skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
>I.e. the gunboats removed the Chinese heavy hand on trade. The "invisible hand" cannot operate when the government restricts it.

In other words, there was no free choice or democracy about it, and what the people want (which can very well be protectionism, or at least, not to allow opium sales in their country) didn't matter.
This article conflates two things. One: adoption of a 48v standard for powered systems because it's a sweet-spot for efficiency, current draw, systems design. Two: PHEV and the adoption of electric transmission and drive train, which permits a non throttled engine of any form to run at constant high efficiency or not at all and use batteries.

Two things. One story. Cars are becoming like common rail deisel with a unified power model for systems integration and cars are becoming like locomotives which use electric traction for systems efficiency.
Great when it works, one of the few variants of Linux that sometimes just doesn't like to run on some hardware still.
Right, but if it requires maintenance, and it doesn't bring in enough money to cover the costs of that, turning it off might be more cost-effective than doing the maintenance.

Look at Google Finance, for example - uses Adobe Flash, which is 2 years away from EOL. Presumably it's not making any money and doesn't have a maintenance budget; if it did, they'd have moved away from Flash when the iPhone came out. But when Flash hits EOL, maintenance is mandatory.

Turning it off is what I'd do in that situation.
I have no doubt that biological weapons have been developed to some degree, somewhere, in a well-funded government lab, in complete secrecy. But that is not a problem. This secrecy is what saves us from a race to the bottom. Some government will develop a limited capability of biological warfare. They probably already have. With no information about what their adversaries are doing, they will simply stop. As far as they know, they have developed a state-of-the art biological weapon system, and they are probably correct.

One of the reasons that the nuclear arms race happened, was the "openness" of the competition. You can't hide a nuclear explosion. Your adversary knows how sophisticated you are, and they now have to push 1 step further.

Biological warfare doesn't have to be like this. Be sure that some Darpa or DoD funded secret project is working on countermeasures, but there's another interesting thing:
You can stop biological attacks by quarantine. It's very simple, very effective, and doesn't require developing Armageddon-tier weapons in the process. Another issue that's purposefully isn't discussed in the video is how effective the delivery of these weapons are. Simply put, not very. Viruses, the main attack vector, change in every iteration. There's no guarantee you can infect that many people with an intact version of your weapon. Sooner than later, you genocidal weapon will stop being so selective, because it's evolving for it's own benefit, not yours.

And finally, if you really are concerned about this issue, as you should, the right way to fight against it is to find a way to stop the infection and proliferation, to find ways to stop these attacks without accelerating weapons development.
There are ways to fight these weapons without building them, and you can definitely do better than starting a public campaign that asks people to develop horrific bioweapons just so we can find a way to stop them later on, maybe.
You sound like a wonderful parent!
That's the most poetic defense of base selfishness I've read since Ayn Rand.
So apps need to ask for location but not to see everything you do? WTF
What part of Trump or Bernie isn’t coastal or elite?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16248810
How do you handle accessibility across Win/Mac/Linux?
How can you lose something you never had? I've not ever once encountered anyone who trusted HR any farther than they could kick them.

In most cases HR really combines a number of things into one working group that none of them are good at. There's compliance, which really ought to be handled by attorneys; there's finance, which really ought to be run by accountants; and there's recruiting, which is really the only role that HR teams can hope to claim competence at. But most of them are bad at this as well. Some companies have event planning and employee sat programs. But HR people are typically not good at sat programs. Those programs need analysts and data scientists to perform experiments. So you've got maybe two real roles they could be good at: recruiting and planning parties.

All of these things could easily be outsourced or handed off to other teams. Need a launch party? Hire a professional party planner once or twice a year. Need a recruiter? They are everywhere. Need to make sure everyone's got the required sexual harassment training? Bring in someone to do it once a year.

I can't for the life of me understand how any company justifies keeping an HR team around. I mean, who do you really want dealing with a complaint? Someone who is going to try to smooth things over or ignore them because they have no clue about what's at stake? Or do you want to talk to the company's attorney, who will absolutely give a shit about how much hot water harassment can get them into?

Everything about HR teams is utterly suspect and useless. Someone needs to start a business infrastructure as a service company that includes legal, accounting, hr, recruiting, and events. That company will clean house. The value proposition is that you, the client, focus on the business, the service provider takes care of everything else. Tons of money saved; happier employees who don't have to deal with shit; and a lot of trust earned along the way--trust in the company, where it belongs.
Do you have stock in Alcor?
The V in V^2/R would be the voltage drop along the wire, not the total system voltage.
That's valid, but probably has limits (i.e. if you leave town). I imagine certain factors mitigate the negatives. For one, some industries are known to be harsh to employees. I imagine the same factors that allow for such harshness may also allow for legalistic backgrounds.
Even HTML5 web capturing works in a similar way. Once you give an site like Discord access to your microphone or screen it can pretty much access it whenever the page is open - granted it will show a little badge on screen by default.

