselves after disasters.
The intelligence to found and lead a successful startup is not the same intelligence required to distinguish thoughtful, well-considered political opinions.
> As long as people are willing to do this job for this amount of money, it will probably not get better unfortunately.

There is an inherent falsehood to this statement: it reads as if there is no alternative to a laissez faire market. Regulation serves to prevent exactly these situations. Universal limits to how many hours you can force someone to work; regulated standards to how much rest you need to give your workers; rules for how much you must pay them.

Unfortunately regulation has failed to do these things. Pieces like this are helpful to remind us of this and to push our governments to do better.

I don't think if you ask anyone that they like that their products are all made, packed, and shipped using wage slavery. Don't you want a world where we all have a little less thanks to efficiency losses but know that everyone is being treated with a minimum level of decency?
> I think that every adult US citizen should get an annual share of the US GDP.

> I believe that a new social contract like what I’m suggesting here—where we agree to a floor and no ceiling

So like...basic income but with limited downside and unlimited upside all the while ignoring income inequality? And Who decides on the payment based on "social contracts"?
Yes why not. I can't remember the last time something like this was even tried at scale.
A better thing to do would be to campaign the SEC to remove the accredited investor regulation so that we can choose what we want to invest in, instead of forcing us all into this America bucket while the rich and connected get first pick on every opportunity.

I'm tired of sitting back and seeing companies that I liked but couldn't invest in become > 500m market cap successes. If I spent 4 years at one of these companies I could get _common_ stock, but I can't spend 1k to buy some preferred stock.

The whole startup system is rigged. People are going to start realizing it.
> This is what punctuated equilibria look like -- even if the 'new thing' isn't actually a singularity, it may be enormously disruptive and completely displace whatever came before.

Right, and this is a much more plausible claim than one of "singularity".
This dude don't really understand speed of light multiplied by number of chip factories. Its about self improvement at another speed, without human bureaucracy(fetch).
Everybody knows to not run against a car by foot. Its the same. Not really a Doom, but maybe. And for sure not the last tool. Economy will suffer. Kind like having a genius baby that you have "no duties", if it cries too much just cut the power down.
I wonder if you might extrapolate on which libraries, plug-in solutions you missed in Phoenix.
The problem literally is that many people don't have an adequate share of the GDP.

The footnote proposes to tax capital the same as labor.

An interesting thing about Bill Gates is what a tiny sliver of GDP he managed to capture over almost 40 years. Something like $0.1 trillion out of several hundred trillion dollars.
People don't get hacked, though.
American Equity already exists is the US Dollar currency, the problem is that the Government is always issuing new stock certificates thereby diluting the value of stockholders.
'Better' as in achieves more results per unit of time. Which is a fundamental problem for humans too. Many do have the intellectual capacity to invent something like general relativity, but few would be capable of doing so in the very limited timeframe we have available and even fewer actually end up doing that instead of dedicating their thinking time somewhere else. More thinking and more output per timeframe should lead to significant improvements for both human and AI in terms of results, which is generally the meaningful part
>>Gawker, which had covered his political activities negatively and outed him as gay in 2007

I know it's not good for free pres when a billionaire funds whatever lawsuit he can find against you, but outing someone, is really, really sleazy. So I guess they're even. Kinda.
Best Deals You Can Get on Cyber Monday
Also, intelligence includes the ability to identify other bottlenecks and remove them. Of course you can't expect that that a faster conveyor belt, by itself, can yield ever-greater output, but you can expect further improvements if the factory is feeding engineers who are working on ways to further re-design the factory, and they are currently constrained by the factory's output.

The whole reason that some people predict an intelligence explosion is because intelligence is the resource that can find arbitrary ways to self-improve, other than tuning one specific parameter.

I would go so far as to say that intelligence is the same thing as the ability to make improvements that climb out of a local domain of attraction.
Narcissism, eh? That's a new one.

