skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Frequently this is a reference to a suit between a Fox affiliate station and a pair of their reporters who were terminated amid editorial conflicts and whistleblower actions. It is a complicated suit with a number of claims. There are enough bits which if extracted and held up alone can support the grandparent's claim, but on a whole doesn't really say that.

It is a bit hard to google about because a lot of the people who choose to write about it are partisan, but you can get a feel for the mess in the Snopes article†.

As with lots of law, part of it turns on technical definitions. The Appeals Court (not Supreme) found that the FCC policy against falsification did not meet the legal definition of "law, rule, or regulation" in a particular section of relevant law. Remember, three of those four quoted words probably don't mean what you think they do unless you are a legal scholar. It's like having a variable in a program named "loop_count". Maybe it is a count of the looping, maybe not, unless you read all the referencing code.

The wikipedia article‡ is currently ok too, but who knows by the time you read it.

† https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/

‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
I like that project status approach to filing!
I think both reactions are for psychological comfort. It is that it's comforting if someone else is in charge, in control in the face of chaos, and it's comforting to place trust in those above you and thus happily mock conspiracy theories.
Elon Musk, Mars and Artificial Intelligence (Tim Urban from Wait but Why)
Yes, but with the web as a User I have a certain degree of control. I expect data to be used when I browse the web. And I totally expect data not to be used when I'm not browsing the web.

It sounds like with Fuchsia any predicability goes out the window. I could do a task one day that is fine, the next day it causes issue. My question is, does the user get any predicability and control? Eg: you mention an "install" button - will there be one? The article doesn't mention that. In fact, it's the reverse: "The most important thing though, is that these processes will be completely transparent."

(Admittedly knowledge of this kind of thing does require some technical skill on the part of the user. Maybe Google have decided to remove that to make a more user friendly experience. That might be a good choice to make, but seems worth commenting on at least.)
Have to agree. Pinterest is a cancer to the Internet.
I don't see the problem here. The most popular sites are showing up in search results. Pinterest is a popular site. It seems like that's the way search engines are supposed to work.

If you don't like the fact that Pinterest is a popular site, fair enough -- but that's a personal opinion, and it's not a good enough reason for Google or any other search engine to suppress Pinterest images in search results.
Forgive me, as I don't use twitter much, but what is the problem with twitter bots? If I don't follow them, aren't they essentially invisible to me?

I guess they might pollute search results? Is there something else I'm missing?
Rather than explaining how the machine learning system works as an "explanation", perhaps auditing could be added to machine learning algorithms so that you very much could produce a very long but accurate description of the process, a la pages full of "X was compared to Y, X was larger, and thus we move on to step 261". A bit like disassembling machine code.

Of course, in machine learning, the datasets backing up the comparisons could not be shared as they contain variations of confidential and personal data, but you might still end up with a legally tolerable record of the algorithmic steps involved in the decision making process even if they're not useful to see.
Oh, I more or less agree with you. Like 2 years is basically useless, especially if the person has a family to consider.

I don't think that 2 years is enough to entice many people in the field, but I feel like it's enough to entice enough.
“Extremism” is a misleading description of the examples given. Strongly held political beliefs are being conflated with tabloid-style conspiracy. Such a lack of nuance devolves the conversation into a chaos of mostly useless and misdirected opinionations.

The biggest risk is in the rhetorical miscategorization of the content, which sidelines critical voices from the popular discussion by conflating them with those of conspiracy entertainment.

We should abandon the use of terms like “extremism” and the like, in favor of more specification. This will lessen the unwanted side effects of marginalizing important voices.
I wish I could tell you. I tried for years to drop it but I can only do it for a few weeks at most. I will tell you that it's probably a good idea to drop it periodically since your body acclimates to it and it compensates overtime for the extra edge it gives you. It's like any other drug. You need more to stay ahead of the body's compensation.

The edge it gives you declines over time to the point that you need it just to function normally.
how does this solve anything? if a simple decision tree could predict the outputs of more complex deep nets, why not use the decision tree in the first place? also, what do you do when a decision tree isnt powerful enough, as in the case of many interesting problems such as speech, computer vision, etc.
Embedded.com ran a story about Ivory and Rust recently: https://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4460422...
As a highschooler hearing back from UCs and CSUs at the moment, this is true from the start. The UCs are magnitudes harder to get in to vs the CSUs, and are therefore more prestigious.

