skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> If we have a computer program that is able to design better hardware, it can be improved by simply moving it to better hardware.

Could you please elaborate? What is it about "better hardware" that makes software that runs on it "better"? Can you define "better"?
The other important finding is the "negative externality" of laptop use on other people that are not using it. Even if someone is taking notes on paper and the student next to him/her is using a computer, research has found negative impacts on both the student using the laptop and the student using paper (akin to second-hand smoke).

I think that this is important from a policy prospective because students can make whatever choices for themselves, but the instructor should step in when those choices are impacting others' learning.
But optimize this by not running too close to c (or is it the contrary ? My restrained relativity courses are rusty)
Scheduler threads use async IO internally, they context switch to another process while the first one is blocked waiting for the IO to complete. When async is not possible, they dispatch operations to a thread pool.
Show HN: Generate keywords using tf-idf in 100 lines of JavaScript
Paid white paper "brought to you by Intel". I write these things all the time and they're seldom if ever neutrally informative.
My question to any lawyers or legal experts in the room.

Would the opposite be true? If my phone isn't at the location of the crime, can I argue that I also wasn't there?

Therefore a criminal just needs to leave his/her cell phone at home and present the location data as evidence.
a kid asked me a similar question years ago - when you delete a file from the computer, where does it go?
Well, at 37.7 MJ/kg energy content in fat and E=mc², 4.2 micrograms of the mass of that 10 kg does disappear.
> The right tend to be net debtholders, not net debtors

Do you have a source for this?
He's proposing UBI but with a better name. But, before we go with that approach, let's just create wealth out of thin air. It really is possible. Just take all the land in CA that is locked up and undevelop-able and give it to the people. Those people can then sell it to developers and earn a huge amount of money. Now, I know, the way I've laid it out, has a lot of problems to overcome: mostly logistical and political. but the core idea of using unused land is quite sound, here in CA, where we deny ourselves the use of land. Most of the cost of housing is due to the cost of land, which need not be expensive in rural areas where unused land is found in every direction you look.
Related question: If the Bitcoin bubble bursts, will capital exit the cryptocurrency space, taking other currencies down with it (my hunch) or will another coin, ETH or Litecoin (or another), replace it?
In Porto cellars we visited a few years ago, the hosts explained that all grapes come from the Duoro River Valley in these cellars (technically not in Porto city proper, but Villa Nova de Gaia on the south bank of the river). And Porto (the product) is manufactured only there. I understood that they do not batch it per vineyards.

Are there any distinguishing signs on the labels that show the particular grape source?
The evidence does not support your view (at least in the UK). http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/CP217.pdf Even if it did, there are other policies like Basic Income that solve some of these problems in a sensible way.
No matter what you think of basic income, this study is clealy absurd.
Or a fine case for a hackintosh. As an owner of a intel version of that case, its remarkable how heavy and durable it is.

g5 upgrade guide.

https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/the-best-g5-mod-so-far.23...

there is a whole forum.
https://www.tonymacx86.com/forums/powermac-g5.139/
How does what happened in Vegas happen with Machetes?
So net debtors benefit if there is inflation before they have to make payments. The more inflation there is before you make payments, the greater the benefit to the debtor. As inflation naturally occurs over time, this benefit is less pronounced for debt where the principal repayments are amortized - the most common type of debt regular Americans have (e.g. car loans and mortgages). The US has averaged about 2% inflation over the past 10 years which is not very substantial.

On the contrary, central banks buy financial assets with the money they print from QE. This directly benefits investors who hold those assets as the central bank buying increases the prices of those assets.
Debt. The money comes from debt.
Doesn't it depend on the crime? Someone breaking in and stealing my television to sell for drug money isn't envious of my TV; he just needs to get high. Someone engaged in a hit-and-run isn't envious of my car, they just can't afford car insurance and know that if they stick around they're very likely going to lose their license, car, and the ability to get to work.

Sure, some crime is due to just people being too lazy to get a job, but it's not a universal cause.
> From this equation you could erroneously deduce that...

Please elaborate. My basic arithmetic is apparently erroneous.
Many of these arguments fail in one little detail: You don't need to even understand how intelligence works to improve an AI.

Almost by definition, a human level AGI is automatically super intelligent.

Robert Miles explains it very well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP4ZNUHdwp8
Good article, although I'm a bit surprised at the difficulty the author proposes for rolling back the log bug. Why not simply serve 500s to 95% of your clients? That way, you get logs sent to you gradually.
Wouldn't the most logical thing be for people to reinvest their BI in the illegal drug trade? It's not like there isn't precedent for that kind of thing happening elsewhere:

"And some projects aimed at reducing poaching by alleviating poverty have backfired, said Duffy. For example, one program in Ghana was intended to decrease poaching by paying a premium on crops, on the theory that hunter-poachers would focus instead on farming. They did for a period, but then used the money they’d earned to buy more sophisticated weapons that they used to shoot more lucrative species [1]."

