skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I might have more sympathy for this post if I only knew about it in the abstract and wasn't familiar with specific cases. For example, lately among Bay Area types, and especially the Rationalist community, there's been a surge of interest in eugenics and scientific racism, now euphemistically rebranded as "human biodiversity". It tends to take the form of hand-wringing about how "people from certain regions" have lower IQs and just how dreadful that is.

Just keep in mind that when Valley "thought leaders" complain about the lack of freedom to discuss ideas, those are the kinds of ideas they're talking about.
Why millennials are facing the scariest financial future since Great Depression
So we can engineer a virus that inserts arbitrary DNA into our cells? What are the limitations of that? Sounds like the approach could be used for a lot other useful things.
Just as an FYI the Dreamworks distribution deal wasn't renewed in 2016 so they're 'on their own' as it were. I believe the two companies are still friendly but don't directly have the distribution deal in place any longer.
> [1] I am not worried that letting some people on the internet say things like “gay people are evil” is going to convince any reasonable people that such a statement is true.

Wait, but why not? Isn't this the crux issue of our time? The Russians and the RNC have spouted fake propaganda so loudly that ~40% of the US believe falsehoods already. And the main reason they believe things that aren't true is because they are said 1000x on the internet every day.

I'm not saying we should restrict free speech or anything like that. No way. But how can you ignore the problems of the world? Many people are not 'reasonable' and they do believe false things. That the do so matters, because our collective society is interconnected.

It doesn't matter if no "reasonable people" believe a false or bad statement is true. It matters that they believe it because they have and affect on everything. We all do.

Now we have President Trump because so many educated people thought that "no reasonable person" would vote for him. But here we are.
>Sure they've sold more copies with FCP X but it's not to professionals as far as I can tell

This isn't a problem for Apple.
When a server sends you a response you aren't taking something, you are being given something. If the server thought you shouldn't have it, it wouldn't give it to you.

How can you say that hiQ isn't allowed to have this, but everyone else is allowed to take as much as they like? All that will happen is hiQ will create a string of shell companies that accesses LinkedIn as their proxies, and you will be wasting the court's time. Step zero is to establish that no one can have access unless authorized, and LinkedIn refuses to do this.
My kiddo has been dealing with Type 1 for two years now and I'm endlessly encouraged by developments in this area. She's just switched to a closed loop pump (Medtronic 670), which helps automate her insulin delivery through automated microdoses (think pump on a PID), but it's still a ridiculous pain in the ass. For example, she didn't notice her reservoir was low this morning before she left for school, now she's got an extra stressor in her life that wouldn't be there otherwise.

And despite all of the amazing technological and medical advances over the past 10-20 years, the best insulin therapy in the world is still comically shitty when compared to a healthy pancreas.

Anyway, it could be way worse and I'm grateful for what is available to us today. Still hope for better days ahead.
Security just cleared the room before the vote could happen. I didn’t see that coming. Bomb threat?
Haha, that made me literally laugh out loud!
In what world are these opinions not voiced? I don't think this argument stands up to empirical scrutiny -- there's an incredibly robust network of vocally conservative student organizations.
imo Sam could have been almost anywhere outside of San Francisco (and Berkeley), even still within the SF Bay Area metro, and still have had the same conversation he had in Beijing. Places like SF and Alabama tend to be in the extreme left or right instead of the center. It's hard talking to or even around zealots
I feel like this article is trying to advocate for both "ideas don't matter" and "ideas matter a lot" without adequately distinguishing the cases. There's definitely an attempt at distinction, but I don't get the sense that it really works.

For instance, both "radical life extension is worth working on" and "gay people are evil" are ideas that certain people consider toxic to society - not just ideas they disagree with, but ideas that, if they are considered and debated and experimented with, will result in harm even if they're defeated in the long term. (And yes, the responses to these ideas will be themselves "toxic;" you get rid of toxins by killing them.) What distinguishes one from the other?

The article is clearly advocating for us not just to tolerate "radical life extension is worth working on," but to support an environment where an advocate of that idea can draw other people to that cause without public opposition and can publicly espouse that cause without social judgment. Someone who believes this should be able to be viewed as a great thinker, as someone doing worthwhile research, as someone who's not a "heretic".

