skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Libya and Syria are probably good examples of this not being the case. Libya had the benefit of NATO coming to the aid of the rebellion and stopping the airstrikes, Syria also had outside involvement. When a government goes to war with it's civilians other nations tend to get involved.

Even if that isn't the case, all those weapons are on the ground or in port at some point. Meaning an attack with small arms to get in there and preemptively blow them up will work. These weapons also have to be maintained meaning they need a base. You have millions of citizens with weapons and a military that's a much smaller fraction of that, with bases that have a much smaller fraction of personnel. The base is going to be overrun. There is also the chance of military personnel defecting, so that some of these weapons never get fired.

Chemical and biological weapons are a really bad idea. The problem is a civil war isn't going to be geographically defined in this case. There is no polarization along something like a Mason-Dixon line. You will end up killing people that don't revolt, which will probably make them rethink their not revolting. How would you feel if your family and friends were killed in an attack, and they weren't on the rebel side?

The other problem is even if you increase the military's size to win the civil war, you have the second problem of the very people that you could grab immediately to fight are probably going to be a majority of people who have been opposed to gun ownership, don't have weapons and don't know how to use them. It will take time to become proficient and the other side has both the weapons and training.

Even with advanced military tech, the numbers game combined with a guerrilla approach, and the fact these are civilians and it would be hard to identify civilian combatants from non-combatants, will make it a losing battle. We already haven't done well in Afghanistan or Iraq for similar reasons, and despite the enemy being technologically inferior, we have never been able to secure those regions.
The video is misrepresenting what's visible vs. invisible.

There was no human driver in that car. There was a person in the driver seat focused on something other than the road.
Common wisdom isn't necessarily followed. I've see many people cross the street blind especially on college campuses. Worse, where I currently live (Ann Arbor) I have seen people do this when they very clearly do not have the right of way.
You can't live in an index fund. They might be a superior alternative to vacation/rental property, but you're going to pay for a primary residence one way or another.
I wonder how much this affects the clathrate gun hypothesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
And that has now happened to me with HN... On the plus side; the content (not least the comments) is much more valuable
If a thermal camera can't detect a person on the road, then a thermal camera is the wrong camera to use. The exact technology isn't important - the important thing is, the vehicle failed to detect a human being crossing in front of it.
Not Comey's hearing, no. There are other hearings that you can search for by copying and pasting what I wrote verbatim into Google to find.

If you disagree with Crowdstrike's methodologies, then by all means let's get specific. They were the principle investigators on the case. They are well regarded. I didn't read the Ukraine link you provided because 1. I have no idea if the team was even the same and 2. it's likely they've been wrong once before, so it's immaterial.

I literally don't understand the words you wrote about Wikileaks. Yes, I don't believe Assange.

I don't get your reaction to the link. You think they colluded, but think it's overcovered in the media? You want DHS to investigate the DNC hack 2 years after the fact? Who ever mentioned Reddit? Donald Trump is a liar so he is not guilty of collusion?

You seem intent on minimizing this to the point of being gratuitously contrary. Thank you for the discussion.
Facebook also owns the networks that seem best positioned to pick up the slack.
"the enormous backlash" in this case is because it looks like the data was used to hack the US election. If it had been used to sell washing powder no one would give a damn.
Just to clarify - Cloudflare have POPs behind the great firewall of china in cooperation with Baidu. That is not to say Cloudflare routed sites are all accessible through CF, but it's certainly not a blanket statement either way.

Not sure if this would work better.
Openvpn is unlikely to be malicious, and is opensource so you could theoretically audit it. And if you're _really_ paranoid, it's an open protocol, so you could write your own implementation. Although, then it's likely vulnerable -- there's a principle, I forget who from, which states that for any piece of software of sufficient complexity, if you wrote it yourself then you probably made a mistake and it's vulnerable; and if you didn't write it, then even if you read the entire source code very carefully, it's still possible, likely even, that they snuck in an exploit that you didn't notice.
I moved to the US a few years ago and have already lost count of how many cyclists wearing dark clothing and no lights on poorly lit roads I've nearly hit at night.

I had to take a cycling proficiency test in the UK, here no one seems to have a clue, they don't even always ride on the right side of the road.

