skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think you are both might be confusing the medium with the message. Even if decoding of the message can be done safely, the content of the message might be the danger itself.

The author is suggesting that the message contains the code for a true ai and makes the point that it might be able for it to bargain in exchange for giving humans information they want or need. It goes on to reason that eventually knowledge of this ai will become public and due to human nature it will eventually be let free.

Disconnection from infrastructure is not enough to make the message safe.

Given that time is not a factor for the ai this does not seem far fetched. At least in the context of this paper.
It was a StackOverflow question he posted while creating Silk Road, in which he used his real name (before switching to the "frosty" alias in under a minute).

And his SSH key had both the username and hostname set to that alias ("frosty@frosty"), which is how they connected him to Silk Road.

Specifically, it was this question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15445285/how-can-i-conne...
Its uninteresting to hear a point secondhand from someone who doesn't know enough to explicate the matter. Acquiring second hand authority doesn't improve this matter.
Blame Calivinism. My grandpa always said that doing things “for fun” was stupid. Everything other than work, family or church was stupid really. Now he’s 90, his wife died and he finally goes for a weekly ride on his electric bike with a friend and for the first time I heard him say that they have lots of fun together. I wish him all the joy in the world but it was sad for me to hear.
Another physicist, David Deutsch, also does a good job in The Beginning of Infinity, Chapter 12 'A Physicist's History of Bad Philosophy'. I can't do it justice here but part of the problem is that we don't understand what 'happiness' is yet and therefore it's a problem how to measure it, let alone self-report it.
I have seen about 10% of my graduating cs class getting headhunted by Palantir Technologies.

From that sample size I'd estimate the percentage of engineers who don't care about ethics to be at least around 10%.
They are almost all business travelers, so multiple possibilities - A big one is Uber travel is trivial to expense, a lot of companies just send it directly into the expense system, and you don't even need to do anything. Another one is (for some reason) a lot of business travelers shy away from Uber X and only ride Uber Black - I have no idea why, after a thousand+ rides in UberX, I really don't see the additional value of Uber Black, unless maybe you are giving a customer a ride? Price is, within reason, irrelevant to business travels - company is paying for it anyways. Speaking for myself, personally - I will do almost anything to avoid having to get into a Cab in San Francisco or the Peninsula, from a experience/comfort perspective.
This seems to get attributed to a better understanding of math, because that's the obvious thing about physicists. But how much of it is just flat disinterest, from either being too smart or too interested in other things, to find a game of chance remotely interesting? I mean how exciting is a coin flip for example? Would I bet money on either outcome? No, because who cares? Same thing for any game a casino offers. It all seems geared for an 1800s or early 1900s attention span. But even a modern slot machine - what is it other than a very simple, weird, short, boring video arcade game with only one level?
Except they can modify the hardware and HAL layers... Google cannot.
That's not a name and it's not a good name. Naming is hard: you need a succint yet descriptive and specific phrase. "Dependency injection" nicely evokes the issue of your code depending on other code and how you can avoid hardcoding dependencies by injecting a reference to them at start of execution.
See this Ask HN from four years ago for a few good examples from around the world: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7634152
> 10x more unit test coverage to finish then a singular function.

That is not true. Assuming that both have same functionality, e.g. both either validate address correctness or both don't, you need exactly same test cases. The only difference is that they will be structured differently - in one case you validate address as part of `AddressObject` test and in another as part of `func email` or `func validate_email_address`.

The tests with valid and invalid address however needs to exist in both cases.

Whether you go by functional or object oriented way, validation should be separated from main. It can be in another object or in another function, but it definitely does not belong to main function that does also sending. There is very little difference between two, the only one is that whether you validate before hitting send function of after.

> You do not need to shove validation into an extra object then inject it into another one. Doing this adds NOTHING beneficial to your code.

It is not big deal either. It does not make it harder to understand, both variants are dead simple. Both are immediately readable. Frankly, people who have low abstract thinking or were lazy to learn basics of OOP hate it. It is the same as with people who hate any other paradigm - functional programming and what have you. Functional programming is too hard to read unless you have put work into learning it.

There is such a thing as bad OOP, but when you pick dead simple easy to read example and claim it is something complicated, the the issue is not with OOP.
Radiolab did a story related to this a while ago called "The Future of Fake News". It's worth a listen. https://futureoffakenews.com
Yeah that was the point that stuck out for me the most as well.

He took a week off to focus on a problem set, and ended up spending a number of hours working around the limitations of his setup instead.

