skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> What she should have done was not cancel the feature

Why do you imagine this is her choice? If you want to write a new feature to add voice control to an app, and your boss says no, we don't want that, do you go ahead and do it??
Section 230: A Key Legal Shield for Facebook, Google Is About to Change
Citation on what? The price not dropping? The supply of units increasing?

I can't give you a citation on who is buying the units because that is obfuscated by design. If the people trying to hide their wealth put their names on the deeds they have just made sure they stay alive in the dungeon until the sale was finalized.
Police Release Video of Fatal Uber Autonomous Car Collision
Ethereum Scam on Brian Acton's #deletefacebook Tweet
See above quote from their own campaign manager. Here's a link to her own tweet on this issue if you don't believe me or the publication I linked to above:

https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975
A “tamper-proof” currency wallet just got backdoored by a 15-year-old
> Midwesterners are quite notable for being both neoconservatives and poor

No, they aren't, especially the former.
It has reached that point. I'm moving to voat.
A human could not see the person until it was too late, but shouldn’t the sensors on the car have noticed?
If people who would be buying high-end housing are forced to buy lower-end housing because the supply is tight, then prices will be forced to go up everywhere.
A cheat sheet for Azure vs. AWS data services comparison purposes
Because cows don't provide milk indefinitely?

Because you get more money for a cow than milk over a long time period and can use the cash to expand the cow-selling business?
I'm leaning toward they aren't really serious about it

I've said variations on this before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16438362, but FB will get serious about it when users stop using it.

Until that time, everyone can complain, but the concept of "revealed preferences" is relevant. Do people actually care? If so, they'll change their behavior, FB will likely notice, and changes will happen.

People have been complaining about FB and privacy since practically day 0. Throughout that entire period, FB has only become more popular.
None of what you mention requires religion, however. One doesn't need religion to reinforce ethical and moral norms, or punish bad behavior through social pressure. One can have community without requiring that community maintain ritual adherence to an orthodoxy based on some ancient text and belief in the supernatural.

I would argue that the loss of Christian faith can be a benefit to human society. The Bible has been used to justify rape and abuse, racism, slavery, violence against non heterosexuals, opposition to HIV testing and contraception, opposition to scientific teaching, and many other objectively terrible things. Maybe it's best to be rid of it, and the assumption that morality and ethics require believing in it.
Your response only talks about 2008. The 2012 campaign admitted that it sucked data out of facebook. 'The entire social network' in the united states.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1129&v=LGiiQUMaS...

"They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side."

https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568208886484997
Of course there's an untruth in what I said. Ostensibly it's all about Impact Factor, but in reality it's all about how much money you are bringing in. Academia is in a sad state.
Do we really want the "average person" investing with leverage? That didn't go so well 10 years ago.

Besides, GP stated that real estate ownership was the "only way" for Joe-sixpack to get into the middle-class. Homeownership may well have financial and tax advantages but it's by no means the sole way to build wealth.
The Gates Foundation has helped to eradicate polio and has worked on other projects to help alleviate the suffering of those in extreme poverty. Same with the Carter Foundation and guinea worms.

> I like science and technology as much as the next guy and I didn't think I'd say this, but IMO it's contributing to a continually decreasing quality of life.

I get the sentiment, my gut says the same, but in terms of actual progress we're still doing pretty well. I'm in the middle of Pinker's Enlightenment Now and it's hard to argue with his data... however, I do believe he is missing some other effects regarding fragility and complexity that he hasn't addressed (yet).

Every time my phone rings and it's a robot on the other end, pretending to be a human, my world darkens and I also have a brush with Kacynski level thoughts, though.

Australia and New Zealand are just a nice mix of being geographically positioned away from the big flash points of global conflict and having democratically elected governments. NZ also learned a lot about robustness and preparedness from their recent earthquakes.
I'm surprised the vehicle didn't detect an object moving into its field of view. What are the expectations from the driver under the terms of Arizona's self-driving car laws? Are they expected to remain engaged as a driver, or are they permitted to allow the car to perform all of the driving? It's impossible to say whether an attentive drive would have changed the outcome of this scenario -- largely because a highly compressed video doesn't really convey what the driver actually was capable of seeing, but it's very clear from the video that the driver was more focused on a phone (or some other device) and was not an active participant in driving the vehicle.
That's revenue not profit.
I'm not sure about that but Amazon has my AMEX purchase history. I've been retargeted for single item purchases that are impossible to know otherwise.
Because Facebook gave them authorization to do whatever they wanted to do with the data.
It's actually not such bad info [1] (from Carol Davidsen, Obama's former campaign manager). The guy you quote certainly has the opinion that it was OK to access and use the data of 190 MILLION people for political purposes, only 1 million of whom explicitly authorized him to do so, but I'm guessing that the majority of those 190 million people would vehemently disagree with him.

https://twitter.com/cld276/status/975568130117459975
Amnesty International Calls on Twitter to Release Its Raw Data on Abuse
That might actually be what Loury was getting at (I was honestly as surprised as OP at that line). However, there does seem to be a third, midway option, which the author even alludes to: black people have been socially and economically disadvantaged for centuries (to put it mildly), resulting in overrepresentation in lower socio economic groups. That, in turn, would lead to lower academic performance (regardless of race), because of less support and encouragement from the environment. In broad strokes: Option 3 is a combination of 1 (but societal, not just in academics), leading to 2 (but correlation, not causation).