This woman neglected any due care and her death, while tragic, is entirely her own fault.
A Look at Lviv, One of Europe’s Most Vibrant Tech Cities
A lot of German sites have two buttons. One with no tracking that pressing it causes the "follow up" script to run, and then the "follow us" script that tracks you.
Atomix VirtualDJ 8 Pro Infinity Serial Number Crack for Mac OS X – Crack4Mac
Someone recorded driving the same section of road at night using a cell phone camera and you can see how much better that camera reproduces the real-world visibility of the situation: https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t=26

That stretch of road was not particularly poorly lit, the pedestrian would have been abundantly visible to anyone paying attention, and it should have been picked up by the Uber vehicle's vision system as well, let alone their sensor suite.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the pedestrian that got hit has crossed at that area many times in the past. There is actually a pedestrian crossing on the median there, but it is purely decorative and posted with signage saying not to use it. However, the area has pretty good sight lines down the road and it does seem to be well lit, so a pedestrian who cavalierly crosses through traffic would likely nevertheless have a very low chance of getting hit.
At this point I've hidden at least 10 threads relating to this. I'm starting to think that this is a coordinated PR "attack" on facebook.
This is why I always buy phones that allow me to flash my own ROM.

That way you only have Google (and whatever apps you decide to give access to) tracking you and not your OEM.
"A pledge that we won’t bring a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DCMA) action against a researcher for research consistent with the policy."

Minor issue, but it's DMCA-- if someone reading this has edit rights on the page you may want to fix this.
Since I didn't find it in a Ctrl+F, I'll chime in to say that one of the advantages of self-driving cars is the scrutiny that accidents will come under, and how the results of that investigation can improve the driving of all other self-driving cars.

While many fatal car accidents are scrutinized to an appropriate level throughout the various countries across the world, many are not. And when they are examined in detail and the vehicle had a fault, the systems in place to issue recalls and defects are quite robust and reasonably effective, although time consuming. When the driver is at fault, the local judicial system (if it exists) can attempt to rectify that behaviour through the usual means - fines, imprisonment, training, whathaveyou.

But with a self-driving car, the autonomous systems can be updated after a collision like this is understood, improved, and distributed to existing vehicles at a scale and rate far surpassing anything possible with humans driving cars individually in every city across the world.

I don't think self-driving cars are flawless in concept or mandatory for all circumstances, but having been to fatal car accidents that are eerily similar to one another on a few too many occasions, I can welcome large scale discussions on what went on in a death such as this one - because the positive outcomes can be replicated elsewhere, hopefully saving someone from the same fate.
no she didn't expect cars to decelerate from afar. She just didn't care

She didn't even look at the road at all, not even during the very moment of impact. She was looking the other way 100% of the time right up until the crash. She didn't even care enough to look at the road at all because "looking at the road" was WAY too much work for her.

Pretty sure she didn't bother to do some kind of "physics deceleration analysis" before she crossed the road LOL
> From the video, it seems that the woman didn't even look at the street (the direction where the car came). Actually, she didn't even seem to look at the street before she crossed.

You saw the pedestrian _enter_ the street in that video? I saw nothing of the sort when I watched it.
The insane levels of year-over-year appreciation/rent hikes make any calculator say "buy" in expensive major cities, regardless of the difference in cost today.
> That's why countries where gun are banned for general population, does not have mass murder by "common people" like USA.

First I beg to differ- compare the EU to the U.S. or the U.S. to India, or to China for that matter or the U.S. to Brazil. Not just "countries". The US is one of the largest countries on Earth (by population and landmass), with one of the most diverse sets of population... It's really hard to even find a comparison.

And I can tell you've never used a gun, it's not really something you go - "yeah let's kill people for fun today". Most of the cases (literally all the ones I know of) do it for revenge, or how they feel about themselves, don't really think a hobby is playing into it - more likely it's that when guns are used we plaster their names all over every media outlet.
I used Khan Academy for 2-3 months while I had a full-time job. I worked my way up from College Algebra to Calculus I before I took community college courses in Calculus I and Calculus II. It definitely prepared me for the college courses.
I never said "every possible illegal or unexpected obstruction". What I said was "if you drive so fast you can't avoid something blocking your lane by the time you see it, you're going too fast." Your quote, in fact, confirms what I said:

However, if the jaywalker strolls into the street a few hundred yards ahead of the car and the driver does not slow down or swerve, the driver could be held responsible.

This was clearly not a case of "someone stepping out right in front of the car", since they were more than halfway across the rightmost lane, walking a bicycle.

Edit: This rule is merely a variation on the universally accepted one that says that if you rear-end someone in another vehicle, you're almost universally at fault (unless it can be proven that they acted in such a way that the collision was unavoidable.) The logic being that if you could not avoid a collision, you were going too fast for the distance you had to the vehicles in front of you.

Are you suggesting that drivers should be less liable for running into stationary objects than they are for running into other vehicles? That seems absurd to me.
Because we've allowed facebook, and it's ilk, to run rampant with our personal data and identity. Let's rein them in. With force.
Facebook Takes First Steps to Progressive Web Apps (PWA)
Cambridge Analytica also in focus now for being in talks with Indian opposition party (Congress)
Redis with its rich data set is much more suitable for this use case.
Thanks, those obvious points really needed references. And
come on... SF is the last place a Midwestern neocon would consider!
How do you propose on building a database like that? Any patch of road which is not a legal crossing is inherently a potential* illegal crossing. I think illegal crossings are non deterministic and hence unpredictable.