I mean, I don't want to sound judgmental. Perhaps that was part of his plan. It just stuck out to me as seeming orthogonal to his expressed goals.
I am also disappointed by this, I want it to be more painful to use rebindable references than final (immutable) references.
Still not available on the app store. Are there _any_ apps actually taking advantage of this yet, other than the animated emoji? Kinda bummed I've not had anything nice to play with yet
> breeding two nerds or two biker isn't likely to produce another nerd or biker, while the result of breeding two people of a common ancestry has a likely outcome.

this is preposterous on many levels. 1. the outcome of any breeding project can be described in terms of species, individuals, and traits. race is an unnecessary and poorly defined category. 2. the offspring of nerds and bikers have a non-trivial likelihood of turning out to be nerds and bikers. 3. the person I replied to wants culture to be a component of race.

> you can't just hand wave all of it:

It's well within the bounds of proper discourse for me to be a racial noncognitivist because I believe the concept to be incoherent, and protest its usage by requiring my interlocutor to tell me what exactly they mean by this particular nonsense term.

>beside, genetic is rooted in statistics, because of recessive/dominant expressions of traits, so you have to talk in probabilities.

look, theres a value to studying the interaction of genes and their expression in an organism. there isn't value in delineating a gene pool into "races" because the category is net harmful to understanding.
Ok how about this scenario:

It encodes itself explicitly as Turing machine instructions that are necessary to decode the later chunks of data. We would have to implement the program and run these instructions to get any meaningful interpretation of the data. It could be encoded in a way such that the entirety of the message needs to be processed through it before any of it is usable.

In this scenario, in order to get any meaningful data out of the message, you'd have to execute arbitrary software.

But I agree that simply storing the data in a computer wouldn't be enough to be a danger (I think?).
You can use SQL92 as a query language (this is how people usually use ODBC with kdb), simply write "s)" in front:

s)SELECT a, b, SUM(c), SUM(d), AVG(e) FROM table WHERE f > 69 GROUP BY a, b

but q is much easier:

select sum c, sum d, avg e by a, b from table where f > 69

Having used both q/kdb and other databases, I prefer q/kdb.

Things I often hate about writing in SQL:

- Those unnecessary GROUP BY statements

- Too much set theory: ORDER BY

- Not enough join operators. asof queries are very difficult to write.

- Difficult to be performant

Things I generally hate about SQL servers:

- Very difficult to use cores strategically (in q I just run taskset+q on e.g. a cron job; in Pg setup is much harder requiring multiple data directories)

- Very difficult to keep things in ram (tablespace + unlogged)

- Very difficult to implement incremental async builds (triggers + replication is the best I've figured out in Pg; in q I just use IPC and let the kernel queue)

- Switching to algorithms to make a new function is ugly and almost a different language (PL/PSQL in the best cases is a horrible language, and C is not so bad but sometimes requires root).
Why not! You live, then you die, none of us get to take it with us.
You, like me and the rest of us, have a limited amount of time in which to live. When you are gone, memories of you and your achievements in life will fade, and eventually disappear - regardless of how much of an impact you made. So, whether you are a 'success' or otherwise doesn't matter at all on a long enough time scale.
Does that help?
I was a fan, until they used their "Hover is a reseller" (the parent company, Tucows is the registrar) excuse to get out of supporting DNSSEC, as required for all registrars.

They then "gave in" and said "OK, we can do this manually, on request, for $500 per-request".

Never again.
Cloud Launcher for MongoDB in the Google Compute Engine
> do not store any sensitive informations on client side data structure since you can't trust the client side

Except that the tokens are cryptographically signed, so as long as you verify them, you can trust them.
I appreciate the creators efforts here, but honestly medium just needs to get their shit together. I use Reddit enhancement suite because it adds features. This just makes a basic blogging platform useable for reading. Personally I've just opted to not use medium any more.
>>The notch. Everyone hates it.

These broad statements irritate me. I don't hate it - I actually think it integrates super well with the UI and makes the X look unique among the sea of identically looking glass slabs. And I don't even own an iphone.
Nested.com | Various roles | London | ONSITE | Full time| Right to work in UK | https://nested.com/

Who we are: We’re an ambitious team with big plans. Our goal is to be one of the defining tech companies of our generation by using technology to rebuild the process of selling a house from the ground up in the UK. To us it seems crazy that people’s biggest asset is also the least liquid. Our vision is to allow every UK home-owner to get a fair offer on their house in minutes. We have previously founded GoCardless and Songkick and are already on a faster growth trajectory than both and backed by Europe’s leading VCs and entrepreneurs. Having done it before we know what it takes to be successful. We’re looking for exceptional people, excited by the prospect of building something that matters.

We’re looking for: * Head of Product - https://nested.workable.com/jobs/422781

* Software Developer - https://nested.workable.com/j/817387C4B1

* Snr Software Developer - https://nested.workable.com/j/1D3FE7D3CD

* Front-end Developer - https://nested.workable.com/jobs/407370

* Snr Data Scientist - https://nested.workable.com/jobs/586258

* Platform Engineer - https://nested.workable.com/j/F69BC7758A

The stats: * Eng team = 20 * Total company size = 70 (March 2018) * Check out our team here https://nested.com/team * £8m Series A raised Mar 2017 * £36m Series B raised Oct 2017

We pay competitively and don’t leave money on the table. We’ve also got some great benefits (read more about these on the by clicking any of the job links above)

If the above sounds of interest then please get in touch, we would love to hear from you! Please apply using the links above.