However, that does depend on the CSU. Cal Poly is highly regarded (engineering-wise), while UC Merced or Riverside are often held at a "lower tier".

Anecdotally, a lot of people hold Chico at the bottom, and Berkeley/Cal at the top of CA public schools.
Don't worry, the Trump administration will soon end that.
The equivalent social security rate in spain is 29.8%: http://www.seg-social.es/Internet_1/Trabajadores/CotizacionR...

Spain does the same thing as Portugal, for company workers, where they "hide" part of the social security payment from payment receipts. Companies pay 23.6% and the worker 4.7%. Only the latter appears in the salary receipt, the other is a company expense.
I genuinely don’t see how you find this so confusing and you’re using wildly disparate examples that don’t all make the same point. I’m not interested in taking part in this outrage feat.
What worries me is not the unrealistic notion that a single algorithm will ever replace human emotional judgment (it will not): It's the amount of frustration that blind faith in such algorithms will cause before we settle on supplementing them with common sense again.

> (...) the accuracy of the personality judgment depends on the availability and the amount of the relevant behavioral information, along with the judges’ ability to detect and use it correctly (1, 2, 5). Such conceptualization reveals a couple of major advantages that computers have over humans. First, computers have the capacity to store a tremendous amount of information, which is difficult for humans to retain and access. Second, the way computers use information—through statistical modeling—generates consistent algorithms that optimize the judgmental accuracy, whereas humans are affected by various motivational biases (27). Nevertheless, human perceptions have the advantage of being flexible and able to capture many subconscious cues unavailable to machines. Because the Big Five personality traits only represent some aspects of human personality, human judgments might still be better at describing other traits that require subtle cognition or that are less evident in digital behavior.

This last sentence is important: Looking at scores from quantitative psychological models, it is easy to forget that although a model has some predictive ability, the thought of a _complete_ model is an illusion. For example, low and high IQ scores have some merit in predicting people's success in life, but anyone who knows several people claiming to have high IQs will observe that such people's ability to actually accomplish something with their claimed ability varies greatly.

I don't doubt that psychological models can be an efficient way of filtering through many potential candidates for a position, deciding what ad to show someone or predicting the chances of someone becoming a drug addict. They could even help us see past some of our cognitive biases when making a decision. But I don't think that we will ever, at least in the next hundred years, reach a point where most people let an algorithm trump their own judgment in decisions where the emotional stakes are high. For example, in choosing a life partner, dating services will probably use such algorithms to filter the candidates, but the user will probably make the final call on who to settle with.

After all, personality tests have been around for decades, but most employers use a good old fashioned face-to-face interview to choose the person to fill the position.
One of the surprises with the Netflix prize contest was seeing how predictable people are.

You don't need 100 movies. 95% of the time, 6-10 movie ratings will be enough to figure out how you'd rate any other movie.
The other way to look at it is that state universities are ludicrously profitable, but the boundaries are drawn in the wrong place.
I am always just stunned about how ppl in the US fly mostly without luggage checked in because there are so many disincentives to do so.
Self-Transcendence 3,100 mile race – the longest certified footrace in the world
That 'regulation' is the fourth amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 200+ years of accumulated case law describing what is and is not appropriate.

Individual notions of fundamental rights aside, very recent cases have addressed protection given to location information: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

A very, very related case to the article above is currently pending a decision by the Supreme Court: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402
> I don't see the problem

... because you didn't read the description of the problem on the Reddit post.
I think the title is imprecise.

I know exactly two people who deserve that kind of money: Jobs and Musk (there may be a couple more) with a track of repeat success and world-changing impact.