The idea of affirmative action then (assuming #3) being: giving black people more space in the academic race will eventually help break that chain.

There are a lot of assumptions here, but I don’t see how this would be incongruous with either the author’s earlier statements or affirmative action as a whole.

However I doubt this is actually true, because the author (an expert, unlike me) seems to know something I don’t.
For one, I don't think most people are acutely aware that this is what is going on. The HN reading crowd is the enlightened technical elite. We know that this is the transaction which occurs whenever we do something for "free" on the internet. Regular people may wonder why something as sophisticated as this is free, but are not aware that the cost is privacy. They just think "oh, this is a cool free fun thing. Awesome!" and be on their way.

Even then, the surprising, and technically not against TOS, open secret to every single social app that leverages it, is the comparative ease with which one could scrape a user's peer nodes' entire public history without explicit permission from said node. This is the thing that allows for all those "you may know" invite suggestion engines.

And this is by design, obviously, as it is literally the only thing that makes facebook valuable.
> Which were the same permissions that the users of the Kogan app gave. Remember that the issue here revolves around the fact that friends of the users of either app never gave permission for their data to be used. The only difference is that Obama did this to about 4X as many people.

you're still wrong but at this point, with all the evidence showing just how different the situation is, i suspect you want to be for whatever reason.
> The price of a house grows exponentially with the minimum travel time to a metropolis from it.

10 minutes away: $1,000,000

20 minutes away: $2,000,000?

60 minutes away: $32,000,000?
there is so much useless discussion here. what the blogger takes issue with (and refutes convincingly) is that ALIASED THERMAL NOISE can be RECONSTRUCTED. it clearly cannot (if you think you can, this is your chance to make $1000). it doesn't matter what rate you sample at, nor is there any need to invoke compressed sensing - what the authors of the original papers do has nothing to do with it.
And they admitted that they make less on mobile because they have to pay companies like Apple to be the default search engine.....
Can you elaborate on the difference?
I have been campaigning since 2007 :) and of course I wasn't the only one:

https://stallman.org/facebook.html
gundeals was the only sub that I had ever actually made a direct bookmark too. I've never seen another community quite like it.
Well they sort of promised the FTC they wouldn't just do that without giving you a heads up, but then in the api they let your data out to apps that you didn't get a heads up about.
> I am saddened that the dream we all shared of allowing small towns to once again flourish, because knowledge workers could be located anywhere on the planet, are being quickly forgotten in favor of ultra-dense citiscapes.

It was always a futile dream, mostly propagated by people who themselves enjoy small towns and certainly not "shared by all". It turns out that many knowledge workers actually like big cities for the leisure options, health services, people and neighbourhood diversity, much bigger selection of potential life partners, and high availability of jobs.
> tell me what I (we) did wrong at my job we tried using the ELK stack, and it's probably still running but it is such a resource hog.

Part of the problem is what it's promoted for. It's a great drop-in, horizontally-scalable, full-text search engine, that's inexplicably become popular for log ingestion and analysis.

To those ends, I hate it, I hate every bit of it, from the atrocious JSON-based query DSL (seriously thought it was a joke at first) to its unpredictable timeouts, shard storms, mapping conflicts and other problems at scale. Elementary SQL concepts aren't possible ('select someone_elses_poorly_named_key as first_name', nope, you gotta reindex). High-cardinality aggregations fail in spectacular ways. High-anything aggregations fail in spectacular ways. The scroll API returns results unordered. There's no way to properly spec your cluster; the docs explicitly take a trial-and-error approach to design.

It's not just you. Elasticsearch does me no favors with the task of log analysis. I'd sooner normalize and grep a pile of gzipped log files than keep dealing with this mess, but this is the second job I've been at that's built their logging infrastructure on top of it.

> I do not understand why they built Elasticsearch.

"You know, for search."

It's great for searching proper text. Documents, comments, blog posts, etc.

> I've read in a couple places you need like 32GB of RAM[0] just to run this thing to do queries, and having crashed Kibana / Elasticsearch a dozen times I believe it's designed poorly.

You don't necessarily need 32GB to do anything. The required heap size scales with your intended workload, but it's not like you can do a back-of-napkin calculation to figure out the relation. I run a 1GB instance for development.

