skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Not the OP, and he/she mentioned "physical observations" so maybe he/she was only referencing hard sciences like Chemistry or, indeed, Physics, but I am of the same opinion to him/her when it comes to the gap between mathematics and social (for a lack of better word) sciences, which social sciences (and the underlying social component behind them, i.e., us, humans) play a very important role in, well, how the Universe runs, or is seen as running.

In other words, mathematics is very bad at modeling and explaining human behavior, be it in economics, history or even political science (even though one of the best political scientists that ever was, Hobbes, wrote his most famous book by trying to imitate Euclid's "Elements"). This is starting to become particularly important now because we try to build some "AI" functionalities that should imitate humans (and even surpass them) based mostly on mathematics (and some underlying data), but it is my opinion that because of this "gap" between how humans are and what mathematics can tell us about how humans are and behave, it is my opinion I say that those "AI" functionalities will never "become" human enough. Stanislaw Lem's "The Cyberiad" does a much better job compared to me at showing this gap between humans and "machines built on mathematics".
Correct me where I'm wrong but did it not used to be the case that facebook apps could access almost as much info about your friends as they could about you?

So where is the consent? Fred gives consent to run a personality quiz and its associated data gathering - Fred's 180 friends didn't.
Is it really hard to stop these things from happening?
>"The irony is that the far right have long called for the British government to take firm control of our borders. Now they are doing just that."

That is actually pretty funny.
It's actually more dangerous as it forces other cars to change lanes to get around you.
Definitely. Especially after the whole Facebook getting to CAs office(s) before authorities thing.
> (Zuk sold his shares in suspicious time).

It's more interesting than that:

> Zuckerberg has sold more Facebook stock in the last 3 months than any insider at any other company

Given that there were indications that he knew well before today, there may be a case.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/20/zuckerbergs-facebook-stock-s...
i've had one judge disqualify me for saying that i place zero weight on police officer testimonies, whereas the other judge asked me if i could take them seriously if there were other pieces of evidence that corroborated what the police were saying.

i served on the second jury; the police officer was blatantly lying but there was no evidence which corroborated their story anyway.
Yes, that's what I suspect. Even if it's just coincidence or placebo, fizzy pop is pretty bad for health on many counts.
Trolls are everywhere, nowadays. Time for identity to reign for a while.
Crisis management is difficult, but the first part is easy.

Stand in front of a camera and read this script.

---

"Facebook created a massive problem, and I'm sorry.

I was slow to react so I don't have any answers yet.

I take personal responsibility for this, and it now has my full attention.

I promise to give a public update every week until we fix the problem."

---
That's not even what was claimed. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rhetorical-question
Exactly. It's further complicated by the fact that you really need to stick to a change for 2 months or more to notice any lasting effects.

From what I've seen with folks struggling with SIBO and Candida among other things was that cutting out sugar completely is probably the first and easiest place to start. No sugar at all, especially added sugar like you might find in a pasta sauce or other store-bought foods. Do that for 3 months straight and then eat something with sugar after that. You'll probably feel sick.
If you're talking about how much data siphoned through Facebook and how much help they got from Facebook. Yes I agree pretty much the same thing (although I guess CA hid it somehow(?) and Facebook just refused to block them even after discovering it)

The differences I see between CA and the Obama's own campaign.

CA was accused of, "Setting up proxy organisations to feed untraceable messages onto social media"

There's also the issue of whether they went around campaign finance laws.

"So, campaigns are normally subject to limits about how much money they can raise. Whereas outside groups can raise an unlimited amount. So the campaign will use their finite resources for things like persuasion and mobilisation and then they leave the ‘air war’ they call it, like the negative attack ads to other affiliated groups"

https://www.channel4.com/news/exposed-undercover-secrets-of-...
When Ford Built a Torture Chamber
Firefox Focus on Android works fine
Our Investment in Callisto (A Sexual Assault Reporting Tool)
Child Pornography Found in the Blockchain Could Threaten Bitcoin's Existence
Isn't perjury in a serious criminal trial a felony?
Obama did the same thing in 2012.

"The campaign didn’t go into much detail, at the time, about exactly how it used Facebook. But St. Clair put it in fairly stark terms when I talked to him at A.M.G.’s temporary offices in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, in April. They started with a list that grew to a million people who had signed into the campaign Web site through Facebook. When people opted to do so, they were met with a prompt asking to grant the campaign permission to scan their Facebook friends lists, their photos and other personal information. In another prompt, the campaign asked for access to the users’ Facebook news feeds, which 25 percent declined, St. Clair said.