There are probably several hundreds of millions of personnel who will produce more net-worth in their lifetimes than I will in mine (and who therefore have a greater right to their lives than I've to mine; but that's not important right now). Where in this thread have I made a claim about myself that was more extreme than that?
Sellers Beware: PayPal can be your worst nightmare
If the government were to offer PTO for employees below a certain income threshold to learn new work-related skills, would that help lift people out of these situations?

Or would such a system be 1. too invasive and 2. abused, either by companies or the employees.
I'd gladly pay for a publication that wasn't cranking out clickbait, outrage pieces and catering to their advertisers and their need to be associated with only politically correct partners.
This is on countries like the US and the EU to set a world standard on how the employees should be treated. Everyone competes with everyone and make no mistake the wester europe is not some wonderland paradise where even your average joe is treated well. Western Europe makes hefty profits out of abusing Eastern European labour and markets.
> Second, it is absolutely false that improvement is incremental. Consider the game of Go. For a long time, computers sucked at Go. Then we came up with Monte Carlo search about a decade ago and suddenly we were at strong amateur. Then deep learning was applied, and Alpha-Go jumped to able to beat any human in the world, and has continued to improve.

I think you missed his point that this sort of improvement in specific task performance tends to not generalize into improvement at _any_ task. He specifically used AlphaGo as an example of a very narrow specialized problem... i.e, AlphaGo will likely never contribute to solving anything but Go or very closely related tasks.

> Third, linear progress is not the history of technology. The history of technology is exponential progress over and over again on everything from how far a steam ship could travel without refueling to the number of operations per second a CPU can carry out.

Each expansion of which is counterbalanced by many other inefficiencies (maximum speed of steam ship hulls, carrying capacity, heat losses of faster CPUs and timing/latency problems that put limits on signal propagation, etc).

> But on a more relevant level, the task itself is clearly possible. If we have a computer program that is able to design better hardware, it can be improved by simply moving it to better hardware. But it is capable of designing that hardware. This creates a feedback loop which should shorten the cycles in Moore's law, resulting in very few years in a truly superior AI capability.

I think you missed the main argument of the whole article, which was basically that every exponential increase in one measure is rooted in the civilization and circumstances as a whole, and therefore never truly reaches runaway effect. Too many other supporting circumstances are needed for any one change to truly dominate the overall system.
This proposal seems like the equivalent of a failing startup diluting the crap out of its employee pool to raise a gigantic round.
True sustainable, scalable funding for open source will never come from donations. It must be approached as a marketing win for companies. This is the only way they can (and will) scale their funding paving the path for true financial sustainability.
If only he had the right kind of intelligence...

Have you considered the benefits of phrenology lately? It's all the rage in Silicon Valley.

http://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/
For one thing, it allows the branding to focus around Altman’s specific idea instead of the wide variety of UBI ideas. I think it would make a program more defensible if it had a new name, so that the proponents of that program only have that program’s ideas to defend and not the giant flank of every UBI implementation ever proposed, all lumped together by a common name.
But I do trust intermediaries. Intermediaries are fine. And I think it's appropriate that large international transactions should be scrutinised by authorities.
Social Selling Trends
People in your situation before Facebook probably:

1) Socialised with local friends

2) Interacted with remote friends via the telephone

People in your situation before phones probably:

1) Socialised with local friends

2) Interacted with remote friends via the mail/telegram

3) Didn't have that many remote friends due living in an era that provided less opportunities for long-distance travel

People in your situation before telegrams/mail:

1) Socialised with local friends

2) Didn't usually have any remote friends due living in an era that provided less opportunities for long-distance travel and/or communications

I think if you will do some reading you'll discover that life proceeded quite handily prior to the availability of long distance communications and/or travel to the general populace.
Mocking Rest APIs for Unit Tests
Thanks :) (I'm Dutch, and didn't spell check, my apologies)
JeffBarrizer
The Doyenne of DNA Says: Just Chillax with Your Ex
Frankly I guess we have a fundamental disagreement, IMO public works (which is what the original comment was talking about) are best conducted by the public sector, not by John down the street in his spare time. Now, I do agree John will probably make his neighborhood just a nicer place to be if he has time & discretionary income.
Railscasts has been extremely helpful for me (http://railscasts.com/); and now all the content is free!
> For someone who is very badly overweight, cutting calories is still a very good step.

