skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Googling "problems with self-reporting in diet studies" gives a good listing of scientific papers for me. Of course such a search is screaming out "confirmation bias", but it is still useful I think. This[1] is one study that seems to cover what I was talking about, although I have not read it in full.

If you want to take a deep dive into a subject, search for a recent paper on the subject and as you read it the paper will reference other papers, especially in the introduction. Here is where you can find possibly a more relevant paper on the subject. Read that paper and repeat. Soon you will have a decent idea of what is going on in the field. Hard to do if you don't know the jargon and the mathematical methods though.

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3025654/
"close to building" means in 20 years that means https://xkcd.com/678/

For most people "close to building" means 1 or 2 years.
It's not prophecy. It's a fact that at current trends things are looking dire. The trend may change but only if people heed the warning. I don't know what will happen in 100 years. I do know that without a significant change in behavior/technology soon then a crash is coming.
After watching the demo video, this seems to work as well as Android Auto built into many cars.

I've rented probably 8 different cars with Android Auto.. this seems as good.
That's because people don't buy these things for their functionality, but for the functionality they imagine they could have. Not coincidentally, that is also how they are marketed. People are always sitting on a park benches on their smooth-screened laptops with absolutely no glare and a huge grin on their face.
That level of political discussion is beyond me. I'm just presenting some examples of East Asian countries that had the same ruler / ruling-party for decades.
>If you're smart, you will make more money //

On average, just being 'smart' isn't sufficient.
Interest from saving accounts and CDs is "ordinary income". "Ordinary income" generally is anything that is not classifiable as a "capital gain". "Capital gain" is gain from the sale or exchange of a capital asset. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary_income
All central banks have been focused on the other issue since 2008. No one has been very worried about inflation until very recently.
The Data Compression Resource
but it's not linear with the number of reflections and transissions, I guess, if you want physically correct materials. Or if you want aberations and, well, "quantum effects" like in the slit experiment.
Most public transportation companies are subsidized. I never dealt with gov. bank that was run well but there are might be some that are. I def never heard of gov. owned software company that was doing well though.
No, regular bulbs without a dimmer. Like 99% of households use.
"Eat your vegetables" at least works for some people, myself for one. It's not like climate change where being good helps only if everyone is. Anyone who internalizes the reasons vegetables > candy will want to eat vegetables and be personally better off.
I was a Sr. iOS Engineer, but I was doing Principle Engineering work.
What's the significance of 0.05 significance? (2013)
> Dynamo vs. RDS

This is so dangerous even to type out :) In some, limited cases, Dynamo can replace tables in an RDS, and completely outperform it, too. I'm a big fan, but it's fundamentally different from an RDS, and you can get burned, badly.

Oversimplified, DynamoDB is a key-value store that supports somewhat complex values. If you have large values, use S3 instead [0] - I think that's a good way to think of it, a faster S3 for loads of small records (with a nicer interface for partially reading and updating those records).

If you need to look up on anything but the primary key, be careful, costs can get out of control by having to provision extra indicies. If your primary keys aren't basically random, you'll run into scaling issues because of they way DynamoDB partitions. If you need to look at all the data in the table, DynamoDB probably isn't the right technology (it can, but scans absolutely tank performance = $$$).

[0] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerg...
> The AAC&U looked at some of the same measures as the association. Specifically around oral communication, students ranked themselves highly -- about 62 percent of students believed they did well in this area compared to 28 percent of employers. That and written communication showed the biggest gaps in the AAC&U report (27 percent of employers versus 65 percent of students).

Kind of difficult to disagree with this one. I know it's passé these days to worry about trivial things like correct grammar, spelling, and usage. I've had fruitless discussions on this very site where people will argue that it doesn't matter how you use the language if, ultimately, the message somehow manages to get conveyed. Terrible language skills are not just found among new grads though, I've seen them across the workforce, including appalling spelling in communications from the SVP level. There's a non-zero cost, too: the cost of having to get people to repeat themselves, the cost of ambiguity when your manager poorly communicates their wishes, the cost of misunderstood information bubbling up the chain to decision makers. It adds up.
So, AlphaZero doesn't mean we're closer to _general_ AI. Quite the contrary: it's a very specialised form of AI that will be very difficult to use in any different task than chess, shoggi or go.

This is a very true statement and one that I think a lot of people who aren't in ML/DL, but are "worried" about AGI, miss.