It uses the memory to do a lot of caching so the queries you throw it are lightning fast. Mongo does something similar (but crappier IMO) with its concept of working sets.
The last paragraph is interesting. If we get more multi-family homes in LA, that's still not something to own. I guess single family homes could all turn into condominiums, as long as that counts as true ownership.
Running sites that large, even for something simple, cost a lot of money. Unless it is funded by a wealthy benefactor or publicly funded there is no way that it will every work. It's obviously not a technical problem but a funds problem.
I've deleted both my YouTube and reddit accounts. I've been trying to de-Google my life, this will probably accelerate that. Just need a proper mobile Linux device and I can finally dump Android.
Wow, I had thought it impossible for the Uber AV to be in the right lane, and for the victim to be crossing left-to-right, for the police to claim that the victim couldn't be seen until it was too late. But I didn't expect the road to be so dark, given what we saw in the accident photos (which might have been over-exposed?) and Google Maps, which showed a lot of street/sidewalk lighting.

In the moment that we can fully see her, she does look unambiguously like a person walking a bike across the road (reports say there were plastic bags on the bike, but they weren't obvious/obstructive in the camera view). Is the AV's LIDAR expected to detect this kind of thing, even if it's too dark for human eyes?

The video of the Uber driver doesn't look great for the driver. I mean she doesn't look particularly engaged -- but I suspect that's what most of us would look like at the wheel. But she definitely seems to be looking downwards, right at the moment of impact.

Unless some other incriminating info is discovered, I hope that the driver isn't the sole focus of punishment (doesn't help that she's a convicted armed robber, albeit years ago). Being able to brake in time for the victim seems difficult even in most ideal and alert conditions. And I have to think human operators are going to suffer complacency when 95-99% of the time they never have to actually drive -- making that switch seems to be a situation ripe with problems.

I don't mean that Uber execs/testers/engineers (again, assuming there isn't other incriminating evidence) should be scapegoats. I hope the result involves regulations that add more transparency to reporting (especially in Arizona), and public debate about the expectations of AV and AI.
>When you singup for Facebook, you agree that anything you post might be shared with others on the platform.

Except you CAN'T sign away your rights in many jurisdictions, including this thing called HIPAA. So if Facebook sold people's mentions of health problems to third-parties... is that a violation?

I mean, this is the exact scenario people grilled Windows 10's spyware. But somehow, Facebook doing it, isn't an issue? What's the difference? I'm honestly asking.
The question here was “how do Japanese build wealth?” and someone suggested the stock market, so I replied that in the Japanese case, that might not actually be likely, because they had a big crash in the 80s which they have yet to recover from. No offense intended, but your comment doesn’t seem relevant to the discussion.
> you need to pay for housing either way.

Yes but you don't have to pay the same amounts. There's a reason "rent-or-buy" calculators exist.
You're aware of Occupy Wall Street, right?

Corporate corruption is the issue at the root of all of the above, very much including this Facebook mess.
It's very possible that they produce a lot of revenue but no profit like Uber. On the other hand I would assume Google Cloud is making money since Azura and AWS are profitable for MS and Amazon.
Study in Austraila for Free – International Scholarships at Cowan University
I'm struggling to understand why people keep bringing up the Obama comparison. At the start of the 2016 elections everyone, Sanders, Clinton, Jeb!, Trump were doing what Obama did in 2012. The outrage isn't soley in the fact that the CA campaign used FB data.

1. CA obtained the data illicitly and tried to cover up the fact they had used it, and downplay how many users they had reached.

2. CA used the data to intentionally spread and optimizing the sharing of bogus news.

Comparing the CA scandal to Obama is willfully ignoring these two facts that has led to the current backlash.

Society, to the frustration of many of us on this forum, has implicitly decided to trust Facebook with the personal data of millions and has allowed the mass-resale of user data, provided that everyone else plays by the "rules" (for example, you can target me to sell ads, but only as long as you trying to sell me TVs). CA (and transitively, Trump) broke these rules.
Good, a shift in young minds in regards to work/life balance is needed as government intervention has done so little to improve work ethic in Japan.

It might even assist their economy in recovery if that change occurs, as more overseas workers would be attracted to a career in Japan.
Does no one realize that this a bed that we have made ourselves? That the sea of data that the large five swim in is product of the modern deal that society has with tech, which no one forced us to make? Why is everyone happy to blame Facebook for what is fundamentally modern society's fault? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Even better is this Time article which is non-stop fawning over the brilliance of the Obama campaign using an app to suck down information in your friends list: http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/20/friended-how-the-obama-...

2012: getting information about all of your friends by simply using an app? How cool is that? Haha bet you Republican dinosaurs had thought of that, huh?

2018: getting information about all of your friends by simply using an app? This is utterly terrifying!