A lot of users got tired of the on-screen badge being on all the time and probably set it to hidden (very easy to do) so not everyone is actually aware of when an HTML5 application is accessing a microphone/camera/screen.
Couldn't you simply record the conversations and type out what you need later?
For me, one of the worst parts of this transition is that as more people use hangouts, the experience becomes worse. The utter lack of control or signaling on it leads to tons of missed messages, threads that fall out of visibility, and general "did they see my message? do they even use this any more?" questions.

All of which Google Talk managed just fine. And if you wanted more control, install a third party app, because it worked with them all.

What did we gain for this?
That's encouraging. No shortage of lithium either short term or long term.
Did he really say that specifically about the "current trend of deep learning using neural networks"? Surely he would have been speaking more generally about AI?
If Reader was running on old infrastructure, it's very possible it could have cost more than that just to maintain status quo.
>Artificially 'creating' or 'protecting' jobs doesn't help anyone, at least not in the long run

Artificial jobs have helped people for half a century or more. The whole modern office jobs (and services sector) has been built up on them...
While I like Marcus Aurelius, I find Gregory Hays' translation more readable than Long's.
The Equifax hack could be worse than we thought
Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtues

by Alphonsus Rodriguez[1], translated by Josephy Rickaby[2]

https://archive.org/stream/PPCV-Manresa#page/n3/mode/2up

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonso_Rodriguez

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Rickaby
I wasn't talking about economic competitors, but opponents to Google/Apple in the political area (e.g. EFF), who may lobby for changes. Therefore my note about the democratic process. Minorities may make demands, but whether they pass or not does rest on the majority. Hence the need to sway popular opinion, which I don't see happening.
>Changes in the trade of time+skill for money is nothing new, so probably not that.

Famine, war and poverty is nothing new either. Neither is social collapse for that matter.
You might have misread what I put between the quotation marks, "predatory company" not "pointless company".

It goes a fair bit against the grain of stereotype to describe the government as a predatory employer.
Practice. Discuss. Doing is important because patterns have to be acquired.

Try speaking your code aloud. Can you speak to your code?

Do not over complicate it. Code like your future employer is watching, dance like nobody is watching.
Yeah what we have is an nice improvement for things, but at the end of the day I think everyone is well aware of the limits of statistical methods. What we have is the machine acting kind of like a parrot, it can get good at certain tasks like imitating an artistic style. What we don't have is independent thought or reasoning or the ability to consume a narrative. A machine can make a strange mash up of styles in writing for example, but it can't generate a narrative simply by machine learning a series of novels. The best it can do is copy the writing style. However its still an amazing advance, but for creative fields you see AI enhancing the work of the creator rather than replacing it.
Lately I've been getting a ton of spam in the form of Amazon phishing attacks. Usually these emails use character substitution or the like to avoid being caught.

I've also noticed recently that spam hits my inbox before being filtered, which is aggravating as that means I get a notification about it.
>At least part of the problem there is that once you give people that social welfare they're expected to pay for ridiculously high insurance costs.

Only if your laws allow for "ridiculously high insurance costs". Caps exist for a reason.
Bitcoin! Oh, right.
The non enabling meaning of fMRI is a well trodden path.
>A million pretty shitty jobs by Western standards.

You'd be surprised -- especially after you factor in relative cost of life.
Not to mention you can't even delete messages on hangouts. One of the reasons I switched to telegram.
That seems like a dubious claim. Also, there are significant other differences between America and Japan. And again, an excessive reliance on trade made the war hard for them to win when belligerents quite logically stopped giving them materials that could be used first war.
My personal experience with Hangouts is that it would often hang and disconnect so that I would have to forcefully close the app. Then it wouldn't update the read receipts, or possibly worse, lie about who had seen what. I put all of this down to my having an old phone.

Recently, however, I got a new phone. I was excited to have a usable Hangouts once again, as that's where many of my close friends are. Unfortunately, now I know that the problem is Hangouts, not my phone.
I'm actually really impressed how easy this was to find:

http://periodictable.com/Properties/A/CrustAbundance.an.html

For reference, at one point people thought there was going to be a "uranium boom" during the cold war era. So a bunch of prospectors went around the US looking to stake out claims to uranium deposits. They thought they were going to beat everybody to the punch of a late 1800s style gold rush. Only problem: They soon found out that uranium occurs so frequently in the crust that there's no economic incentive to monopolize deposits.