Thanks for looking :-)
I was much confused by this example:

> AND and OR semantics are represented by ∧ and ∨ respectively.

> (1 3 5 > 6 2 4) ∧ (1 3 5 = 6 3 1)

> => 1 0 1

This is an error in the article. If you type the expression in TryAPL.org, it produces 0 1 0 - as logically expected.
I can't bear to watch this...she's horrible at her job.
Galaxy s8 karakteristike
Great question, and I wish I had a definitive resource to direct you to, but alas. However, there are a lot of conversations happening, and this is a good way to get some insight into them: https://ioo.coop/library/
At the time that interview was published I didn't know too much about it. Since then I have published about 5 articles critiquing various other work from the same lab. It mostly seems very weak, but I'm not sure if it's any worse than most of research in the wider field of social psychology (and peripheral subfields that use similar underpowered research methods). For example, I have also been involved in looking at the work coming out of the Cornell Food and Brand Lab (GIYF) and much of that seems to be catastrophically bad.
It seems to me that those making blanket statements on how design patterns are bad or useless are actually the ones who have an obligation to support their baseless assertions. Meanwhile, it seems rather obvious that similar problems can be solved by similar solutions, and experience derived from solving those frequent problems can be levetaged to avoid reinventing the wheel every single time that very same design problem pops up. These solutions have a name: design patterns. It boggles the mind how some people insist in claiming that reusing tried and true solutions is useless.
As lon as you're transparent with why you're sending those comapnies the data then you ahve nothing to worry about.

They will all have their own mechanisms for encryption and GDPR which will shield you from prosecution.

People are blowing GDPR out of proportion, as long as you can show a paper trail that you complied and you don't woefuly do silly stuff then you will be fine
It is absolutely possible to operate a Project Gutenberg-like service accessible in Germany. It would just have to serve books in the German public domain, just like the original PG serves books in the US public domain. Project Gutenberg Australia (http://gutenberg.net.au/), for example, has books that are in the Australian public domain but are still under copyright in the US.

It happens that in this case the books are in US public domain but not the German, but that's more of an exception than a rule: current US and EU copyright terms are the same (life of author + 70 years). Australia on the other hand has life of author + 60 years.
I'm pretty sure the identical effect can be (and has been) produced by the combination of normal front facing camera, accelerometer and gyroscope.
To what degree can products like Privacy Badger, and uBlock, help with this sort of invasion?
Link to the Cornell story: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15351006
Words have almost no impact compared to visual imagery. Even if the words come from the mouth or pen of a respected individual, you can still doubt it, and usually people do.

However, whether we like it or not, everything we see, at least on a subsconscious level, we perceive as real.

My assumption would be that we have no evolutionary resistance to that. I don't know if there can be at all. People have been lying from our fist day of existence, but up until very recent times, there has never existed anything in nature that can create arbitrary images that look 100% real.

It doesn't matter if it's fake or not, if you see a convincing version of your president fucking a pig, you'll never forget about it, and you'll always attach that image to him. Similarly, people often can't differentiate between an actors character and the real person. Whether it's Macron on his campaign film or Gandalf on lotr, you associate that person with your simulated experience.

Animated lies are on a completely different tier of immersiveness and deception than speech or writing. You can't reduce this development to "just another lie". It's very close to the most convincing lies possible, and it's definitely very dangerous.
Two kind of related points.

The jurisdiction stuff is disturbing. Having separate rules/rulings for Belgium, Turkey, Venezuela, etc... It's (a) not practical and will end up helping incumbents .(b) It really curbs the internet's ability to promote an open information norm.

Privacy is an issue and we need to do something about it. But, I have a real feeling cencorship, corporate-protectionism, copyright and other agendas will tag along, once the legislature-courts-enforcement complex is up and running. The sorry state of international law/governance isn't helping, including even the EU.

Meanwhile, the recent history of legislative action (eg, the "cookie laws") are not encouraging. I don't think legislators were even aware that it would amount to nothing more than nag screens and terms of use. Don't use incognito, or every site will nag you again, your consent is mandatory and stored as cookie, for extra irony.

Ultimately, these things would have been better dealt with at the standards/protocols/browsers level, but I think that ship has sailed.
Similarly, "Trust - but take care in whom."
In an ideal world, engineers would be perfectly ethical. But, you know, said hyperbolically, sociopaths can be engineers too. You should not induce from your own values to people in general.