There is however a common thread with everyone in AI, that they tend to think of AGI as "One algorithm to rule them all."

As a practitioner and AGI researcher however I think that AGI is more of a system of specialized or narrow AI tasks that can together solve all tasks. At the risk of oversimplifying and anthropomorphizing, this type of problem solving is functionally how we do it as humans.

So having a corpus of solved narrow systems (discrete known rule space in the sense of AlphaGo etc...) that is "activated" by an executive function which can recognize the problem set and then pass subsets of a larger problem to the narrow solutions. Those solutions are then "backpropagated" and synthesized into the general problem solution.

In that sense, I would argue that narrow solutions like AlphaGo etc... do get us closer to General AI because they grow the corpus of solution paths for the general problems.
> They didn't convince the Russian people that Ukrainians were an enemy that needed to be wiped out.

Maybe that wasn't how it went in the Holodomor, but it's definitely how it went in Dekulakization.
There is actually an interesting trade-off with term-limits.

If the term-limits are brief, then lawmakers have to frequently rely on the party's election and fundraising apparatus, and therefore feel pressure to tow the party line.

If the term-limits are extended, then lawmakers aren't as beholden to the populous, and can therefore become corrupt.

I think I first read this balance articulated (much more clearly than I'm putting it here) in a book by the economist James Buchanan.
VW, the largest car company in the world, is partly state-owned. Same for Deutsche Bahn, KfW bank and a few others. They don't always work perfectly, but they sure can compete or are even market leaders.
I think we can all agree that bad managers suck and managers who pretend to be technical particularly suck. However it feels the me though like we greatly underestimate the difficulty of being a technical manager and grievously under train them. Google has gone past the one-off personal experiences and studied across lots of teams and projects[1] and being a technical expert wasn't even close to the most important trait. I'd like to see us spend less time proposing "no managers" as current ones aren't good and more time on figuring out how to make them good and give them training and support they need. Most of the ones I know want to be successful and are trying in their own imperfect way. If you think the most important thing is technical prowess just take a look at any academic CS department, run only by super technical professors it is often a case study in anti-patterns.

From Google's study on managers reported in nytimes[2]

“In the Google context, we’d always believed that to be a manager,
particularly on the engineering side, you need to be as deep or deeper
a technical expert than the people who work for you,” Mr. Bock says.
“It turns out that that’s absolutely the least important thing.
It’s important, but pales in comparison. Much more important is just making
that connection and being accessible.”

[1] https://rework.withgoogle.com/subjects/managers/

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/business/13hire.html?smid=...

edit for formatting
The SVG is embedded using an iframe tag, so JS can run and mess with its DOM. SVG in an img tag can't run JS, as with jpgs or pngs. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/SVG/SVG_as_an_I...
The irony is that it is an economic precept that pay rises magically happen and are endowed upon the laborer. At the same time, screwing the laborer out of the value of their wages is a deliberate policy of inflation:

https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/13/the-case-for-hi...
By the same logic there could be no virus which will exterminate humanity, because there was no precedents and we don't know the structure of such virus. Right?
Here's what they did:

1. watched live streams of the flag

2. studyied the flight patterns and contrails of the airplanes passing overhead

3. mapped out what they saw and took their findings to flight radars to try and pinpoint a general area.

4. Using the knowledge gleaned from the flight patterns they found that the location was near Greeneville, Tennessee

5. users studied the star patterns and their movements and with that, plus a tweet that Labeouf sent out in a Tennessee diner, the trolls were able to narrow the area even further—to a small patch of land between a house and a river.

6. Drove around and honked their car horn until picked up by the live stream

This is not hard to do and hardly novel. Also done using all public information and the target used poor opsec.
I totally agree. One fine example is of dictators of world who became threat to people because of no checks on term.
As an interesting idea as that is, the moment you introduce the possibility of staying in power forever then it only becomes an issue of adjusting the ratio parameters, something people won't react to like "abolish the hard term limit".
https://hookrace.net/time.gif - the same thing, but with an endless GIF
I think maybe you misread the article. The Article's premise is that there is something in certain people that makes them more susceptible to being "relieved of the responsibility of their actions". Whereas there are certain other types that will NEVER be prone to being "relieved of the responsibility of their actions" ie.. being a Nazi. What article did you read?

btw.. Just "following orders" was not honest, it was used by lawyers in Nuremberg trials to try to get Nazis who had "the courage to murder", to get out of "the responsibility of their actions", and rightfully, had no legal base.
It could, but if the revolutionary are to achieve success, many would need to react at the same time so the impact is swift and "unmanageable" by the Chinese government. It's not a coincidence that China recently filled all streets with one of the most advanced AI-powered video surveillance systems in the world ahead of this announcement.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-surveillance-came...