But then the article turns around and says, "I am not worried that letting some people on the internet say things like 'gay people are evil' is going to convince any reasonable people that such a statement is true." Why? Plenty of people both on the internet and off say that and do convince people of it. (I was one of the people convinced by this; if you haven't had the experience of growing up in an environment which isn't a cult by any means but enforces religious-cultural orthodoxy, I do strongly recommend talking to such people about how that environment operates and propagates its beliefs if you're going to have opinions about "heresy".) Why should we believe that nobody will be convinced by "gay people are evil" but people will be convinced by "radical life extension is worth working on"?

And what about other ideas like "gay people aren't evil, we love gay people, but they're demon-possessed and conversion therapy will successfully fix them towards heterosexuality, which has been the norm throughout all of human society?" That idea is definitely going to get you a toxic response in SF culture. Should it not?

If we're simply going to judge ideas by whether other people are likely to be convinced by the ideas, and nothing else, we're not going to drive society in a productive direction. We have to be willing to say that certain things are good and certain things are bad. C. S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man is somewhat relevant here (and is a worthwhile read) - either we have our standards, our things we value, or we will let ourselves be ruled by whatever ideas seem defensible, and those ideas will start controlling how we are open to new ideas. Of course this is not to say that we have no problem with discourse, that the way that we approach "this idea is bad actually" or "this idea is good actually" is not broken. But that's very different from saying that all such judgments should be banished.

(Preemptive response: I do realize that the author is gay, and I don't think that invalidates this comment.)
Which they could probably get enforced. Could they prevent you from looking through the window to get prices or just the sale prices being posted in the window?
AAV is the typical vector used for gene therapy.

viruses are useful because they have evolved to insert foreign DNA into host cells. nothing humans can conceivably engineer has come close yet to the ability of viruses to do this

however viruses have also evolved a lot of bad qualities that cause disease. AAV is nice because 1) it is not known to cause disease, 2) only causes a mild immune response (so the body doesnt reject it before it does its work) and 3) is replication defective, so it wont reproduce uncontrollably in your body

all that said, viral vectors are far from perfect. the biggest issue is that you can usually only inject them once. after one injection, the immune system learns to recognize the virus as foreign, and upon subsequent administrations it will kill the virus before it can transfect cells. also, there is some risk that the viral genome can integrate with the host genome in ways that arent ideal.

from what i understand, the liver and the eye are really the only easily targeted specific tissues. the viruses are naturally carried to the liver, and the physiology of the eye enables viruses to get into cells there easily. getting viruses just to the brain, or heart, or pancreas, is much more challenging

aav technology has been around for a while, but there have been many false starts. back in the late 90s there were copmanies delivering genes into the brain with AAVs to treat parkinsons and alzheimers, and the genes got integrated and expressed by the right cells. however, the diseases were too complex for just one gene to cure them. in many ways, the advances in biology are enabling us to find what diseases are "right" for gene therapy, althoguh vector tech has improved as well
Do you actually believe that these points are useful? You're distancing yourself from "agreeing" with them, maybe because you know how wrong they are, but you still seem to be sympathetic to them.

>1) ISPs have almost never tried to throttle by traffic type

They have been shown to do this, have an interest in doing it, and it's illegal to do it. Say you're playing chess, and you consider making a move such that, if they move their rook to h7 it would be mate for you. Is it a reasonable argument in favor of making the move anyway to point out that your opponent "almost never" moves his rook to h7?

>2) business model innovation (e.g. zero rating, etc) can have positive effects

This is difficult to disprove since the statement is incredibly weak. "Can have"??! ISPs have local monopolies everywhere they exist. Business model innovation for monopolies is exclusively going to be about charging people more money for the same service, and protecting your monopoly status. You could argue that this is a positive effect, but not to me, and probably not to this board.

>3) internet access has lots of room for improvement that will require investment, and tying the hands of the providers may prevent that.

They have no incentive to improve it as long as they maintain their monopoly status. People are already being charged as much money as they are willing to pay for their internet access, you can't improve the service and expect to extract more money from them.