Even apart from people without any values.. most engineers don’t hang out on HN, and don’t care much about global scale politics. They care about things that affect them in a very immediate way - family wellbeing, friends, coworkers, and how to pay the bills. I think many don’t infer how much of an impact their actions actually have, since they are „only spokes in the wheel“.
Relevant quote from the article:

>"I can't imagine driving the Mercedes into the employee lot while everyone around me that worked just as hard, or harder got nothing. I would feel like such a jerk. It's quite telling about the people who thought this up. I bet they would be gloating happily if they won." --Flight Attendant - Domestic
Oh man. I stopped reading Medium blogs because they have that inane selection-popup bullshit. I'm not going back but you do have my love for implementing that :)
I was initially fascinated by the Dyalog YouTube video where the guy codes Conway's Life in APL.[1] It have certainly never witnessed such programming before.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9xAKttWgP4
Perhaps in a random casino. I'd during RailsConf your chances of finding useful connections are much better, especially if you're looking for them.
My wife met such a pachinko professional. He worked three 12 hour shifts per week. He would not leave a marginally profitable machine during a shift. The light, smoke and noise were terrible for his health and his income was about normal for a salary man.
COGNIGY.AI enables embedded, fully disconnected Conversational AI
Can you give us a quick run-through of the maths that led to the 2.9013 number?
What you are describing is just a statically linked binary, the world of computing moved away from this well before I started my career but there are pros and cons about it, not only related to disk space.
Actually those C compilers you mention are implemented in C++, so yeah from that point of view you are right.

I was just speaking from language point of view, without regard to specific implementations.
Here's a reply that helps, but it was flagged because it doesn't meet the approval of the "Right Side of History"(tm) committee that runs HackerNews.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16518364
I love cities, and think that for the benefit of humanity, we should encourage more people to live in cities. It's one of the only ways to live a low(ish)-carbon relatively comfortable lifestyle.

However, on a personal level, I have been investigating homesteading as a hedge against climate change and possible damage (I hesitate to say collapse) to civilisation. I'm not sure being in a city during crop failures and rising seas is a great idea. Then again, I'm also not sure being on arable land without adequate defense is a great idea either.

I wonder if there's a more general anxiety about whether we can rely on the systems and infrastructure that provide us with food, power, water, etc. and that manifests itself in a desire to ensure we can provide for ourselves (though I worry that sense of assurance is illusory).
We're already getting close to the point where it's technically feasible to to enter a facebook profile and press a button for a sex tape to be created from a mix of FB photos and porn websites, for any choice among a billion people, that's a problem. The fact you can tell your parents, colleagues or school friends how easy it is to do so and that it's not really you, is not a net positive if you ask me.
Anyone else rather unimpressed by the realism of these fake videos? I mean, technologically it’s cool and all, but it seems more like a proof of concept than anything that can be used to fool humans.

All the videos I’ve watched — out of technical curiosity, naturally — have had some sort of glitch that made it obvious it was fake. I think this technology will have a serious problems just mapping the facial expressions of one person onto another, since many people have their own distinct facial expressions.

The linked YouTube channel with the Putin video[1] is a good example: it looks completely unrealistic because the actor in the source video makes facial expressions Putin would never make.

In my personal opinion, I think it will take decades before this technology becomes good enough to fool humans, and probably longer before it can fool humans closely related to the subjects of the fake videos — if this ever becomes possible at all. The fundamental challenge is mapping the emotions of one person to another’s, which isn’t easily solvable. Just mapping the facial features of Putin onto SNL’s Beck Bennett isn’t going to convince anyone familiar with how Putin looks and acts.

[1] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hKxFqxCaQcM
This. I spent a good long while trying to find out how I was "supposed to do it", only to find out "there are loads of ways", and "it depends".

This left me feeling like nobody really knew, and that everyone was just chucking dirt and hoping it stuck.
The paper only discusses the fact that human generated random sequences are not perfectly random, although they are actually random. Reasoning about a complex system at that level is extremely hard and the paper fails to find a good theory as to why that is, although it lists a few. No surprise there.

Besides, random processes within cells are a fact of nature. Research has discovered various ways how organisms protect themselves against that. I will not point you to references on this because this goes down a rabbit hole of different aspects.
> The jurisdiction stuff is disturbing. Having separate rules/rulings for Belgium, Turkey, Venezuela, etc... It's (a) not practical and will end up helping incumbents

I don’t think so. Only really large corporations are able to serve all areas anyways. Most small companies in the world already cannot afford to serve multiple jurisdictions.
Lf: A fast terminal file manager
Provide simpler/different layout by other means (not tables though, there haven't been a need to use tables for layout for the last 15 years).
Fun fact: it was IE what brought grids to CSS. Alas, being the first they are at the disadvantage when spec changed.
Does anyone know what it was about the Bahamas that made the it so attractive for filing the paperwork?
Did the group of long time runners include people who ran for a long time then had to stop because of injuries?