skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
An instance could have good reputation and still be malicious in terms of privacy and what is done with your data.

In this sense, trusting a Mastodon instance with your data is the same as trusting a Bitcoin exchange with your money. Bitcoin is decentralized too, that doesn't make Bitcoin exchanges trustworthy.
You are referring to someone walking from the sidewalk. The parent is referring to someone leaping from behind a parked car or visual obstruction.

The distance to travel in the parent’s situation is basically zero, and is incredibly common in most cities with a parking lane.
that is the nature of things. big changes require a lot of accumulation of small things.
Your assertion that the poorly-educated/working-class don't care about integrity is incredibly condescending and ignorant.
SAVE THE NEW HIV-AIDS AND EBOLA HEALTH BLOG FROM EXTINCTION
Why even bother having a LIDAR system on your self driving car if it doesn't have sufficient resolution to detect a person standing right in front of it?

This doesn't seem like an edge case at all. Pedestrian crossing the road at a normal walking pace, and no obstructions in the way which would block the car's vision. The fact that it's dark out should be irrelevant to every sensor on that car other than the cameras.

Something obviously went terribly wrong here; either with the sensors themselves or the software. Probably both.
Cruz campaign using firm that harvested data on millions of Facebook users(2015)
Writing code to get software builds to work feels like pointless busy work.

I feel like something has gone wrong with software development that the task of making software requires so much meta programming.
What controls does Uber have that the "safety driver" is doing their job? When the computer gets confused or its computed probability drops below a threshold, when and how does it alert the driver. How many of these self driving testbeds have a person in the seat just for CYA and not actual safety ?

I'd like to see Uber's logs of all the other pedestrian and vehicle near misses where the computer took corrective action.

What testing did Uber do on a closed course with adversarial conditions? Ball rolls into road with a child following, pedestrians walking under a flickering street lamp, people dressed in costumes, a parade, a protest, service workers, a pickup truck with a lost load.
Anything that offends their particular sensibilities..
I'm skeptical of that possibility, because if that were true, you would see the driver gasp in surprise while looking down (and a lot sooner BTW, given that it's supposedly night vision), instead of roughly one human-reaction-time after looking up at the road.
> even if

That's why I specified. In any case thanks for clarifying.
> Half of the planet does not have access to clean drinking water

It's a lot easier to ship a phone somewhere than to ship clean drinking water.

(There are a lot of people who do not have access to clean water but have a cell phone.)
> You don't see the addiction itself as a quagmire?

Some actually consider it a feature. A highly monetizable one at that.
While this is a good thing, I don't see this helping them out as a state. TBH, this could even result in more people to move out. This is actually a huge problem throughout the whole world where where the top talent gets scooped up in the most developed areas.

For this effort not to go to waste on other states(and states are not the nation and nor are they families so it may not be a big concern), Wyoming would have to improve it's infrastructure and turn itself into a migrant hub for the type of people they'd want in. And I don't think the Richard Florida methods are going to work.

My advice for Wyoming is to court rich billionaires who want to be in charge of their own cities. Or intentional communities for higher IQ ethnic/religious groups that want some kind of cultural autonomy.

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-bill-gates-wants-to...
I remembered hearing about Cambridge Analytica having access to Facebook data from unsavoury parts on the internet last year, and I wanted to check how far back this was known of.

To wit: "A little-known data company, now embedded within Cruz’s campaign and indirectly financed by his primary billionaire benefactor, paid researchers at Cambridge University to gather detailed psychological profiles about the US electorate using a massive pool of mainly unwitting US Facebook users built with an online survey."
> There was a time when people said the same thing about the body.

Movement, electric impulses, nerves, are observable/measurable stuff. I'm not sure that your example is analogous to qualia. You suppose that qualia is material. It may be, still I find it very hard to imagine how it could be. What is our subjective experience made of? How electricity and neurotransmitters cause subjective experience? It appears that there's a gap between objects and qualia because only I can see my qualia, while everybody can see a brain or measure electric impulses.

Anyway, I like your hypothesis that it could be answered by science. It can lead to interesting experiments and theories.
Who saw the CNN "interview" ? Was it green-boxed?

- never seen both interviewer and Zuck together in a photo op. News stations usually do that and show together photo before or after the interview take place (or during sitting together) so that everyone knows it actually took place;

- Zuck eyes were running back and forth like he was reading from teleprompter;

- weird pauses felt like he is waiting for teleprompter to update;

- first time ever seen any interview - not to mention on a so-called professional news station - that camera angle will be shooting at interviewer's back of his/her head;

- journalist interviewing Zuck did not look at his face or his eyes, but somewhere behind him.

