skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An Elementary Guide to Ember Build Performance
Who did? The Russian government? Russian citizens? How did they organize these protests? Where’s the evidence?

Also, this is a completely different claim, separate from the “Russia interferes with our election” claim.
The true data apocalypse will come when ISP logs are compromised and leaked (urls visited, dns lookups, tied to ip or even subscriber ids, etc), and there is enough leaked PII floating it out there to join it to people records.
I've worked with and talked to the Molly team. I think they are on track to do something really interesting in the AI space and bring a particular human sensibility that seems to be missing in other AIs that I interact with. If anyone is going to build the AI from Her, it's this team.
Derived from pedant I believe.

noun
a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.
Zuckerberg is just about the most uncharismatic and unrelatable person in America. He had no chance from the beginning.
I'm not sure and I might be mistaken, but I think you also advocate a little about this "people have rights to their feelings" line of argumentation. But people's feelings can be manipulated with things that aren't true.

Say somebody told you that your coworker of similar skill level was earning twice as much as you, because they cheated somehow. You would get angry at them. If it then was revealed that no such thing happened, they have the same salary as you, would you still stay angry?
"It's unfortunate that in the aftermath of polarizing and controversial decisions like these, this kind of rhetoric will now drive people further apart, because one side refuses to accept the reality of the other's opinions, and dismisses them with conspiracy theories."

That's the rub. The side that doesnt go with the trumpers keeps looking for justifications that dont boil down to "Those people innately agree with those policies after a reasoned and thoughtful approach to the problem."

That's because the beliefs they espouse are an anathema to their core understanding of a civil society, and the only way they can continue to humanize them is to pretend they were tricked or stupid.

Honestly, I pretty much feel the same way myself. If you earnestly understand the consequences of America's current president and you are still gung-ho, I find you to be lacking in about every important moral and ethical measure.
He's saying there was social pressure both external and internal, but yeah - of the type you're talking about.
The Vietnam era PRC77 for comparison: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PRC-77_Portable_Transceiv...
My thoughts exactly. I've always though the whole artificial eye thing was often unnecessarily limiting the range of perception (and thus capabilities) to what humans are accustomed to.

Maybe part of the answer is in the form factor of strawberry plants. Like olives for instance. They grow olives now in windrows of little bushes, like a low hedge and harvest them with a machine that straddles the rows. Which obviously is a lot more efficient then getting them out of a tall tree.
The fallacy of hosted services
That would be an interesting pivot.
#deletefacebook is not about "conspiracy theories". It's because their personal data was exploited to aid the election of someone they hate.

Whether it actually moved the needle enough to elect Trump is open to debate, but that's not a "conspiracy theory". Even the very idea that their personal data can be exploited this way, against their will, via friends who were tricked, is unsettling. That's more than just being mad about the election. They do not want a service that can exploit them that way in their life.

Maybe Facebook has locked down the API, or maybe there's some other way to exploit it next round. People are realizing that trusting Facebook with their personal data was a bad idea to begin with and not in their best interests.
Wouldn't the right answer to this be some sort of Public Benefit Corporation where the board does not have an ultimate obligation to maximize shareholder value? As I understand it, they're available in more than half of US states, including CA and DE.
Export Presentation, Slide to Specified Format and Better PPTX Conversion to PDF
Bloomberg title:

>> Uber Victim Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Car

First line of the first paragraph in the article (my underlining):

>> Police say a video from the Uber self-driving car that struck and killed a woman on Sunday shows her moving in front of it suddenly

And the title on this thread:

>> Video Shows Woman Stepped Suddenly in Front of Self-Driving Uber

Both titles are very misleading. The Bloomberg title because it doesn't clarify it's repeating a police statement, the HN title because it makes it look like the relevant video is in the article, or at least that someone from Bloomberg has seen it, neither of which is the case.
It wouldn't be coincidence because they were the reporters to have gotten this inside information from their sources. Their followup, which focuses on how Stamos got fucked over for his stance against Russian interference, is long enough that it would have had to been mostly written by the time FB is alleged to have put pressure on NYT to change the first story.
Because I've noticed in many of these threads about Facebook there is constant whataboutism relating to Obama and a constant attempt to deflect discussion away from the actual contents of the article.