In short, none of these points have any merit at all, and if you present them in the future, you should also explain why they don't make any sense.
I use Spectacle on Mac and it works like a breeze. It’s free, but you can donate if you like it.

https://www.spectacleapp.com/
Couldn't agree more, I think blockchain is something special and out of all of them I like Ethereum the most. Yet, I know enough about economics and psychology to forsee a lot of the same issues in today's capital markets inside of future ones too.
I'd personally use Twisted, but I'm biased insofar as I helped develop it. It has both equivalent of Javascript promises (called Deferreds) and ability to interact with them using async/await if you like that idiom more (http://twistedmatrix.com/documents/current/core/howto/defer-...).

But that's just me.

Given limited protocol needs, I suggest skimming docs for asyncio, Twisted, and Tornado and seeing which seems to make the most sense to you. For Twisted HTTP client and server to look at are Treq (https://treq.readthedocs.io/en/release-17.8.0/) and Klein (https://klein.readthedocs.io/en/latest/).
It did not work terribly well for other networks like Gnutella; it just gets flooded with spam and malware attacks. Good engineers and researchers never had the chance to develop solutions to that problem because the copyright industry delegitimized peer-to-peer and pushed everyone to more centralized systems (by abusing the court system).
Is the actual dataset available somewhere?
This distinction seems very fragile. I notice you've switched the act from "working on" in the original quote to "presenting". I don't think your distinction works anymore if you remove that change you made.

Why would it be wrong to regard someone dedicating most of their time to actively accomplishing ("working on") an unethical thing as an unethical person? What else could "unethical person" possibly mean?
That was really strange. What the hell?

Just to make my comment a little bit more useful, here's a clip of the moment when security advised everyone to take a break: https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/941365229841272832
Foxconn hires Andrew Ng to bring AI to their factories
If you leave things out in an open, public space without any access controls, those things are likely to be taken. A note that says "please don't take this" isn't going to change anything and I find it unlikely that you could pursue anyone legally on the grounds of "but I left a note".

LinkedIn has every right to define their use policy through technical means. If they want to make it publicly available, then they understand part of that public is their competitors. In my opinion, website operators should not get any legal protections for things they can easily do themselves through readily available technical means.

I wholeheartedly disagree that LinkedIn has any right to define the use policy for data it makes publicly available. A wide variety of data is available to the public and you can't simply sue people who use that data in a way that you dislike. If you would like to keep that data private then do so.
> The entire point of the post is to separate the ideas from the person presenting them.

But that wasn't the entire point of the post. The post also didn't like people criticizing life-extending research, when the examples were people criticizing the direction of the research itself.

The post was hazy about what, exactly, it wanted people to stop doing, but it seemed to dislike any criticism.

Whether the "life extension is bad for the environment" argument was a good argument or not, criticism of the ethics of work must be part of free discussion.
Yeah that's probably a good idea.
You can jam the honey pots those by getting them to fire tons of mail at non existing addresses. Money for nothing that's the way they screw it.
As someone with many “heretic ideas”, I disagree with this article - people that execute on crazy ideas are thick-skinned. Hard to believe that smart people would actually leave SF because of PC culture (although it is annoying). Even from Altman’s examples, Newton stayed in England and did what he wanted, despite the social norms.

It was also odd to see Altman use China as the bastion of freedom, a place with widespread internet censorship and where things like democracy are considered heretic.
Self congratulations.
But you see," said Roark quietly, "I have, let’s say, sixty years to live. Most of that time will be spent working. I’ve chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I’m only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards—and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one.

---

Listen to what is being preached today. Look at everyone around us. You've wondered why they suffer, why they seek happiness and never find it. If any man stopped and asked himself whether he's ever held a truly personal desire, he'd find the answer. He'd see that all his wishes, his efforts, his dreams, his ambitions are motivated by other men. He's not really struggling even for material wealth, but for the second-hander's delusion - prestige. A stamp of approval, not his own. He can find no joy in the struggle and no joy when he has succeeded. He can't say about a single thing: 'This is what I wanted because I wanted it, not because it made my neighbors gape at me'. Then he wonders why he's unhappy.

---

Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received — hatred. The great creators — the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors — stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
A c&d is not a court order. It is a not-so-polite request and warning that further action will be taken.