Unless its just my tin foil hat thinking for me...
That explains why he built his fortress of solitude.
Baloney. In most USA cities the vast majority of police officers on patrol are in radio motor patrol cars, not footposts. Are you even from the USA? Or is there a city that is an exception?

Or are you repeating the trite idea that all motorists are also pedestrians because they have to walk a few feet in a parking lot or driveway at the start and end of their trip? That is ridiculous if so -- travelling a few feet in a parking lot, a place designed to be safe for pedestrians, is very different from having no choice but to walk miles of dangerous high speed roads like the one in question today because it's the only way to get home
> because users OK all that when they sign up

Reminds me of the "Facebook Security Simulator" game that was made around that time - https://www.grahamcluley.com/facebook-security-simulator/ and the term "privacy zuckering" was invented round about then to describe this UX dark pattern - https://darkpatterns.org/types-of-dark-pattern/privacy-zucke...

So while Facebook may be on safe ground here _legally_ there was still an obvious train crash coming back then; when users they tricked into sharing everything find out what they actually agreed to
Care to link? Now I'm curious.
Something is off here - not in the discussion but on the larger picture.

Why didn’t Hillary win? I’m sure she had access to similar tools?

I think someone needs to take a look at the Hillary campaign and contrast it to identify exactly how effective Facebook data is
Who funded Reddit has zero to do with how HN is moderated. This is the sort of explanation people reach for at the first sign of anything that's partially consistent with it. If you think about it, that's already enough to tell you that the logic is wrong: it explains way too much!

(As for the bit about YC, it sounds pretty weird to me but I don't know what you're referring to.)
Which part of 64,000 users accepted App connection but their friends been exploited to the tune of 50,000,000 you don't understand??
Jasa+Desain+arsitektur+dan+hitung+RAB
And most other search engines put ads on the main search page. Google just gave you a box. This was a big deal when you're on those old, slow connections. It was also less obtrusive and more classy.
From the video it appears that the safety driver was checking her phone at the time of the incident.
I don't know, this sounds a little bit like that sovereign citizen "wrong flag in the courtroom" stuff.

Even if they haven't replied, the original contract is still sitting there clearly stating that a certain set of assumptions are in place if you use the software. I don't see any way to argue that a non-reply implies consent to new terms or abandonment of any terms.
It set off the software's flamewar detector a.k.a. overheated discussion detector. I've turned the penalty off and rolled back the clock on the story to compensate.

Posts without URLs (Ask HN, Tell HN, etc.) also start off with a penalty, and I've turned that off too.
Beyond close vs. distant ties: Understanding post-service sharing of information with close, exchange, and hybrid ties
> HK people almost always increase the price so much that people are forced to move every 2 years.

HK rents seem to have followed the general cooling of the market recently, at least among my circle of friends. My own rent has actually gone down since I moved in a few years ago.
Where to Score: Classified Ads from Haight-Ashbury
Explain Deflategate and the OJ trial reactions. I also grew up with them. It's not condescending, it's been observational. I didn't claim it's universal or it's like that for everything in their lives, but if one of their horses cheats a bit, gets away with something, it's not the end of the world.
Journalist: Know Anything About Sci-Bay? HMU
Well, this account's probably gonna have to be a burner

I'm a freelance science journalist (PopSci, Scientific American, The Verge, Discover, etc.) I wrote the most in-depth article to date on
Sci-Hub, the largest academic piracy operation in the world for the Verge. (https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16985666/alexandra-elbakyan-sci-hub-open-access-science-papers-lawsuit)

Then, earlier today, I came across the Hacker News thread on the new https://sci-bay.org : (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16633616)

Tl;dr: It combines the search feature of Google Scholar with the ability to download research from Sci-Hub, Library Genesis etc.

I've already contacted Sci-Hub's Alexandra Elbakyan. She doesn't know anything. I know a few editors with the publisher of a certain prestigious journal that's hoping to do a news piece on this ASAP.

If you know anything about the site, HMU. You can DM me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/StiehlPointPen
Very well put.

I’m still concerned, though... addition to basic security, some people will compromise ethics for status. In particular, an observation JL made in the book is that people staying in the finance industry despite reservations were often parents buying their kids a fancy education.

Abolish Harvard to fix Facebook? Less Eton, more ethics?
That they didn't?
Every job includes a large amount of secondary work that needs to be done in support of the primary work. Sometimes the primary work is fun and the secondary work is a chore. Sometimes it's all fun. Sometimes it's all a chore.

I write software for a living, and occasionally I get sick of all the secondary work and politics, and wish I'd found another career and kept software as a hobby. Then I realize that working doesn't leave much time for hobbies, and I get paid well to do something I enjoy, and the secondary work is a small burden to get paid for the parts I still like.