In the link, you'll see that lithium is about 10x as common as uranium. I'm also sure I'm not fully aware of all the factors here - but just based on that information I think we're fine for lithium reserves.
Sarcasm often doesn't come across on the internet. Is my surmise that you are joking correct?
At least now it’s legal for the advertisement to say what the drug is for. Used to be you’d see people running through fields, and I’d be thinking “WTF does this drug do”? Turns out it was an allergy drug.
Perhaps there was a 'joke' comparison that that author forgot or later editors deemed unserious.

Something like "only a mass equivalent to the Himalayas, less than one billionth, would have decayed into thallium." This example is for demonstration only, as I'm not sure what the equivalent would be.
My Numerical Methods class in college, in the mid-80s.

C was not an “approved language”, but I was told that if the grad student who was actually grading all the papers agreed, then I could use it. I went to talk to him, and turned out that he also wanted to learn C. So, he approved my request.

Because I was happy learning a new language, I made sure all my programs executed correctly, were written in what was then the correct style, and I still managed to turn in my homework before anyone else, for every single assignment.

Motivation matters.
Well not when our biases are based in some sort of reality.

Take the classic example of racial bias in crime algorithms or something like that. Let's say you have a neural network that you feed details of someone and it generates a weighting to use to determine whether to 'randomly' screen them at a train station or something.

Now sure, statistically, it might produce better results to screen more people of skin tone X. But how much is that actually true and how much does it appear to be true because the existing data you have is coloured by the bias of previous actors? If the police routinely 'randomly' screen people of a particular skin colour, then they're going to be found to be worthy of being screened more often, simply because you're screening more of them. So the algorithm goes 'hey screen that guy, he's skin colour X' and the cycle continues.

But at the same time, if that's the best data you have then it's the best data you have.
The new drugs for Hep C have a pretty high cure rate and cost less than $100,000.

So that's changed in the last few years.
You know what.. since I installed a fresh Arch Linux (Manjaro) on my laptop today, i'll give Bcachefs a go as my encrypted /home. You can also support the file-system monetarily via https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs
You misread what I said.

Any company can be pointless, even predatory ones, and yes, even government agencies. And I never described the government as a predatory employer.

The quotation marks I added to "pointless company" have no relation to the quotation marks on your comment, which seems to be the source of confusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent
> a fuel estimation program for a small cargo airline
> ...floating point computations

Hello, rounding errors. Oh hell no.
Opinion – Why a Big Utility Is Embracing Wind and Solar
Sadly, I wish all that backwards compatibility extended to keeping access to the old web client. The last few years have seen a steady decline in web client for my purposes. For example, the max of 10 via points on a route, or lately seasonal closures make certain routes impossible, even when I set the route date to a date when the road isn’t closed. I also wish panoramio was still around and the photos were visible on the map. The current design for showing photos on the map is much less useful.
Correct, GCC 4.4.7 is notoriously bad at that in my experience.
Reasonable request. I thought that by starting with "isn't it true" I was implying that I didn't know.

Also, the person who provided the source was someone else, so if you're asking for a source re my question, perhaps someone will provide it. In any case your poke got me wondering and doing a bit of research.
> So, one might argue that it's stupid that Berkeley was required by law to remove inaccessible content. But if that requirement wasn't there, the law would have no teeth, and other content wouldn't be made accessible.

I'll argue that it's stupid that the law requires Berkeley to make its content accessible. If accessibility is something society has determined is worthwhile (I think we can all agree that it is), then it should be funded by society. Unfunded mandates are no way to run society.
Did you build your tool with your tool? That's really the only question that matters as far as I see it. If not, why not?
> The left, and in particular the radical left, has no issue having such constant discourse in regards to men.

Why would there be? The point of view is not one of describing some hypothetical world but our concrete world. If in our concrete world the position of, say, white men and that of blacks is different, why would you even assume that the two should be treated the same in discussions of society? No sociologist, anthropologist or historian would say that social issues in an imaginary world where blacks and whites have equal power should be studied in the same way as in a real world where they don't. Statistics are studied in their appropriate context; otherwise, they're misleading.