Edits
> The distinction you make of OFA being on the up and up and CA not is valid

bullshit. plain and simple. you are falsely making those two equivalent.
> The police may not have a good way to evaluate the vastly superior dynamic range of human vision compared to the camera.

The solution is simple and even pointed out later in the article:

> Note that the streetlamps are actually not that far from her crossing point, so I think she should have been reasonably illuminated even for non-HDR cameras or the human eye, but I would need to go to the site to make a full determination of that.

Seems like the question of whether a driver would have seen the pedestrian is simply solved by going to the site another comparable night and seeing how visibility is to a human pair of eyes.
When under pressure, I'd expect a strong CEO to fix things, not to crawl away from the problems and toss them on someone else.
Sadly, I suspect all three of those sentences have a fairly high chance of being incorrect.

If Uber think they can gain some benefit from keeping part or all of what they learn here to themselves, I strongly suspect all that data will be wrapped up forever in trade secret claims...

I certainly wouldn't want to be the one going to tell this woman's family that "she didn't die in vain, thanks to her and Uber, self driving cars will now be safer for everyone!" If they didn't punch me in the face and say "Fuck you! She died in vain, while Uber made the most profitable calculations and moves as they risked and callously ended human lives to increase their shareholder value!" then they've better people than me.

The human behind the wheel was not sitting in a known-safe autonomous vehicle with a record of better-than-human road safety, they were at work doing the critical job of overseeing a prototype self driving car with a barely alpha-release software version controlling a machine which is well known as capable of killing people. It was their only job - to keep their full attention on the road.
None of those are essential either. Where you have a choice you have responsibility. If people prefer supposed convenience, let them state it as such, but let nobody claim they have no choice.
yes, that's why she should keep doing it and not expect anything to ever happen! Who cares? Not her. She doesn't care.
> Nuclear weapons are not currently a threat to the existence of the human species. Modern civilization might be at risk.

Frankly, on almost all metrics meaningful to us today, those are nearly equivalent. If a nuclear exchange causes modern technological society to collapse, then sure - the humanity will likely rebound. After couple thousand to couple million years, which is what it'll take for Earth to regenerate enough of the easily accessible, high-density energy sources to allow for the new industrial revolution.

If we want life for people to keep getting better, it's crucial to ensure our deeply interconnected, global technological civilization doesn't collapse. And that civilization is much, much more fragile than survival of our species in general.
I understand the anger directed at them. Facebook are the spearhead of the closed, privacy-invading web, and this is the straw that broke the camel's back. Most people reading HN probably remember the days when the web was open and free and you actually had to remember URLs to read interesting content on interesting websites, usually run by enthusiastic hobbyists, written as flat HTML sites without JavaScript bloat or supercookies.

They're obviously not the only company at fault, but they're one of the biggest.
Art. 7 GDPR: Conditions for consent
You can get 320x240 60hz for $2000 as a consumer[1]. On the one hand I wonder what kind of resolution the military grade version is, but I also wonder if the bandwidth/dollar is actually better. I imagine Raytheon basically just makes up a number when they're setting the price of a helicopter gun cam.

[1]: eg https://www.amazon.com/FLIR-Systems-III-320-Thermal-Detector...
Overflow News – Get latest news from dev world
No, that's for talking with a person. Facebook is for "keeping in touch", which is a bit like the Unix command touch. It doesn't read or modify the file, it just increments the date.
Puerto Ricans and Ultrarich “Puertopians” Struggle Over How to Remake the Island
Probably the only explanation was that LIDAR was off, either on purpose (for testing?) or because it broke and there was no safety mechanism to prevent the car from operating if/when LIDAR is off.
These would have been the 1st battery tests by the car company, surely? Child chasing ball is obviously important scenario. Lidar/sw didnt recognize human/bike combo? But blob was moving & system failed to see or avoid moving blob.That makes me think there should also be a pretrip system check like airlines.
He's not doing shit. Year after year he's making the same comment over privacy. What is Facebook suppose to do? Stop collecting data? Ridiculous its the core business model of every branch of that disgusting data leech. It's not about the Cambridge Analytica or russian manipulation campaign. It's about our basic right to privacy, that is constantly violated every time You look at that page or any other connected to it.
Your reasoning sounds a lot like the broken window fallacy.
If only looking at the posted dash cam video, yes it does look difficult to avoid. But that video is incredibly dark and not at all what the environment looks like to the naked eye.