You've been making the unsubstantiated argument that the only reason people care about Facebook nowadays is because they're sore losers. If you're going to make a wide-reaching claim like that, I would love some citations.
If there’s not enough light for the cameras, LIDAR would get emphasized, not de-emphasized.
I don't think that this is prioritizing degree of influence, particularly for popular programming systems. Jonathan Edward's research has explored novel ways of programming, so naturally this selection is going to be more focused on atypical interfaces.
That was part of Snapchat's charm, I think. No pressure to perform, just do silly things with your friends. Then Snap needed to make money, so they got into the content and the advertising and added Stories and 'influencers,' and it's basically the same as any other social network now.
> I don't understand the contradiction between selling Whatsapp to them and now caring about these issues.

You would refuse $16 billions from Facebook?
Robert Harper is saying the exact opposite of what you’re quoting him to say. He would 100% call Python unityped (at least prior to the new type annotations, and probably even with them).
HN detective....
Try the following experiment. Take the best 2meter hand held radio to the Dayton hamvention. Pick a simples frequency, talk to your buddies on this frequency. You will hear crosstalk, imd, phantom signals, dropouts. Now take that situation and put it in a hostile, battle situation. Not at all solved.
Agreed, Russian citizens doing stuff may not mean Russian government ordered it
Because I agreed to give it to them, for one.

For another, I know what Google is. And where it is - they have an address. They're in the US. I could, if I wanted, sue them.

Compare that to a literally limitless number of unknown organisations all across the world? Yeah, I'd say Google is better.
The winning candidate spent significantly less money in this instance.

Also I tend to agree with Citizens United. Unions and Corporations should be allowed to express their views on a candidate.

If there is someone running for office and making a BS claim about steel workers, I would want steelworkers unions to have the right to advertise and inform me that it is BS.

Also if you get into issue based stuff, it becomes extremely overzealous to prevent unions and Corporations from being able to speak up during an election. Planned parenthood, for example, has a lot of misconceptions about it, they should have the right to do something about that.

I also understand the scope for abuse with citizens united, but I don't think curtailing first amendment rights is ever a good idea.

Probably worth noting that I'm not American, my opinion of this case is shaped by my listening to SCOTUS oral arguments of the case on YouTube many years ago.
> ranging from accusations of racism, misogyny, treason, incompetence, mental instability - despite all of it

Same happened in USSR, Yeltsin was accused in almost all of the above, and won - not so much despite of this, but to a large extent due to this. When the entire establishment gangs up against one, the normal human instinct is to support him. And the effect is so well-known that I'm actually suprised Trump's opponents acted this way.
How do you explain lower turnout for Hillary Clinton when compared to Obama's two turnout numbers?
Doesn't your board have the obligation to maximize shareholder value? Is it possible that would conflict with the metrics you mention as the driving force of your company? Is it possible that a Public Benefit Corporation might be a more suitable entity to serve this sort of need?
I've also gone 20+ years not seeing friends from high school and college. I suppose I could be more informed about their lives, and they about mine, if I were sharing that stuff on Facebook. But I also think that if any of us really cared, we'd take the time to make a call or send an email every once in a while. A few of us do, but mostly we don't. If that effort is too much, how important is the friendship?

Facebook to me feels like those xeroxed summary-of-my-fantastic-year letters that some people stick in their Christmas cards. Mildly interesting, maybe, but also kind of tacky and pretty impersonal and low effort.
Jonathan Edward's research has explored novel ways of programming, so naturally this selection is going to be more focused on atypical interfaces. Those environments that you used are very similar to current programming systems, and so they probably don't make the cut of being thought provoking and informative to look at in 2018. Beyond the historical curiosity and nostalgia, that is.
The topic at hand is "meddling", not "hack"ing. Please don't try to change the topic.
While I agree with the co-founder, I wish he'd also suggested deleting WhatsApp given that it's become a tool for many people spreading lies, disinformation, propaganda, faked photos, fake videos and hatred.
I’ve tried all the flavors and it’s pretty good! Still tastes a little bit too much like weed for my tastes but they do a pretty good job covering up the weed flavor. I think they’re working on a 5mg version.
Neither candidate was campaigning for a popular vote, they were both campaigning to win the electoral college. Which Trump did because ~63,000,000 Americans decided, purely of their own free will, that he was the better candidate. No matter how much you try to retroactively gerrymander the outcome, both candidates were playing on a level playing field, one of them won and one of them lost. It’s really a testament to democracy that an outsider candidate can prevail over the amount of establishment support Hillary had.
Wow. No connection whatsoever with reality indeed.
Or they really disliked both candidates, so a small push could send them in either direction. Just as an example.

It's pretty difficult to make meaningful wide-ranging inferences about the voter populations this way.
That’s fair enough, really. The defense probably would have thrown out the ones who said they’d put a higher weight on police testimony.