Once permission was granted, the campaign had access to millions of names and faces they could match against their lists of persuadable voters, potential donors, unregistered voters and so on. “It would take us 5 to 10 seconds to get a friends list and match it against the voter list,” St. Clair said. They found matches about 50 percent of the time, he said. But the campaign’s ultimate goal was to deputize the closest Obama-supporting friends of voters who were wavering in their affections for the president. “We would grab the top 50 you were most active with and then crawl their wall” to figure out who were most likely to be their real-life friends, not just casual Facebook acquaintances. St. Clair, a former high-school marching-band member who now wears a leather Diesel jacket, explained: “We asked to see photos but really we were looking for who were tagged in photos with you, which was a really great way to dredge up old college friends — and ex-girlfriends,” he said." [1]

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig...
God. That sometimes comes into my head unbidden by any humanly comprehensible reason. It’ll be in my head the rest of the evening now (as you intended!).
That consent is contained in the TOS that you and all of your friends agreed to when you signed up for Facebook. Further, the access to friend data has always been more limited than you imply here, and more recently, it’s become so limited that using apps for data collection about friends is almost a pointless endeavor.
If they want to abbreviate "pedestrian", why not "person"? I've never seen anybody use the term "ped" anything other than disparagingly! How should we respond to this attitude? I know what I think, that's for sure: it's crap, and people in charge of operating motorised vehicles should take more care over how they think about people on foot, to ensure that they never behave too carelessly in the heat of the moment.

Anyway: I think I've set out my stall here to the extent necessary. You and anybody else may make of it what you will. Drive with care, and for fuck's sake don't kill anybody.
3 years of increasing pain in hip, and inability to move, bend. Diagnosis after x-ray.

5 minute treatment.

Almost complete recovery after 6 weeks, still improving.

I can give you contact info for someone to talk to, if you have more questions.

PS: I’m Canadian, so standard course would be pain management, followed by years-long wait for surgery. Instead, I’m jogging around with my 3-year old girl!
The first bombing victim in Austin was one of the first suspects of the police in his own bombing.
it depends on what sites you are using, but I beg you to try it and I can almost guarantee you that it will break your browsing experience... (even if you aren't using google search or gmail)
At at previous job, we made an HSM. We spent a lot of time considering manufacturing and evil maid attacks. There are solutions.

The biggest important leap of faith is that the manufacturer must be able to lock themselves out of the device. This involves physical tamper resistance and people processes. And lots of key management.
Did a retreat. We ate at 6AM and 11AM. No food after Noon. Fasting for 18 hours a day, as we were designed. No stomach problems, felt great, real and regular.

Problem is, we eat a feast each and every night and were never meant to. Our success is killing us. Slowly and in a variety of horrific manners.
Go read the responses in the other threads.
Not that it's actually going to matter.
> "The vehicle was doing about 40 miles per hour on a street with a 45 m.p.h. speed limit when it struck Ms. Herzberg, who was walking her bicycle across the street, according to the Tempe police"

According to the article page that you are commenting, "The speed limit where the accident occurred is 35 mph, police spokeswoman Lily Duran said."

Even so, defensive driving is more than simply driving the speed limit. Also from this article, "... the lack of braking or swerving whatsoever is alarming and suggests that the system never anticipated the collision."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16617136
Scuttlebutt for the win!
The Trump case complicates "dramatically worse," since the issue is that the data was sold to third parties who ultimately affected the election with it.
I do the same thing with uBlock Origin with the "advanced user" setting enabled.
I swear by uBlock/uMatrix, but it's amazing how much of the web it breaks and how little of the content of some sites are hosted by the site itself. The web has become very reliant on CDN's.

My public broadcaster (http://www.abc.net.au/news/) for instance is completely reliant on third parties for it's "live story" functionality. It loses half it's functionality at work where twitter is blocked and uBlock kills the other half. It also kills the live stream when it can't load one of the half a dozen trackers on the page.

I'd love the no-script functionality to be merged in too so that I could turn off javascript by default.
I thought most universities are non profit and essentially own themselves. I don't think they can be sold as no one owns them.
How do you know they didn’t try? Mulesoft doesn’t have to agree to terms of an offer.

It’s not like Salesforce could have even bought a large percentage of the shares when they went on offer. You don’t make 100% of the company available.

Sometimes companies ipo to prove to buyers that they believe their market value is higher than potential buyers think. I can’t speak for Mulesoft but their stock has been mainly excellent and their transition to a public company has been fantastic.

Mulesoft brought a great company to market and Salesforce was willing to pay a 23% premium. Mulesoft thought that was fair - today.
It's part of the startup mythos: lone wolf (nerdy dev in a hoodie no less), builds a CRUD app, becomes stupidly rich via nothing but the hustle. Attacks on that weaken the foundation of belief.
I feel like the article does a good job of addressing this when it talks about the role of "ugly" proofs. It might deserve more emphasis on this; that all pioneering mathematics starts with this, rather than assigning it a space as a "stepping stone" to the "book proof". But it is true that "cleaning up" after the pioneers is a difficult and interesting part of mathematics, that serves to make it easier for new pioneers to get to the end of the paved trail.