There's also the simple fact that if you want to work on any sufficiently complex software, even as a hobby, you're still going to have to work on build scripts and tooling, unless you like repeating yourself and doing things the hard way.

I'm sure artists, auto mechanics, writers, and surfers all have plenty of chores to do, whether they're professionals or hobbyists.
If by public information you mean 'information a friend has shared with you', then yes.

I would not exactly call that public, though.
Active Discussion of same exact story => https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16636791
It's probably easier to just enable ssh on the prototype system to enable arbitrary remote debugging than to specifically design a locked down API for accessing certain data.
It’s the stack of a few individually explainable things — no one getting the finger-prick test, a complaint you’ve never received before, unusual requests to delete things, a fire alarm at just the right time — that makes them all suspicious.
It’s what high beams are for. It would have been easy to avoid.
Worrisome. I can understand (and fully support) dangerous videos, or those purporting dangerous or illegal behavior. But a demonstration video, or educational, no. YouTube may be using too heavy a hammer here.
This exactly. In fact we've ( the US) gone the other way, electing a President and Party that openly denies climate change.
Thank you, yes, Zuboff is an absolutely underappreciated star.

I only ran across Smart Machine some months back, via a review in a Whole Earth special issue (online at the Internet Archive), edited by Kevin Kelly (he went on to edit Wired).

She was absolutely prescient then. And is very much still alive, if retired.
Alternate systems perform way better. Granted this is broad day light.
I’m completely at a lack of words as why people think giving their data to someone means it’s safe or won’t be used for harm.

Anything I post on social media, I assume the worst.

I’m unsure how anyone else can assume any different.
wtf are you even suggesting, that the interview didn't take place?
Uber may not be at fault, legally speaking. That's up to the legal authorities to decide.

However, as a society and civilization, and even more so, as engineers and scientists, we are going to expect that the autonomous car matches or exceeds human-level performance in critical situations like this.

Therefore the time spent on investigating, understanding, and discussing the root causes of the accident is worth understanding. Accidents like these generally do not happen due to a single factor. It is necessary to understand all the necessary factors if we want to make autonomous driving systems more reliable.

At the very least we need to understand whether the pedestrian appeared in the other sensors that a human could have identified by looking at the sensor data, and if yes, whether the autonomous system matched or exceeded human-level performance by detecting the pedestrian, and if the pedestrian was indeed detected, why the autonomous driving system failed to respond to the situation.
It's worth pointing out however that humans can't make use of that whole order of magnitude range at the same time. The visual system has to gain up and down as the average light in the field of view changes. This takes several minutes or even a half hour to fully dark adapt.
So who's going to jail for this murder?
I'm having fun imagining the malicious compliance that you could do.

Come to think of it, every email you write to them notifying them of new copyrighted work can itself be new copyrighted work...
The wildcard here is that interior video. The safety driver was clearly not paying attention. Although the exterior video seems to exonerate her, everybody knows that even with no bright clothing and in between streetlights, a pedestrian rolling a bicycle wouldn't be that invisible.

On the other hand, that pedestrian was astonishingly oblivious, crossing a two-lane roadway with a 45mph speed limit and not even looking for oncoming traffic. If she did that every night for a couple of years, I think her odds of having at least a close call would approach 100%.

It will be interesting to see what happens.
Yeah, my point is that the RGB video could be a perfectly faithful reproduction of the scene* and also the software could have reached decision from multi-sensor data that hasn't yet been released (i.e., a dark spot in some video frames from one of the RGB cameras doesn't imply that the autonomous system lacked info).

*Though we can assume that this dashcam footage is lower quality / resolution / less precise than what the sensors had access to.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16643056
Should be trivial to find out how many formerly homeless people SF current supports.
If you want more data, see the chart in this article (sometimes behind paywall, so I'm linking archived version):
http://archive.is/oXNHv

The chart shows a comparison of increase in population vs increase in price, for four regions: San Francisco, London, "Tokyo", and the central district of Minato-ku. While the first three are vaguely defined since they could be either city limits or metropolitan areas, there is no such uncertainty about Minato-ku.

Minato had a much larger percentage population increase than SF or London but a much smaller percentage price increase.
You'll want to consider:

http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html
> after a short outburst of moral outrage people will go back to being complacent without substantive change being enacted

But this time it's not just people, it's political parties and whole countries that are being affected.
Ethical question for HN...

Certainly, some team of engineers is tasked with analyzing the cause of this failure and providing potential solutions for future releases. What is the best way to do this without trivializing the fact that a human life was lost? Does anyone have experience with analyzing the aftermath of some event which caused death?
In and of itself that's a signal that for some reason things like this don't seem to make the general public change their behavior en masse?