If the Chinese government is able to "kill" (not necessarily in a metaphoric way) any small groups organizing against the government, then it will be very difficult to change this.

If Putin succeeded in becoming a dictator in Russia, I think it's going to be easier for Xi to become a dictator and maintain his power in China.

I'm afraid it may be more likely for some of the Chinese elites that secretly hate and oppose Xi to start something up than for the population to rise at this point in time. Maybe in 20 years, the frustration in the population would bubble up and they could do something about it en mass. Or China could become a bigger version of North Korea.

The advancements in technology don't really seem to be on the people's side either, other than censorship-resistant (a key point, as not all are) blockchain technologies. But I'm not sure these P2P technologies will advance fast enough to stay ahead of Surveillance AI.
A History of Eternity [pdf]
Learning human behaviors from motion capture by adversarial imitation
GWAS of genetically correlated traits finds 107 intelligence genes
I don’t think it’s really about individuals though. For every country with a long period of continuous successful rule, I can point you to a country with a long period of failed rule, such as Zimbabwe.

The point is, no matter how great Hu is as an individual the danger is that granting him perpetual unquestioned power creates a precedent for a future monster to gain a similar lock on power. In a democracy, the voters can depose a monster peacefully. In the cureent Chinese system a monster would only get 2 terms. So the question is, are you prepared to accept Hu getting power to life, at the risk of a future person to get it being a Mugabe, or Gaddafi, or Amin?

In a system with very few constraints on absolute power, is it really prudent in the long term to remove all of the remaining ones? Finally, how much can you trust the judgement of someone willing to impose that risk on his country for his own benefit?
You could try looking into some of the Android forums where they have unlocked the head units and have demonstrated being able to flash custom roms, although may be a bit different from what you're looking.
No. That's a common misconception about how quantum computation works. Read this: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3
I wonder if this works with any PI display.
> This is probably the most important task - Help the client to lead his project

For someone to do this, they would have to have client communication skills, at least somewhat thorough understanding of software development or the process, and an understanding of the client's business. I see this as a good thing. However, your example sounds to be a company that has external clients that you write software for. Do you not have account managers/principle types who interact with the clients, or is that more or less what a scrum master does there? Just curious, if you were an internal only dev shop that just develops software for stakeholders at your own company, would you see the role of a scrum master as significantly different?
> in a single-party government, how much will it really matter?

There are still intra-party factions. Xi’s anti-corruption drive is an effort to defang them. An arguable strength of China’s one-party system was that it had an odd sort of internal democracy, neatly contained to the party elite. Xi is disabling that internal disagreement, which bodes well for short-term stability but points, long-term, towards China becoming a normal sort of dictatorship.
Why do you think so many qubits would be needed in order for it to be serious? The article quotes quantum computer researchers as saying 50-100 qubits could perform computations that are intractable on any classical computer. I'm inclined to believe them, the state space grows way faster than linearly as you entangle more particles.
Dictators do tend to command high vote counts. When people see you are going to stick around they try to keep you happy. As in russia, the province that most supports the leader recieves the most from him in turn.
I agree this is great stuff, but let's not get carried away about types. They don't guarantee compatibility.

Two functions with the same type signature can compute different things, and code can advertently rely on this difference. For example, changing a hash function can cause code to break that relied on iteration order of a hashmap. (And with in a large enough codebase and a commonly used, rarely changed hash function, this is probably inevitable.)

Also, even if the values returned by the function are the same, you can still observe differences between different implementations by comparing performance, and code can inadvertently depend on performance differences. This can cause breakage or security holes.