> Q: There’s a famous quote from the mathematician G. H. Hardy that says, “There is no permanent place in the world for ugly mathematics.” But ugly mathematics still has a role, right?

> A: You know, the first step is to establish the theorem, so that you can say, “I worked hard. I got the proof. It’s 20 pages. It’s ugly. It’s lots of calculations, but it’s correct and it’s complete and I’m proud of it.”

> ...

> To do these short and surprising proofs, you need a lot of confidence. And one way to get the confidence is if you know the thing is true. If you know that something is true because so-and-so proved it, then you might also dare to say, “What would be the really nice and short and elegant way to establish this?” So, I think, in that sense, the ugly proofs have their role.
If you were to ask 30 Facebook users whether or not Fred taking a stupid personality quiz leaked all their info, 29 of them would say no.

This is why we need informed consent for data collection.
There are "PED XING" signs in the US for pedestrian crossings. I don't think it's considered disparaging.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=ped+xing&source=lnms&tbm=...
"Testilying" seems like a cutesy neologism for perjury.
Building a better product isn't the issue, it's convincing people to use it. The entire value proposition of using Facebook is that a lot of people use Facebook.

You kill Facebook by ceasing your use of Facebook, if you can without too horrible consequences.
If you read the article a bit further, you might find the explanation:

>Zuckerberg's sales accounted for the most, by far. He announced plans in September to sell 35 million to 75 million shares over the next 18 months to fund philanthropic efforts.

It's not new and was announced in September 2017.

From the same article:

>CEO Mark Zuckerberg sold 1.14 million shares as part of regularly scheduled programs.
HNA seems to have made money on disposed assets so far. Maybe they are hanging onto the losers for now.
Whataboutism isn't a defense. Folks can legitimately be outraged and push for change based on CA. Reflection on past or ongoing abuses should absolutely happen.
None of which recovers your earlier statements. If a person beats you up, they are liable to penalty of law and you are entitled to complain - no matter where you were or what self defence training you'd taken, or that they'd buried a clause in a hard-to-understand and unavoidable contract for a service they'd offered you that said "we can randomly beat you up".
Sure, if anyone is inclined to prosecute.
I've posted a quote from this article below that details how Obama's 2012 campaign did practically the same thing Cambridge Analytica is being accused of. [1]

So data mining Facebook has being going on for a while, except that the MSM and Silicon Valley supported it because it favored Obama.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/magazine/the-obama-campaig...
If you have a cat, you'll be waking up at 5 am every day.
When I click a button that says I agree to share my data with a third party app, I am also clicking it on behalf of all of my friends. Where in the TOS does it say that?
> we need fewer people in jail period

What does that mean? How do you know we have too many? Are you claiming we have many innocent people who haven't broken the law in jail? Or that some laws prescribe incommensurate penalties for certain crimes?
Well, it depends how the group is defined. Group insurance: educated (they got a job that provides benefits), probably better health. Individual market: everyone else. So if the group is defined as left overs from healthy pickings, it can really suck even if it is very big.

Switzerland eliminated the group markets, so everyone buys in the individual market even if they don’t have single payer.
To add some more color to your comment... Yes there is a difference between what and how Obama used social media and how Trump did. Obama used social media on a "positive" way, using it to get word out and getting people to the polls and voting. Trump used social media on a "negative" manner. Stirring up and spreading FUD, anger, and division... Working to discourage people from voting. I wouldn't doubt it if the FB data was cross referenced with voter registration rolls to challenge and remove people likely to vote Democrat or for Hillary.
It may be owned by Facebook, but it's one of the viable secure messaging apps for people what don't use Signal. The other is Wire.
The point is that Facebook disclosed to you that this might happen. Failing to read the TOS is not the same as not having been informed. If you fail to read your mortgage contract but sign it anyway, you’ll still lose your house if you don’t live up to the terms. And for the record, the friend data that Facebook makes available to apps is far from “all” of it, especially nowadays
> they are feeling absolutely none of the consequences of their decision

Man I wish I knew the fine details of the books of a multi-billion dollar private equity firm like you do.
They are about to take a huge loss on an old Park Avenue building in NYC. They made out on HK plots they sold. Heaven knows what will happen when they start unloading mainland properties.
It could be incorporated as a not-for-profit. And I have heard that there is a 3rd kind of incorporation somewhere between purely-for-greed and not-for-profit, where some profit is expected, but is not the only reason for the organization. Look for "public benefit corporation".
The whole point of gathering data on voters is so that you can affect the election with it. The whole point of campaigning is affecting elections. Elections are not some input-free, side-effect free process performed in a vacuum. If they were, campaigning would be illegal.