Most big-corp CEOs don't deserve the money they get. People who got lucky and complete failures in particular (like Gil Amelio, or Carly Fiorina).
When my friend bought a model S I went over to drive it and found that it’s one of the shittiest feeling cars in that price bracket (buttons doors etc) but as soon as you get your foot on the “gas” pedal it’s the best car I’ve ever experienced.
I read it. I still don't see the problem. A popular site ranks highly in search results.
A window into China's low-speed electric vehicle revolution
Please read the link before commenting!
The world's oldest centre of learning
The focus needs to be shifted to education and recovery and funds should be pumped into those channels to see more effective results on the issue. https://latechnews.org/we-support/
Probably, mostly Jobs. Very few CEOs have that kind of exquisite vision and be able to execute on it.

Remember, Jobs’ choices were controversial. No stylus!

The question in determining the fairness of a 1000x CEO pay is, to what extent the success is attributible to that CEO. It WIDELY varies. Some CEOs inherit money machines.

People don’t realise, pay, for the masses who dont participate in stock or profit sharing, is ONLY a function of market rates for your role and your salary negotiation.
Ryanair used to be one of the worst for passengers avoiding the luggage fee. With flights costing as little as £5, but luggage being about £20, that's no surprise.

But last month, I flew Copenhagen-London with only an ordinary backpack. My print-at-home boarding pass clearly showed[1] that if my bag was larger than a normal backpack (i.e. too big to fit under a seat), it would probably be checked in at the gate during boarding.

With everyone aware of this, I saw no arguments, and boarding the plane was orderly and fast. There was a trolley for the gate-checked bags to be put on, as we walked to the plane.

[1] https://www.ryanair.com/gb/en/useful-info/help-centre/faq-ov...
Actually, I don't quite like Matrix and mostly just for one reason. While decentralized communication isn't easy nowadays, they drive the protocol split that parts the developer community. Now devs have to decide if they want to build a XMPP or a Matrix product. Before there was just one IM protocol that was a reasonable solution for that kind of problem.

Yes, XMPP didn't have all the extension required to build cool mobile/web apps back in 2012. But instead of pushing XMPP they decided to invent something completely new with just the same purpose.
> And honestly I don't think any significant amount of people search Google images wanting Pinterest results.

Sure they do, if the picture on Pinterest is relevant to the search term; they wouldn't have clicked on the thumbnail if it wasn't close to (or exactly) what they were looking for.

The issue isn't that people don't want Pinterest, it's that they don't want the closed nature of Pinterest, and even then, it's less an issue with Pinterest and more just a closed web problem in general. Consider certain IT vendors who won't even let you look at their documentation without being a current customer or handing actual information over to a Sales Rep and having it verified, or forums that hide their content behind logins or paywalls. Pinterest is a big target because it's big and has a lot of artsy stuff that might be useful for a simple project, but you can replace Pinterest with dozens of sites and the same rants would apply. The Reddit post to me feels like it's railing against an easy target rather than the actual problem of a consistently closed web with absurd demands for access.
If you enjoyed this I'd highly recommend watching the Documentary, "The Barkley Marathons: The Race That Eats Its Young", it's also primarily about a very long trail run in a way, but it touches on so much more throughout. Highly recommend it.
A Diva Who Is Not Above Walking 3,100 Miles
What significant legal effects do you believe the HN ranking algorithm of that comment has concerning you directly?
Well that depends. What do you mean when you say a mind?

Explain to me what exactly it means to show you a mind, and I'll tell you whether I can show you one. If you can't explain what you mean by "show you a mind", then I'm not sure how this question is different than "can you show me a gefadfij" - questions are only meaningful if we agree on what we're talking about.

Note: by default to your question of "can you show me a mind", I plan to show you a brain, plus lots of reasons to think this constitutes a mind (e.g., changing something in the brain changes how someone behaves, touching parts of the brain with electricity can reliably cause sensations to people, etc).
I agree that inequality is a problem, but I think the article is on the wrong track. The richest people in society aren't business executives. They are overwhelmingly entrepreneurs and finance-traders. Ie, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Koch brothers and George Soros. Compared to them, CEOs and C-level executives are mere pawns.

To give a sense of scale, Tim Cook, leading the most valuable company in the world, earned $13M in 2017, working what is likely 60-80 hour weeks. In comparison, Bill Gates with his $82B assets can sit on his couch all day, and make $13M in investment returns in a couple days.