Here's a video posted by a local on Reddit showing better how the street looks at night: https://youtu.be/1XOVxSCG8u0?t=31
Yeah, in my country you can own hunting or sporting weapons, e.g a rifle or shotgun, but it's almost impossible to posess a handgun for example, or a high capacity semi automatic weapon.

But I have a tradition with my son of sending each other links of people in other countries shooting things up with their 50 cal machine guns and the like.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that watching such things constitutes any kind of risk to anyone.
I only follow people who post humorous or clever jokes, stories from their lives, or photos of them enjoying their lives, whether it be food or travel. I unfollow anyone who posts anything political, vitrolic, clickbait, etc. My timeline is quite pleasant. I get about 0.5 new posts per day.

It's amazing how different other people's timelines can look. I was at a friend's place and he deliberately doesn't unfollow anyone or anything, and likes to engage with viral videos and memes. His timeline is filled with memes and viral stuff. He loves it. Great for him.

Just make your timeline what you want it to be, like how your Twitter follow list is. Get your news elsewhere and subscribe to multiple periodicals across the spectrum.
> I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a specific individual.

Probably because they don't want to be the target of personal abuse.
Perhaps it would be cleared if OP had written "A human driver _might_ have seen the person"
This particular illegal/discouraged crossing was apparently enough well-known to local road authorities that they'd put up a street sign, discouraging crossing. (Yet also: median areas were paved so as to suggest walking there.)

A giant like Google may have enough sufficient-resolution geolocation data to know non-crosswalks where many walkers tend to cross. (How did the tech giant know the chicken crossed the road? The chicken's phone logged their approximate location every few seconds.)
You mean teaching what not to do, I hope?
Car wasn't speeding
Typically models don’t work like that... i.e changing the model or its training alters it’s behaviour generally and needs to be tested against its overall performance. So whilst crash data may go toward a dataset which is then used to better evaluate or train different aspects of a system, it has none of the luster of the learning from every accident being maximised.

The human mind is a quite unique in its ability to decide where one model stops and another one starts.
> The point of what we’re trying to do here is to create a situation where we have a real person-to-person relationship with any developer who is asking for the most sensitive data.

Why is Facebook so dead set on sharing data at all? People keep lumping Facebook in with the rest (Google/Amazon/Microsoft?/other data mining companies) but my impression was that these companies do not do this. It seems reckless to the point of absurdity. Some other event like this will happen again in the future as long as they continue to insist on this, it is inevitable.
Schadenfreude. This story is old and it does not speak well about the character of the people who embrace it.

I personally find it disgusting. If you don't like the service, stop using it and shut up.
I want to keep Facebook only to be connected with my friends. But I do not want to see their status updates. I just want to be digitally connected with them so that I can contact them. Instead of seeing their photos/posts, I would rather like to talk to them personally.

I always think about pre-facebook era and want to go back again to those times.
Touché! BWAHAHAB
Annoyingly, the family plan is unavailable to G Suite users.
Looks like it’s not actually Facebook’s share widget, just a plain link, so at least it’s not s privacy issue.
They'll probably fight that as much as they can, because it's not in _their_ best interests. Raw data will likely make what happened appear easy to stop, particularly if they were capturing LIDAR at the time and (assuming no negligence), at best will make Uber look incompetent.

People won't accept the nature of how image recognition tends to fail - ie seemingly randomly and catastrophically. Assuming a driver-less future, we'll definitely see more of these random tragedies.
I think Mozilla might be doing just that.
My one complaint: I have to use the various companies’ shitty players to access the music. Spotify’s discovery is just about making me not hate their “value-add” too much, but the consumer is going to win big when startups can one-stop license all the music for $10/m and start doing interesting things with it
Yeah.. the feels. For a hot second I thought Parse would get a shoutout when it mentioned Facebook's attempt to be an infrastructure provider.
I think the point the poster is trying to make is that if the pedestrian was looking while crossing the street, they would have ample time to react to the oncoming car.

Car headlights can be seen from over 1000 feet away, and at the speed the Uber car was traveling, the pedestrian had 20 seconds to see & and react to the vehicle coming at her.

From the video, it's clear they were not looking for oncoming vehicles while crossing the road.
Because Uber wanted that.

Other self-driving car companies (like Google (or whatever they renamed it)) have put a lot more work into their systems and done a much greater degree of due diligence in proving their systems are safe enough to drive on public roads. Uber has not, which is why they've been kicked out of several cities where they were trying to run tests. But Tempe and Arizona is practically a lawless wasteland in this regard and is willing to let Uber run amok on their roads in the hopes that it'll help out the city financially somehow.