Being skeptical of witness accounts is fine, but you admitted partiality specifically based on their occupation - I assume they want people who as much as possibly will evaluate the account based only the facts at hand.
It allows for open-access of the epitome of human progress, which is something unavailable to low-income communities. It's copying data, not stealing from a museum, so it's not as if any journal is losing much, if anything.

There's no real ethical downside - allowing people who wouldn't normally have access to research helps to reduce inequality, and allows human progress to advance a lot quicker than if it weren't open. There are brilliant people of which have no access to research, who could - and would - more likely do something with it than not.

Given that we all pay for science, [0] from people in the lowest drudges of poverty, to people in the highest skyscrapers in New York, we should all have access to it. Imagine you paid taxes meant to improve roads in your area, but ended up going to a place hundreds of miles away from you. You'll never get to use these roads, and you'll be told you're unethical and unlawful if you even consider using them. It wouldn't be very fair, would it?

[0] https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays
Crossposting what I said on Twitter:

> My contrarian impulse is that I want y'all to stop dunking on Acton for this tweet. (Context: One of the WhatsApp cofounders who sold to Facebook and made lots of money.) People's views change over time and it can take years for a conviction to form and then crystalize.

> It's very possible that Acton is burning bridges with that tweet. Don't assume that he loses nothing by speaking up now.
Because at least then you know who has your data. If I agree to Google having some of my data because I trust them with it to some extent that does not mean I want to give any third party access to that data. And I'm not saying there's any reason to trust Google with your data, but at least you'll know who really has access to that data.
Thankfully you were on that jury.

I know many of us dread jury service, but really, if we don't go, then we're leaving all of these decisions to people like that, who are willing to blindly believe the police.
> Join the mailing list to receive regular updates and sign-up for the discussion group on... Facebook!

Is it a kind of a parody?
I was doing some trail assessment work a few summers ago and while walking under tree cover heard a tiny something land on my hat, right above the back of my neck. I took my hat off and there was a tick. So apparently a full-brim hat is also a good idea.
I think this has something to do with the so-called Parkinson's law, where an organization tends to "corrupt" when it is growing its headcount if its top leader is not aware of it.

I used to work for a startup which has a 'flexible' working time culture too. It was not that bad until the company grew its size to an extent that the middle management layer was established. Then all the shit exactly like what a typical Parkinson's law story happened.

Edit: https://www.economist.com/node/14116121
Whatever adjective you prefer. But can you answer the question? You're being purposely obtuse.
Is there any scope for differentiation? We were thinking of entering this space for some time. I felt most of the platforms are spit into two groups - either a glorified IFTTT or sophisticated, Java based systems that demand tremendous learning curve.

We are trying to place ourselves somewhere in between with market place for open source components supporting modern stacks like Python, R, Node.js etc.. We were wondering if that would unlock tremendous power to system integrators?
EmojiDomain.name: Search emoji domains in the .ws TLD
> Regardless of the reason for the permission being asked,

This seems...insane.

Informed consent makes all the difference in cases like this. How can you feel that it's irrelevant whether data was obtained under fraudulent premises, versus with explicit consent?

It would be like saying 'It doesn't matter that company A had a real product with real traction and raised $10Mm, while company B lied to investors about the amount of user activity and raised $10Mm. The resulting funds raised was the same in both instances. So I equate the outcome in my mind'.

Now, I don't mean to imply that you believe the quote above, but what you said sounds _exactly_ that outlandish to me.
For me, one of the most memorable moments during the campaign was when one of my liberal friends told me that he suspected Melania of being a Russian spy. I was so relieved when it was over - people were acting nuts.
https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download

"From in or around 2014 to the present, Defendants knowingly and intentionally conspired with each other (and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury) to defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of the government through fraud and deceit for the purpose of interfering with the U.S. political and electoral processes, including the presidential election of 2016."

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

"We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments."
That study actually shows that almost nothing has changed in a quarter of a century.

They're referencing 1986-2016 at 72%, versus ~67% from 2010-2017, as a meaningful improvement. That supposedly meaningful improvement is almost entirely wiped out if you adjust just one of the recent outlier data points down to the average. Or alternatively, to show how little actual improvement there has been in a quarter century, drop the data off pre 1992, that 72% vs 67% improvement might even regress (someone want to test that?). That's pretty shaky ground for such a big claim.

Pretty ridiculous article premise given the data in question. There's obviously a lot more work to do on improving the gender stereotype problem the article is claiming has improved, particularly since it has somewhere between barely changed and not changed at all in decades.
My dad, an avid hunter/outdoorsman, has told me for years ticks drop from trees.