And save me the “it’s different because it was a campaign app.” Did the app get the consent from all the friends whose data was harvested? I’m thinking... no.

From a former Obama campaign staffer... https://ijr.com/ijr-red/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-di...

> Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn’t stop us once they realized that was what we were doing.

> They came to office in the days following election recruiting & were very candid that they allowed us to do things they wouldn’t have allowed someone else to do because they were on our side.

So a former Obama staffer is saying they harvested data in a manner that raised red flags with Facebook, news articles of the time detailed the manner in which friend data was harvested automatically (i.e., without consent) and yet, no one in 2012 or after stopped and said, “hey wait, that’s not OK.” Throw aside all the talk about false equivalences, what the 2012 Obama campaign did with data was obviously not OK by Facebook or anyone else’s standards and yet... crickets. It really is a case of “it’s OK when we do it” for Democrats. Anyone wanna wager that Facebook will really revisit this case like Zuckerberg promised to do?
Also the people in this data scandal took a quiz from a shady company and probably clicked through the prompt to share their info without thinking twice. The only problem was it got some of their friends info... but that bug/feature was fixed years ago.

Personally I quit Facebook upon signing up the first time in 2009. I friended a real life friend then 20 assholes from high school saw that action on my friends timeline and tried friending me. Right away I closed my Facebook account and never signed up again.

It was obvious back then Facebook shares my actions I don't want public with anyone they feel like. If you don't want them to do that then you shouldn't use the service.
You are right, though. Lead paint doesn't emit lead vapors (except if you remove it with those heat gun things)
That has nothing to do with Facebook though. Once Facebook gives its data to a third party, they have no control over it.
Deepl Pro
Maybe I missed the part in that video where he says they pulled private user data? If Trump generated his own social graph, I don't think there would be outrage.. instead they've got something worse than a breach on their hands.

It's apples and oranges.
In prime locations it doesn't matter if it's a bungalow or 2 floors, the main component of the cost is the land.

Which is why we should tax land, not the improved value of land (property tax). And not labour.
No one gets the message in London. There should be high rise condo/apartment buildings like Manhattan, Hong Kong, Singapore, even Toronto, all over the place given the population but height restrictions persist so people live in cramped, miserable conditions. There are vested interest that make allowing this politically challenging, existing owners would see property prices plummet if this was allowed, and then there's some powerful people just block it for aesthetic reasons. Either way it can't continue without having an economic and innovation hit long term.
I think where facebook messed up is, by default (because it's the only thing that makes them valuable), set entire user permissions as public.
Theranos was claiming amazing technical breakthroughs, but never published anything that would verify the claims. This was pointed out by a couple of researchers, Eleftherios Diamandis and John Ioannidis, in early 2015. https://www.vox.com/2015/10/31/9646356/theranos-peer-review-...
What if I don't want to live in an apartment most of my life?
The "false intentions" here are about the user agreeing to use the app.

Obama: "Give us a list of your Facebook friends, and we'll help you contact them about voting for Obama." While the Obama campaign did collect data about friends, this data was voluntarily given to them by users. If the Obama campaign had your Facebook data, it was because one of your friends knowingly and voluntarily gave it to the Obama campaign.

Kogan/CA: "Take a free personality quiz!" The people taking the quiz likely had no idea that they were supporting a political campaign or helping Trump win. You could have your data given to CA even if nobody in your friend graph supported it.

Also, that 190 million figure is probably inaccurate, because there is probably significant overlap in people's friends lists.
What exactly am I wrong about?
So Obama's campaign violated the Facebook terms of service and illegally used the data they obtained, combined with funds illegally collected from a hostile foreign power, and used the user data to spread disinformation and lies about US politics?

Is that what you're saying? Because otherwise, the two cases are completely different.
No need to create the paper trail, the "hard hitting"-looking questions any tv news outlet is going to ask are incredibly predictable.
Because there is no cost-of-carry. Tax land and get rid of the speculators, and socialise the common wealth.
Great, so /r/gundeals, which was nothing more than a sales aggregator for law-abiding online retailers, is gone, but /r/the_donald, a vile, rampantly bigoted, conspiracy-theory-peddling shithole, is allowed to stay?
True spirit of opportunity right here
Circular? Remote workers means, there aren't more jobs just because you're in a city. As for neighborhoods, an expanding cityscape of just more apartment blocks means no neighborhoods at all.

As for leisure options, a beach shared by 1M other people is not much of an option. Living in Colorado has orders of magnitude more leisure options for instance.
Huawei dealt a blow, loses Best Buy as smartphone retailer
I touched a six volt battery to the back of my neck and got told by HN I was going to fry my brain. Grossly overestimating risk is a minor league sport around here. Why do you think most of these people haven't actually started their own company or left their supposedly soul-sucking corporate jobs, yet?