It's more or less the only possible step: unless you have an absolutely freaky metabolism, exercise will not be able to mitigate an unhealthy diet until long-term (through increasing basal metabolism by building up muscle mass), and when significantly overweight it's easy to exercise "wrong" and hurt yourself.
Electricity is not a source of energy so you have to factor in the efficiency of its production.
> Bitflips are real!

And yet some people still claim that they don’t need ECC memory.
That's not true though. Google bought a company whose main product was a Go machine, on the idea that potentially those smart people could do useful work also. Or just as PR cover for their unrelated AI work.
This is like a less thought out version of the carbon fee and dividend plan https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ that has wide ranging support - though not from the people who currently matter.
>do what nobody has the balls to do: tax wealth

Just to clarify, nobody in the US is doing this, but it's not unheard of elsewhere. For example, Norway has a wealth tax of about 0.85% and there are some other examples at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#Current_examples .
Well, he is smart, by whatever metric we judge people today.
Two degrees from Stanford, job at top law firms and, at least lucky in several start ups.

The fact that he is rich means that people will listen to him more.
>urging the Supreme Court to continue to bring Fourth Amendment law into the modern era.

If the Supreme Court can do this, then perhaps it could bring the Second Amendment law into the modern era.
The Flight That Made the Calculator and Changed the World
Note that China was a juggernaut up until a few hundred years ago.

https://infogram.com/share-of-world-gdp-throughout-history-1...
> The whole reason that some people predict an intelligence explosion is because intelligence is the resource that can find arbitrary ways to self-improve, other than tuning one specific parameter.

Yes, exactly. General intelligence is "thinking about thinking", and that inevitably entails removing bottlenecks in creative ways.
We tax real property, which is a form of wealth taxation.
It’s a poor analogy because the original poster didn’t think about professional video such as live sports, music, news, broadcast productions as well as OTT. The metadata and analytics will be served by different solutions and products and this will adhere to certain standards and practices that is alien to solutions like Twitch/YouTube and the like.

Disclaimer: I sell products in the Media Entertainment business for managing video and metadata.
I'm not the person you replied to. I'm in no way threatened by my personal behavior being called out. I'm threatened because I'm lumped into the category of 'men' and then loaded with all the baggage of every man who I have zero connection with have done or said.

Don't get me wrong, I despise those shitty people too, but I also have a bone to pick with the people who are, successfully, generalizing the behavior to men.
Very neat, but SSH already has capabilities built-in to handle this scenario without harming security or increasing complexity.

To add to irq-1's excellent response, another autossh method is to autossh from the device into a remote relay server (ie jumpbox) that forwards the local port back to the local ssh server running on the device, which can now be listening on localhost.

You can try this out in literally ONE COMMAND LINE (below) and automate it quickly without installing any additional software (except perhaps autossh, which is usually in your distribution's repositories).

device (autossh) -> jumpbox <- you

You can also use Userify (https://userify.com) or similar to keep keys synchronized on the device and jumpbox in this scenario. (Userify only needs outbound https.)

Use RemoteForward (-R) on the autossh command line for this. See man page for ssh(1) and especially the RemoteForward section under ssh_config(5) for details.

Example:

# on the device:
$ ssh jumpbox -R 22001:localhost:22

Now you can just log into the jumpbox on port 22001 using SSH's built-in tun support (-w) in your SSH client (or forward your agent by passing -A when logging into the jumpbox, but this could be hijacked by an attacker who'd compromised the jumpbox, so do -w instead.)