Beyond that, everyone seems to ignore the inflationary nature of BI. What will happen to the economy in real, not nominal, terms?

[1] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/22/zambia-poach...
I lived in San Leandro and earned less/saved the same or more as the other guy. Two bedroom apartment for $1600, 45 minutes to an hour commute into the city for work. Definitely not a place I'd send my kids to school though.

You might have luck on the other side of the bay (Alameda is where I'd live if I ever went back) or far enough south out of the city. But no matter what cost of living will be higher than it should be.
There is no additional labor involved in shipping a package in 1 day vs 7 days. It's just that the stores that take 7 days to ship operate Perpetually behind schedule. To get products out in 1 day, you need enough slack to handle the times when things get busy so you don't get behind. There is no inherent need to abuse employees to do that.

I have an online store and we always ship within a few hours of receiving the order. It's not hard at all. After it's shipped, it's up to the carrier anyway.
we had both. girls/boys did both home-ec and metal shop. we had wood shop too, and I do believe I took it, but the year before it was closed down because a teacher lost a finger (on a bandsaw, I think).
How would offshore tax structures help them, considering they're making losses at the moment?
Sequence Modeling with CTC
I really like Ecto for several reasons, but mostly because it makes every database call super obvious. If you Repo.something(), you're probably hitting the database.

A couple other reasons I like it:
1. It's makes shooting yourself in the foot with N+1 queries really difficult.
2. It's not married to Phoenix. I haven't tried this in a while and maybe this isn't representative of the current state of things, but last time I tried to use AR in a non-Rails project, I ended up switching to Sequel gem.

For a nice, if not slightly biased, comparison of AR and Ecto, I recommend Darin Wilson's talk "Thinking in Ecto"[0].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQxopjai0CU
I was wondering what "RT America" was -- i.e. the video in the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
"RT (formerly Russia Today) is a Russian international television network funded by the Russian government."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE
"The whole statement is also wrong. Of course you can increase intelligence by optimizing the process of learning."

One of the author's main points is that "intelligence" in the way you mentioned, learning and optimization, is simply one aspect of the human mind. So we could optimize our minds (or an AI program) to beat anyone at the game of Go and play perfectly, but that's all it is optimized to do. It can understand "the given problem" but there is FAR MORE to our minds than optimizing and learning how to solve a task.

Proponents of "build a general AI system that will surpass humans at everything" don't seem to understand this.
I have lost the same amount from about the same weight in the past eight weeks or so, and will have no trouble continuing. The key (for me at least) is to eat a big lunch (around 1000 calories) of whatever you like (today I had burger and fries) and then have a couple of small snacks to a total of 200-300 calories in the evening (I'm eating a Muller corner yoghurt right now). The problem with most diets is that they starve you throughout the day, when the actual problem is habitual snacking. With this method, the most you have to wait is until the next day, when you can eat whatever you like again for lunch. Originally I intended to have a cheat day every 10 days, but I've barely needed them.
Part of the problem with trying to formalize this argument is that intelligence is woefully underdefinined. There are plenty of initially reasonable sounding definitions that don't necessarily lead to the ability to improve the state of the art w.r.t. 'better' intelligence.

For instance much of modern machine learning produces things that from a black box perspective are indistinguishable from an intelligent agent, however it'd be absurd to task Alpha-go to develop a better go playing bot.

There are plenty of scenarios that result in a non-intelligence explosion, i.e. the difficulty in creating the next generation increases faster than the gains in intelligence. Different components of intelligence are mutually incompatible: speed and quality are prototypical examples. There are points where assumptions must be made and backtracking is very costly. The space of different intelligences is non-concave and has many non-linearity, exploring it and communicating the results starts to hit the limits of speed of light.

I'm sure there are other potential limitations, they aren't hard to come up with.
This is really interesting. Does anyone know how they (likely) fixed it? Perhaps by disallowing existing image IDs in new poll postings?
The article claims that 200 grams/day lost as carbon in CO2 is typical. (The oxygen comes from breathing in, so doesn't count for anything.) That implies that the amount lost in eight hours of sleep is somewhat less than 67 grams.
So, WDYT, 6-core at lower clock speeds than current state-of-the-art 4-core mobile offerings?