Still, if you can avoid type errors, you're probably doing well.
Coming from USSR no surprise to me that left leaning individuals deem it acceptable to determine what is worthy or not worthy to be discussed. Those certain conditions are very narrow and in societies were they are not narrow USSR, North Korea etc. things have not worked out too well.
Theoretically, this rule can also be gamed by taking all votes by influence of power.
I would just like to echo this comment as it exactly and indefensibly strikes out Weak-AI from Artificial General Intelligence. I fail to see how specially crafted optimization algorithms continue to receive higher attribution. First, they were renamed to Artificial Intelligence. A great deal of cash exchanged hands based on this attribution. To retain the spirit of the true definition of Artificial Intelligence, the naming convention : Artificial General Intelligence was crafted. Even then, the allure of cash/fame progresses to taint that whereby people are calling expositions of Optimization/search algorithms Artificial General Intelligence. It saddens me that mankind has progressed the ubiquitous and beautiful information age into the disinformation for profit age from top to bottom and bottom to top.
> The interesting thing to me about this is that it is fundamentally not a legal judgment, but an economic one.

It's a mix of both. Unfortunately, too many patent lawyers seem to subscribe to the natural-rights theory of protecting inventions: If you invented something, why then just naturally you should be able to prevent others from making, using, or selling it without your consent — as though conceiving and writing up the idea was the most important part of bringing the benefit of the idea to the public. Too often, the other facts involved in effective innovation seem to take a back seat.

(In the 1980s and 1990s, at meetings of the ABA Section of IP Law, I don't know how many times I'd hear Don Banner [0], a former chair of the section and former commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, hold forth on the importance of protecting "the little man from Little Rock," i.e., individual inventors.)

> The burden of proof should be on the patentee, and the court should evaluate this evidence on its own, without deferring to the examiner. What do you think of this idea

I think that would be the sounder public policy — keeping in mind of course that the patent examiner is a neutral expert.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_W._Banner
You are assuming a free vote.
I think it matters. Mr Hu cannot be said to be the same as mr Xi. Now, I think it was good for them to have someone like mr Xi tackle institutional corruption, even with its purge-like effects, given the entrenched corruption was not doing the country any favors. But you still need turnover and new ideas and renewal at the top.
I'm pretty sure China and Russia don't "double down" just because US gives them labels they don't like.

It's probably not what you meant, but as a non-US citizen, this statement reads like (some) Americans think the entire world revolves around the US.
Getting Your Vinyl on to Your Hard Drive (2005)
I can come up with an equal number of cases where the “dumb stuff” doesn’t work the way I want it to.

1.) A dumb watch can’t tell me where my next meeting is being held. Am I really going to go back to balancing my laptop on my knee to check that?

2.) A dumb alarm clock can’t even play white noise that I use to go to sleep. Its display can’t be customized for when my taste in Time face changes.

I could go on, but sufficed to say that the UX teams of these blockbuster products have already done this work. It’s why people buy the damn products. Hipster Ludditism is still Ludditism and it gets boring really fast.
There isn’t enough time between labor being performed and it being paid for inflation to have much effect. Long term capital investments have plenty of time for inflation to pile up and distort the naive calculation of “gain”.
Yeah, like e.g. fake storefronts at G8 summits.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-22738710
An even bigger assumption is that intelligence in computers will require the same amount of computational power that it requires in humans. The AI we have so far is completely different than human intelligence (e.g. machine learning requires vast amounts of data; human learning can learn from single examples, etc). Computers themselves have completely different abilities than humans. Intelligence on the human brain is just not a very good model for intelligence on the computer.
I have no idea what any of that even means. I suggest you direct it to your local racist support group.
Just be wary about advice from buffet. He's rich enough that he can basically buffer swings in the market. For the rest of us, employment might be market-procyclical: We lose the ability to buy in at the bottom of the market because we're at employment risk and maintaining personal cash reserves is critical and it's more likely that we have to sell off to stay afloat.
I think it's pretty easy to empirically find what's the right balance if we analyze history. In fact, I think most countries have already found that equilibrium, at least for government leaders. It seems to be 8-10 years at most. 20 years definitely feels like it's too long, even for super-appreciated leaders like Merkel, who I've seen make many bad/corrupt decisions lately, by propping up the coal industry, the polluting car industry, and so on. 20 years is just too long for any human to run a country.

For Congress/Parliament members, perhaps a little longer would be reasonable, but probably no more than 20 years.
No. If I pay you $1 and you get taxed $0.5 you are still $0.5 better off than you were before. If inflation raises you salary to $2 and you get taxed $1, you are still one (inflated) dollar better off than you were before you were paid.

But if you buy a stock for $1 and it goes to $2 as a result of inflation, you get taxed $0.5 on the $1 gain, but your resulting $1.5 has less purchasing power than the $1 you invested.