> The subtext from much of left literature is to instill the idea that violence is innately male

No, violence is usually male, but I don't think we consider it innate in the sense you seem to allude to (i.e., as the main cause or as a sign of an inability to change). In general, we don't like talking about innate qualities for several reasons. 1. The science is vague and weak at best -- even when innate qualities are found, their respective strength is unknown and the effect size is usually far too small compared to observation, which suggests that in many cases innate causes have weak explanatory power, and 2. innate causes make for very bad excuses when it comes to calls for changing behavior; innate biological capabilities explain 100% of humans' inability to fly, yet that hasn't stopped us from wanting to and succeeding in building airplanes. In fact, if you find any subtext in leftist thought particularly emphasizes any innate uncontrollable trait, then I'd say you've either found something quite unusual or you've completely missed the mark. The general tendency not to focus on innate "essentialism" is among the left's most distinguishing marks. It's not that we deny the possibility of strong innate forces, but we think that even when they are overwhelmingly strong -- such as the case of flying and airplanes -- they are often overcome, and such a focus is often used as a reactionary stance against change even though that does not follow even from the claimed innateness.

> The association to the male sex is similar to the association to race or the association between Muslims and terrorism.

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that both are indeed correlations. No in the sense that men have been subjugating women almost everywhere almost constantly for many centuries if not millennia, while Islam has become abnormally overrepresented in terrorism only very recently, correlated with decline, not rise in its power.
Why does drug resistance easily evolve but vaccine resistance does not?
Re Moore's Law has slowed a lot. I still like Kurzweil's chart, showing that historically, we can backtrapolate the exponential improvement to previous other information technologies. So this might extend to some future information technology, other than silicon... but that form of reasoning really is science fiction.

Most of these imminant AI predictions are founded on computer complexity soon approaching that of the human brain. Even some fundamental discovery, like RNA playing an information processing role within/between neurons, that pushes brain complexity up by many orders of magnitude, would not push back exponential growth reaching it by all that many years.

The whole thing hinges on Moore's Law, which is (currently) looking rickety.
“A Nobel for Cryo-EM”: a chemistry explainer
Every Parent Wants to Protect Their Child. I Never Got the Chance
> Marcus believes that deep learning is not “a universal solvent, but one tool among many.” And without new approaches, Marcus worries that AI is rushing toward a wall, beyond which lie all the problems that pattern recognition cannot solve.

The thing that fascinates me is that we've only just scratched the surface of what today's ML tech can solve. Let's worry about that wall when we get there...

In the meantime let's not lose sight of today's potential in some misguided idealistic pursuit of perfectionism or "general artificial intelligence".

There are countless problems which current deep learning research combined with some well-thought out UI/UX could solve today in a myriad of industries.

The 1990's software 'revolution' in industry/business was largely just formalization/automation of paper-based processes into spreadsheets and simple databases, which then evolved into glorified CRUD/CMS software interfaces on desktops, then web/SaaS, and then another massively boost with smartphones.

If such a simple translation of human processes into machines can achieve trillions of dollars in value then there is no doubt machine learning can do the same for hundreds of thousands of other simple problem-sets which we haven't even considered. Plus the desktop/smartphone/internet/etc infrastructure is already in place for it to be plugged into.

This can only be negatively judged in the context of all significant steps forward in technology being oversold and misunderstood. But in practical real-world utility we're very far from fully utilizing what has been researched and accomplished today in a small set of markets. And the proliferation of this tech should be encouraged, promoted, and accurately communicated to tech/business talent who can potentially use it, rather than downplayed because it fails to live up to some media hyperbole or SciFi fantasies of where we should be in 2018.

The article mentions that taking AI/ML/data science courses has just become the "hottest new field" for young smart kids to join. Well that means we're just on the cusp of taking advantage of that technological evolution and it's FAR too early to look at what's been accomplished today and be pessimistic about deep learnings potential.
Flat UI Colors – Color palettes for use in projects, designs, presentations
Okay, in that case I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Maybe something got lost in translation :-)
> That seems like a dubious claim.

Pick a measurement.

> significant other differences

Sure. But the common thread among more successful economies vs less successful ones is free markets and free trade.
I don't know enough about many subjects to know the answer to this, but naively if it was that simple wouldn't Uber just let drivers set their own rates if it solved this problem for them?
I intentionally upvoted you so that you would get your dopamine hit.
Breaking up with your smartphone is really, really hard – just ask these people
> it's astonishing to me that anybody could try to cast the Opium Wars as the selfless British removing barriers to liberty.

I'm not pretending it as selfless. Free trade benefits both parties. Nor am I claiming other things the British did are free market. I'm only talking about removal of the barriers to the opium trade.