He's also told stories of ticks on deer the size of golfballs. This is why I stay indoors! [shudder]
Sorry, I was ambiguous. I meant the other slang.
The Constitution is not the one making the decision on who is sitting on any particular jury.
what would it look like to create a public/government arm of social media?

Ever been to the talk page of a Wikipedia article?
I'm 100% in favour of sci-hub.

However, note that they are very anarchic when it comes to commercial books, not just journal articles!

E.g. from the Sci-Bay search results, this is $131 on amazon.com, and quite possibly the authors do want the royalties.

[BOOK] Intelligent optimisation techniques: genetic algorithms, tabu search, simulated annealing and neural networks
D Pham, D Karaboga - 2012 - books.google.com
...
Cited by 916 Related articles All 3 versions [Download Book]
You'll note he used the word 'allegations', not proven facts.

Are you asking for evidence that the law was broken, or are you asking for the evidence that leads to the allegations? There's a significant difference in standard between the two.
It’s only salaried workers who think that Zuck’s endgame is insider trading. The reality is 1000x more terrifying and resistant to regulation.
This aims to be much closer: http://benefitcorp.net/faq. Companies with the ability to operate for-profit, but without the obligation for maximizing shareholder profit.
The timeline contains confirmed events which are in fact evidence. They're not accusations; the point of the timeline is that these are things we know happened.
A request for appearance is a summons. BBC didn't necessarily use the word as a legal term.
> I don't really get why Russian "meddling" is so bad. I kind of expect them to do this.

Here's an analogy: We expect belligerents to kill each other's soldiers during war. It's the responsibility of each side to minimize their own losses. That doesn't mean that war isn't bad.
Part of the issue is that within large parts of the united states, speed limits are set at the 85%ile of the speed people drive [1] ... and in my experience, often are only enforced if the police suspect you of something else, or you are driving extremely aggressively (cutting people off, not safe stopping distance, etc.) because speeding is a far more cut-and-dry offense to prosecute, "reckless driving" may be easier to argue away in court due to the level of judgement required.

[1] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2012/11/16/one-for-the-dustbin-t...
The winning candidate won by something like negative three million votes. What other country would consider that a democratic outcome?
Yes, this is a serious abuse of headline on both counts. Mods, can we change the title on HN? It’s a significant misrepresentation as it stands.
Looks like that radio couldn't have been older than 40 years.
Can you read? Those lists are very detailed and deal exclusively with this topic.
FOMO on the latest and greatest framework and the feeling of being left out. But deep down I know it's a distracrion; albeit a mentally taxing one.
The most unintentionally funny part of the clips is where the former detective says he never railroads innocent people. Sure buddy ....

(Going off of memory, so forgive me if the quote isn't exactly correct.)
> Computers have better reaction times than humans. Forcibly braking is a simple maneuver.

The question isn't about the MHZ speed of a computer or the theoretical reaction time but the lack of reaction by the computer in the actual real world. It doesn't matter if this is a sensor failure, a software bug, or a slow reaction by a computer. The result is the same. A person died.

From the article:

*"... the lack of braking or swerving whatsoever is alarming and suggests that the system never anticipated the collision.”
I always love people who tout the "how could those feeble minded simpletons be so easily swindled; I would never fall for that" slogan.

Have you considered it might be happening to you, right now? How would you tell, if by definition we are talking about pressing unconscious psychological buttons?

You may be very well educated, but you've never the less the same monkey brain as everyone on this earth.
How a Bitcoin System Is Like and Unlike a Gold Standard
A Hurricane Flattens Facebook
When I came out of college I worked hard (didn't slack off) and smart (automated what I could.) Never had a boss who seemed to appreciate either one. Last real job I had I worked from home half the time - I'd wake up, sign into Skype and go back to sleep until someone called. Got the day's work done in the afternoon.
Zuckerberg Brushed Off Obama’s Private Warnings About Facebook (2017)
This will get downvoted but whatever. I predicted all of this a decade ago and I refused to be part of it. All my friends laughed at me and said I was crazy.

Maybe I am but I don't do all that social media shit because if you don't know where they are making money, they are making it off of you.

And that's creepy. I'm willing to pay for value, but I'm not on board with them making money by looking over my shoulder. It's not about me doing something illegal, I don't do that, I'm fine, it's just creepy.

That social media stuff is like dopamine, feels good, but is not good for you.
This would likewise affect Mastodon. One of its arguable strengths is also a weakness, in that regard.
What evidence is there that there is a genetic component?