That seems to be the trend, more cores, lower clock speeds. 3ghz base with 4ghz turbo would be nice, though not sure if thermal issues will prevent sustained max clock speeds in a 6-core mobile chip.
Oddly, I've found that I pay better attention if I use a laptop during a meeting, but not for taking notes. Rather I will either lightly browse related information, or look for the answer to a question that pops in my mind. It can't be intense usage, but just simple. It seems to keep my mind more alert and I'm able to absorb the meeting better. I also can tune out if they are talking about something I already know. If I don't have a laptop or phone, I tend to zone out or fall asleep.

On the other hand, I get pissed if someone is in my meeting using a laptop and isn't paying attention at all. It's a weird thing.
This idea is basically UBI couched in capitalist terms. If every American gets a share of GDP, and GDP is concentrated, then that means that either 1) the share of GDP that each person gets is tiny and inconsequential (see: GOP-style tax cuts) or else 2) you need progressive taxation.

Another difference, aside from wording/marketing, is that the UBI is implemented as a progressive redistribution of future wealth generation as opposed to a tax on existing wealth ("as the economy grows...")
Considering how Vietnam and more recently Iraq happened I'm not too convinced of the US government making the right choice.
Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. 'Member when The Guardian was one of the outlets boldly reporting the Snowden and Manning leaks? I member.

Right now on their front page I can read how democracy is being undermined "by not distinguishing between fact and opinion". And you know what? They're right on this front. But they categorically refuse to point the fingers at all guilty parties, and instead stick to the targets that are politically opportune and which they are ideologically opposed to.

e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, an effect that was presumably related to the millions her campaign pumped into Correct The Record, and which had a _huge_ effect in creating and calcifying the "right wing hate subreddits" they now hysterically complain about.

e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). But when Russia is said to be _attempting_ this, it is presented as akin to cybernetic warfare. Well in that case, America has been fighting WW3 under our noses, and they are equally reprehensible for doing so. Otherwise, this is simply how the game is being played, and all is fair in love and war. Which one is it? Because "muh russia" isn't a consistent stance on this. The response appears to be for suspiciously many people to start posting complaints about "whataboutism", in a spontaneous attempt at misdirection away from the hypocrisy. How curious.
Uhh, yeah, that's actually exactly what it proves. If they have "plans and contingencies" for it then -- by that very fact -- it's been considered!

And if you want to get pedantic, they most definitely don't have them for "nearly every imaginable scenario". The military would be overrun with simply coming up with plans and contingencies. They'd literally have to have infinite plans and contingencies to cover every imaginable scenario.
This article draws some false parallels.

1. He argues that intelligence is situational, but doesn't address clones. What happens if AI can clone Einstein, with all of his situational knowledge? What if AI can clone Einstein and all of his colleagues, 1M times, creating 1M parallel Princetons?

Similarly, he says most of our intelligence is in our civilization, but what's to stop us from cloning big chunks of our civilizations... simulating them, but using vastly less power/resources for each simulation? Then writing software to have them pass knowledge among the civilizations? We have just a few hundred countries, what if we had a trillion communicating at the speed of computer circuitry?

And he says an individual brain cannot recursively improve itself... so again, what about a group of brains, set up in a simulated world where they don't even know we exist?

2. He cites the growth in numbers of computer programmers as a reason not to fear an explosion of AI computer programmers. His argument goes "we have a lot more recently, yet it has not caused exponential changes in software."

But there is a difference between going from 0->1M programmers, to 1M->100T programmers.

3) He writes that recursively self-improving systems exist and haven't destroyed us (military, science), but many people believe these things will in fact destroy us, before we get off this rock.

The overall flaw is thinking we can interpret the AI-assisted future, given the context of current society's linear achievements. When in fact exponential effects look linear in small timeframes, and we have only been really thinking and expanding science for a few thousand years.

If someone wants to present an argument against the AI explosion, I'd believe it if it were premised in some sort of physical bottleneck... like how much energy it would take to run a human-level AI. I don't think I can ever accept a philosophical argument like this one.

All that said, I think we're far away from being able to engineer AIs that will outthink our civilization and take us over. Better to worry about other exponential or non-differentiable terrors like runaway greenhouse effects and military buildup.
>Why should technology continue to feed you though?