This leak was not the biggest, or even the most detailed source of voter information controlled by the Republican party.

What Facebook did is a disservice to it's users - not to the democratic process. Framing it is as such is nothing but sour grapes.
I do not see that there is any relevance to this case in the NYT being sensitive to national security issues - that is clearly not an issue here. And if issues of importance have routinely been "starved because of discouragement/apathy by editors" (as opposed to possibly flawed judgements of importance), then it would be helpful to your argument if you could enumerate them.

No-one is suggesting that Sandberg had the editorial power of reviewing all Facebook-related articles before they were published, so the question of why she did not suppress this article before it first appeared does not arise. NYTs failure to seek permission beforehand can adequately be explained by a) it didn't expect the response it got and b) if it were in the habit of seeking such approval, it would destroy its brand, and its reason for existence.

The issue is that the NYT caved in to a demand without even following its normal policy of explaining a correction, and this is a serious matter regardless of whether Sandberg or Facebook were ill-advised to follow this course of action.

The article's author's responses look to me like an attempt at damage control, in that they talk around the central issue with heavy use of weasel words. If the original was deleted because it was superseded by a clearer follow-up, why is the follow-up notably unclear on this very issue?
A troll on Slashdot who commonly advertises a HOSTS-based block list, claiming it superior to practically every security solution ever.
The cars would creep along at 5mph every time there's a pedestrian on the sidewalk then, obstructing traffic and causing accidents.
They called out API specifically

Not UI
No. We've been through Prism. We know the NSA is doing this. You are not allowed to be this naive anymore.
Let's make a distinction here.

These people are most likely Americans, of Chinese descent. They are probably also 2nd or 3rd generation Americans, like yourself. They went to American schools and universities. They speak perfect English. They vote. They are patriotic. And they pay their taxes.

These people have no connection to the China government. They probably don't have any more close relatives that even live in China. So their connection to their ancestral home lands have been severed. They are by definition, Americans.

Now, yes, there may be some people in Silicon Valley, who are Chinese nationals, and who are working with an H-1B visa. I don't know the numbers breakdown.

But, I think you need to make a distinction between the two types.
To a computer that’s never encountered this scenario before it might be.
I really don't see how the trolley problem is relevant to this situation. The car didn't decide that killing a person was better than some less-moral alternative.
I bet they regretted that strike :)
The flip side, though, is that intrinsic measures of software quality are terrible. Most boil the ocean looking to define what makes something good in the small, and completely fail to generalize into the large.

Worse, too many are interested in building a general solution when they haven't even done a single concrete solution. I have yet to find a proud developer that said, "I used the boring choices for this problem and got a solid solution."

This is akin to expecting an artisan to give better results for a standard kitchen than a builder would get from buying Ikea.

And don't take that as some sort of value judgement either way. Builders are there own to of Craftsman. Different doesn't need a hierarchy.

My gut for why this is? In a fiercely competitive field, leverage from success is the primary driver. And you get more leverage and success by being different. The upside is huge. Naturally, so is the downside. Survivor bias kicks in and people think they succeed from wiser choices, so they are incapable of reflecting and making less risky choices as they age as an org. Which requires an influx of young risk takers that have not hit a downside yet.
Depends on what you mean by “going ethos.” Healthy perspective on an employment relationship from your perspective, yes. Anathema to a large number of Silicon Valley startups where you will likely get branded as neither a culture fit nor a team player, as well, yes.

It’s wise in the Valley to hold such an opinion but not make it very prominently known. There are a number of people who want your job and will say something more palatable to your employer, and eat your free meal while shipping a feature at 10pm because they buy into the posters on the wall. Many allegations of ageism (but not all) can probably trace back to something like this, in my uninformed gut opinion, because you will almost certainly get replaced by a new grad when the hammer falls. I don’t even see it as personal, but a demonstration of incentives: they can get a loud 40 from you or a quiet 80 from a newly minted BSc. QED.

Just decline invites and push back on over 40. Expressing that attitude at a typical company within this audience basically paints “please lay me off” on your back. When you’re getting into post-senior titling, or you’re really specialized in a tough req to fill, is when that approach becomes more feasible.
Right - and in America you're not even allowed to cross the road! To the extent that when a self-driving car runs somebody over, "but but they were in the road" is somehow an adequate defence!

If you want to consider this a cultural misunderstanding, fine. What can I do about that? Nothing. But please, before I go, because I can tell I'm not making much of an impact here, let me say it again: drive carefully, and for fuck's sake don't kill anybody.

(and please tell the robots too!)
> Building a better product isn't the issue, it's convincing people to use it.

Calacanis should just fund one of the 100+ alternatives that already exist, but don't yet have a critical mass of users. Funding someone to write new software for something that not only could, but should be bootstrapped is unlikely to produce anything viable.