I'd love to see some kind of reporting/study on why on average the general public does not respond to events you mention like Snowden/Manning/OWS/Bank Bailout and others. I mean at one point in time social movements in the US got things done like Temperance Movement, Womens Voting Rights, Civil Rights Movement etc...

Maybe there is a larger narrative here that I'm missing, like each of these things are part of the anti-corporate movement or something.
That first question is a good one. Not that it got an answer.

Considering the data is what is valuable to them I would find it hard to belive they didn't know how much they had been sharing in the past.
Not only is there no crossing here, but a sign forbidding pedestrian crossing. (Look at the left side of the road.)

The sign directs people to use a crossing, which is some 100 meters away at the lights around the bend.
But this then suggests that we should look far more closely at the Hillary campaign and see why it didn’t win.

Was it bad management ?

Was it not using Facebook data effectively ?

Was CA that pivotal? Was it fake news or better microtargetting?

If both sides used it why did one side lose?
This says nothing. People shopped online before Amazon; watched movies before Netflix, and used smartphones before Apple started making them
Obama seemed to do it in a less negative way. The Obama campaign used it to encourage people to get out and vote. The ads run in the Trump campaign seem far more nefarious and suppressive of voting, targeting minority populations and other would be democratic voters. Seems far, far darker than anything Obama did, and in many ways, fairly anti American. So not surprising that people take notice of that kind of stuff.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-27/inside-th...
I'm learning the material myself. Shoot me an email. I'd be happy to share notes.
totally agree. I've seen crash detection catch an impending crash two cars ahead of the car in front of the car watching.

If that crash detection can detect shit going on two cars ahead why couldn't LIDAR see that?

having said that. wth was she doing?
What Can Facebook Do Now?
Ahh I meant the base system we count in. Worded it badly.
Γιατί η ιστοσελίδα μου δεν εμφανίζεται στα αποτελέσματα αναζήτησης της Google;
CA scandal is just a final push. I kinda stopped using FB like half a year ago, for that I don't really know what I could get from this platform. Viral videos, nope. Sensationalized editorial with an angry face attached below, nope. Friends having party like no tomorrow, fine. But there are so many of them, and they are kinda repetitive.

Since it is public and real name social network, I have to be extra careful sharing anything that might be offensive to any member of my 'friends'. This kind of self-censorship is pretty stressful, I end up just shutting up.

Novelty and fun is gone from this platform for me.
Mark Zuckerberg Announces That Facebook Is an Information Fiduciary
Mark has known about this issue since I fought with him over it in 2005.

https://twitter.com/AaronGreenspan/status/975957889767505920

https://twitter.com/AaronGreenspan/status/976331044084264960

As I have said time and again, Mark is not trustworthy and never has been.
These "IP agreements", in my experience, include an "Invention Disclosure" section where you can submit a list of "inventions" that you developed before you took the position. It's supposed to be the blacklist of stuff explicitly excluded by the IP ownership agreement (i.e., you still own it since you "invented" it before you joined the org). Usually they give you a few lines to write these in. My approach has been to provide this as an attachment with an exhaustive list ranging from things I've actually developed all the way to mere ideas that could be realized in some form. Of course, every new time you have to sign one of these, the list should be longer. Each item should be broadly written; they can't be asburdly broad, like "Software to perform transformations on data", but you can undoubtedly find ways to make the item more specific to certain domains, and write in that annoying "cover your bases multiple times" form of legalese, e.g. "Tools, methods, and approaches in distributed and monolithic data aggregation, satisfying static and dynamic reliability constraints".

I reliably hear from HR or contracts that I'm the only one they've seen fill that section out, and certainly to the length I typically provide, but they duly accept it and execute the agreement. I've never seen them send to an IP lawyer or anyone else to screen the list for legitimacy.

Considering how challenging litigating technical IP claims is, I think this should have some amount of reasonable deterrent effect regarding threats or actual wanton IP theft litigation after leaving the org's employ.
This mostly has nothing to do with how Google was originally started.
> In a non-nuclear world, actions to obtain them will prompt imediate preemptive conventional attacks

There are plenty of ways to sufficiently deter a preemptive conventional invasion and North Korea is a perfect example of it. Their conventional artillery poses a significant threat to Seoul, which by itself put a huge damper on any talks about conventional warfare to topple the regime or attack their nuclear facilities.

> You can't build a nuclear arsenal overnight.

True but it's extremely hard to verify that the other party isn't hiding a 100-200 warheads in some remote barely documented base and hid the extra production in lost/modified paperwork. Larger countries with larger militaries just make the number of possible hiding spaces that much higher.
هل أنت مصمم ؟ افتح متجرك على Zazzle وأربح المال