I think this comes from current thinking based on past history where we were more resource constrained, embodied by this:

"In the rest of society, however, we often both try to hire people who seem to show off the highest related abilities, and we let those most prestigious people have a lot of discretion in how the job is structured. For example, we let the most prestigious doctors tell us how medicine should be run, the most prestigious lawyers tells us how law should be run, the most prestigious finance professionals tell us how the financial system should work, and the most prestigious academics tell us how to run schools and research."[0]

Where as a more technological perspective might recognize how thinking purely along the current "dollars and cents" prestige lines, and might come to realize that by seeking to sustain every human to some increasing degree, will then "free" the marginal human to help maximize along some dimension that isn't necessarily the "dollar and cents" direction (think for every high/college/grad school drop out now making ~6 figures writing software, that could be if afforded a similar style of living/degree of autonomy in life as they do today, might choose to pursue something more likely to enhance technological development[well who knows, maybe I am just speaking for myself], or those who were born into a situation where everyday was a arduous to feed themselves who then will be "free" to spend more of this time to anything but relative foraging for sustinence). This can perhaps be embodied as a solution by recognizing this:

"This can go very wrong! Imagine that we wanted research progress, and that we let the most prestigious researchers pick research topics and methods. To show off their abilities, they may pick topics and methods that most reduce the noise in estimating abilities. For example, they may pick mathematical methods, and topics that are well suited to such methods. And many of them may crowd around the same few topics, like runners at a race. These choices would succeed in helping the most able researchers to show that they are in fact the most able. But the actual research that results might not be very useful at producing research progress."[0]

[0] http://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/06/beware-prestige-based-...
Net neutrality wasn't all it was cracked up to be
>is the US government going to pay a dividend?

First, the US government would have to turn a profit...
If there is risk involved, then there are quite a few people guaranteed to lost - and worst off then those warehouse workers. Otherwise it would not be risk, right? Are you even sure that expected payoff is worth it in agreggate? (E.g. if we don't end up with much worst overall economic situation if people would follow your advice)

You talk about "taking risk" is if it would be solution to social problems. It is not.
> you want to take a risk and make something and sell it to get higher income

no, almost nobody does that. People who work in an Amazon warehouse have no option to take a risk to make something, they are selling their labor because it is the only way to feed themselves. Almost nobody has the ability to "take a risk and make something". Your comment shows a complete ignorance of how the vast majority of people experience the world. The vast, vast majority of people in the world do not control the means of production or have the ability to do so, they sell their labor because they have no other choice.

This attitude, that everyone being exploited is doing so because they made a choice is endemic to our industry and it is the literally reason that our industry is increasingly seen negatively by those outside of our industry. People who work in Amazon warehouses did not one day decide or not decide to take a risk: the vast majority of them are working any job they can get to avoid going hungry.

If you make something and sell it, you are in control of the means of production; you are not selling your labor, you are selling a product. People who work in an Amazon warehouse are not selling a product, they are selling their labor. The vast, vast majority of people on Earth sell their labor.

you are defending inhumane working conditions. You are defending subjugation in the name of business interest.

This attitude and people like you make me sick of the software industry. I am disgusted by how common the attitude of utter indifference is in our industry.
Basic Coin Guide for Hay Day
HN wants me to stop posting, so this will be the last one. You two know how to find me elsewhere.

What I should have written is: "you will not fall victim to memory unsafety unless there is a bug in the language or in the standard library, or you explicitly opt out of safety". Using `unsafe` in C# is opting out of its safety guarantees (and requires the `/unsafe` flag); I'm pretty sure none of the C# team would say "guaranteed memory safety" of unsafe C#. I expect the same is true of Java, and have no clue about Python.

To the extent that we are talking about unsafe C#, I think you are right; it's mostly the same as Rust. But, no one would claim that unsafe C# has "guaranteed memory safety" where the guarantee is "as long as your code and all the code you bring in don't have memory safety bugs". At least, I hope not.

My original point was just meant to be that there is the risk of harm when you try and quantify a language as "more safe" because there are fewer regions where unsafe operations are permitted. People might read "guaranteed memory safety" and misunderstand what it means, as evidenced by me not actually knowing what it means.
Right, at the very least, it's hard to improve a community when most of that community's members are working 60+ hour weeks just to provide for basic necessities.

Most companies don't have incentives to care about the communities their employees are from, or the skills to help. It's not deemed productive or efficient in current corporate interests to use corporate wealth to ensure their employees have healthy home lives in healthy communities. (Shareholders, C-Suite, board members most companies certainly care enough about their home lives/communities right now, but outside of the investor class there's very little financial empathy and little incentive to have empathy because that stuff doesn't necessarily show up on a quarterly report.)
Show HN: Fast convolution algorithms with Python types
Some Sam's clubs are just as nice as Costcos. It really depends on the market it is in. It just seems that Costcos minimum standard is higher. Because there is variation in Costco quality as well... But Costco is more likely to only locate in the more upmarket locations.