Edit: If that's your point I agree with you. C&d followed by some more appropriate (than the cfaa) seems like a not-raise-everyones-backs approach.
When did libertarians became a synonym for monopoly proponents?
Morality is always relative to culture. Sometimes cultures change though and it’s really hard to make them move back. Given enough resources you can find the morality that you want in any culture .
Facebook jumped the shark when it switched from being a social network to being a news network.
How does its parallelization feature work with lazy generators? Or does its seq function not return generators?
This was done once - it was called XHTML. It was, effectively, just HTML in XML form. Tags had a single syntax (no implicitly self-closing tags). Documents were required to be well-formed, syntactically, or they would not display.

It did not win.
The problem isn't the discourse, but to categorize the people themselves - "people working on this must be really unethical". It's only that last part he is against.

It should go like this:
Me: let's extend life
Someone else: If people live a lot longer it will be disastrous for the environment
Me: Ok lets talk about that...

But you can't do that if now you're already unethical, etc.
Their was some loud voices there at the very end, but I couldn't catch what they were saying
That's not at all how representative democracy works, and I suspect you know that. It's possible for a president to disagree with the regulatory decisions of a federal agency, because the agencies work for us, not the president.
> Doesn't moving out of the cities, and as you state, away from jobs exacerbate the number of people who will no longer be employed?

Depends on what you mean. A couple questions:

1. Is it a problem for people not to be employed?

2. How do we define employment? Does the pay have to be above a minimum wage? Does it have to be full time? Does volunteer work count? Etc.

We presumably all want people to find interesting and fulfilling ways to spend their time. Basic income gives people the freedom to spend their time in a meaningful way. But it doesn't directly provide meaningful activities to people.

If, after implementing a basic income, we discover that everybody's bored, then I agree with you that this a problem that we'll have to address.

But we should keep in mind that many people are miserable in their jobs already. I have a feeling that people will find interesting ways to spend their time on their own, but if they don't, it's not the end of the world. Freeing people from jobs doesn't automatically make them happy, but it's a first step.

> These new UBI based communities won't be able to provide the same economic/educational opportunities or efficiency of services that the cities can.

I don't know what you mean by UBI-based communities. It's not that the world will be segregated into UBI-based communities and non-UBI-based communities. It's all a continuum. As in today's world, there will be a continuum of people at different income levels. UBI just puts a floor on income.

As is the case today, some cities will be more desirable to live in than others. Maybe those cities have better economic/educational opportunities, as you say. But that's true already today. And because basic income will make it more affordable to live in those cities, it increases everyone's opportunity across the board.

As far as educational opportunities go though, if everyone has the freedom to spend their time how they choose, there are plenty of educational resources available out there for anyone, no matter where you live. I wrote a blog post about this a while ago:

http://www.suncho.com/blog/20140219_too_cool_for_school.html
Google adds more tools to help you find travel deals
Key Business Benefits from Using Information Security Services
Reddit AMA on the Kepler discovery
“Net neutrality” vote: FCC repeals rules that affect internet speed
> I wonder how much of this is an outgrowth of the current university campus climate where opinions that don't fit into the predominant liberal worldview can't be voiced.

This does not seem to match the reality at university campuses - only the caricature by people who find it politically expedient to be seen as persecuted.
Mothers preserving energy and being able to carry more directly benefit the survival of offspring (since that's who they're carrying and where their surplus energy is going), whereas an improvement in those areas for fathers doesn't have as direct of an impact so it doesn't get selected for.
To the best of my knowledge, no - your place of residence is considered to be private property and thus there is an implicit "no access without authorization".

I think a better comparison would be comparing LinkedIn to a public property (such as a commercial store) and thus there is an implicit "access allowed until revoked".

I think that realistically, there are strong parallels to this being a customer/company dispute over who has access to the company's store. The door (HTTP protocol) has to be walked through for the customer to see the wares (LinkedIn profiles) and can be guarded by security (some form of authorization).

I think the question being asked is a valid one - should a company have the right to bar access to otherwise public information if the customer is not tampering with your system? If so, to what extent? If undesirable robots shouldn't be turned away what about DDOS traffic? What forms of flow control become legal in this case?

I'm honestly curious what the courts decide and how that may impact other websites that have tried to combat scraping, such as Craigslist.
Secrets of the Rails boot process
Agreed. It’s mostly one land based provider and maybe a satellite option.

You know I would almost be willing to consider scrapping NN if they also had the power to overturn and throw out ALL incumbent laws preventing competition from accessing right of ways, street and utility poles and making it so easy to bury cable you could do it in your sleep at state/city/local levels.