That's all. You can automate this with ssh_config, autossh, etc, and also lock down the remote host authorized_keys file and use a restricted shell.
I am against excessive taxation or overregulation but companies like Amazon ...no really any company...should be responsible for treating the society fair. Amazon is a behemoth that grew because of its ruthless behavior towards its competitors.
I am sure there is more to life than constant race to the bottom when your average american has to compete with someone from china or africa.
That's great, but the availability of services accepting bitcoin and the general usage as a payment didn't increase nearly as much as the value did. There is a minor usage, but that doesn't explain the rise in value.
I think this is the only model that makes sense in the end game where robots replace human labor.

Imagine we lived in a world where labor was unimportant because machines did most things better than humans could. These machines would still required time and natural resources (space, energy and matter) to produce goods and services.

For most people, "working" in this world would consist of going online, buying or trading an amount of energy, buying raw materials or spent matter that is ready to be recycled and pressing a "Start" button. Machines would produce some new goods or services.

Some people may also work on designing new better machines that produce finer goods. This would be mostly creative work as the technical part would mostly be automated. The machines could be specialized for maximum efficiency and quality.

People wouldn't have to go out to work. Machine owners could watch webcam feeds of their machines working in an industrial park somewhere. The finished goods, spent matter (trash) and the machines themselves, would be picked up and delivered by self driving delivery robots.

To get some variety, people would trade the production of different machines and they would trade excess spent matter. They would also trade the machine designs and the land or space to host the machines. The machines would sometimes have to be replaced when worn out or obsolete.

Now assume total energy production was constrained globally to a more or less fixed rate based on what could reasonably be captured from the sun. People would own shares in energy production capacity.

There could be a level of inequality in this society. This depends on how much governments would allow ownership of things to be concentrated, especially ownership of energy, useful space and natural resources.

A good way to prevent too high inequality would be for everyone to be shareholders in global production. Every day, shareholder would receive a dividend, an amount of energy/matter to be spent. They could use it in machines to produce stuff or services, trade it or maybe store it in a battery.

This is better than UBI because it aligns production incentives with consumption incentives and make the system naturally sustainable. If people vote for policies that are inefficient and reduce production, they will simply get a smaller dividend. I'm not making a value judgment either. What people collectively want might not always be a larger dividend. But at least the trade-off will be more explicit and sustainable.
I'm one of the original devs of Create and yes, they are the same except for the name/logo.
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.

That's some scary excrement right there. There needs to be a much larger burden or proof than location info. Even if a suspected phone is at 8/8 locations (like the robbers have a way of steeling an someone's phone and putting it back before/after a robbery just to help incriminate someone else). (See the movie Rampage)
I think you're vastly underestimating the difficulty getting people to pay for stuff, especially stuff they can get for free.
Agreed. Especially at the time it was released.
> If we have a computer program that is able to design better hardware, it can be improved by simply moving it to better hardware.

This adds a constraint that the new hardware has to be able to run that program, which is an important source of friction in the design. Especially if you consider the case of neuromorphic AI, true improvements in hardware design may involve changes so extensive and so breaking that it wouldn't be possible for the original AI to function on it. In order to exploit the better hardware capabilities, new AI would therefore have to be trained from zero, which is a potentially expensive operation.

So regardless of which way to go, you encounter significant friction: either you constrain your design to support prior software, which is hard, requires a lot of checks, and is severely suboptimal in the grand scheme of things. Or you don't, in which case you have to wait a while until new AI can be made to exploit the new architecture. It's not as simple as you think.
Right, it's an open question how good it will actually be at achieving the goals people want, like privacy. I don't have a firm reason to believe China will be successful or not. My point was just that there are legitimate reasons to believe Bitcoin will be valuable for non-bubble reasons and will not substantively differ from legit currencies in supporting a valuation.
Facebook blocked posts during Romanian anti-government protests
I guess there used to be one by Google...searching now seems that the API no longer available.
Hardware that has more memory, more processing speed, faster access to memory, and more parallelism is better than hardware without those characteristics.

The exact same software running on better hardware will run faster and can tackle larger problems.

We can't possibly build a human with twice the memory that thinks twice as fast. However once we have an AI which is roughly equivalent to a human, having an AI with twice as much memory that thinks twice as fast is just 2-5 years. (How long depends on where the bottleneck is.)