If anything, CEOs have more in common with regular workers, than with the truly wealthy. This focus on CEOs as the bogeyman, causes us to overlook some more important causes of inequality, such as the ultra-low tax rates on capital-gains, the numerous deductions available to the 0.1%, and the preservation of wealth across multiple generations via estate inheritances.
Did "looking into" it involve reading it or not?
Don't assume people didn't read the link. It's against the guidelines here and frankly it's insulting. People can read the same article and still have different opinions.
Perhaps it originally was statement by the scientists that it is rare among young boys, and the interviewer dropped that condition? Not that I know whether or not it is rare among young boys either.
"Everyone of these results requires a signup and log into Pinterest to be able to see it" is a problem.
Ansible maybe?
A developer oriented series about Bitcoin (2015)
I didn't mention autofocus because I generally use manual primes and don't even try to shoot moving subjects, so it's not really an issue for me.

Single-dial consumer cameras are annoying, I also generally really like to have a physical exposure comp wheel, good Sony and Fuji cameras generally have one (and my old Contax G2 does, too), while it tends to be some bad modal "hold the button and turn the wheel" affair on Nikon and Canon ones.

"Scene mode" dials are basically a helpful hint to let you know that you shouldn't buy that camera.
Why? The image is visible in the search results. You search for images, you see images. What requires a signup is the Pinterest-specific content associated with the image.
The goal of google image search is to let you find images you want, not to rank websites by popularity. Pinterest makes it impossible to click through to the image.
Tea tree oil should NOT be taken by mouth for any reason, even though some traditional uses include tea tree oil as a mouthwash, treatment for bad breath, and treatment of toothache and mouth ulcers.

https://www.poison.org/articles/2010-dec/tea-tree-oil
> Then my next question will be how can I trust something that I don't understand.

ive always found this mentality silly. do you understand aerodynamic principles? laws of electromagnetism? mendelian genetics? or information theory?
I see what you’re getting at, but this would be a very lengthy and arduous process. Not to mention, many ML and DL algorithms are incredibly mathematically complex that describing them with literal step-by-step detail sounds like hell.
I haven’t had any of these problems while using DuckDuckGo.com
Why does anyone trust essentially unaccountable big advertising companies like Google and Facebook to correctly draw the line on extremism?
Seems like a bad comparison. On the one hand you are apparently willing to overlook a 100x performance penalty associated with XML compared to protobuf. And then you apparently assign no value to the safety of a strongly-typed representation in C++ vs Doc*-you-figure-out-what-this-means.
*foresee:)
They would. Listen closely to how you and your friends tell stories next time. Race and gender are almost always used to describe people. "My landlord, who's a black guy, <STORY DETAIL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING BLACK OR BEING A MAN>"
I've been a long time fan, then sceptical fan and now I think Tesla will probably fail in some way (such as being bought by a competitor).

What convinced me was following @TeslaCharts on Twitter. For example, here's a recent series of tweets: https://twitter.com/TeslaCharts/status/974087889997975552

Having followed both the bullish and bearish sides, the bearish one is more convincing.

What is confusing about this company is that they make (in some aspects) a great, unique and innovative product but on the other hand they're in a very bad financial situation, have production and quality issues and their CEO tends to bullshit.
Also China has over ten times the population of Japan.
Well, it's the norm for a growing company to do with not enough employees, not enough experience and not enough resources. We can both agree on that.

I'm not sure where Tesla is recruiting but I don't think they have much footprint even in the USA. If so, they are certainly cut from the vast majority of the talent pool that compose their worldwide competitors.
it's extraordinarily common on production lines with very high value items.

aerospace is a good example of such an industry.
But given the number of terrorists that are willing to die from their cause through a suicide attack, it still seems like there's a very tiny risk of a terrorist organization going through all of the trouble to have their agent sneak a bomb on board through checked luggage and board the plane, then arrange for the plane to be held on the ground long enough to allow deboarding for their agent to sneak off the plane.

It seems much simpler to just find a fanatic that will go down with the plane. (and through his death, it makes it harder to track down the exact people involved in the terrorist network)
You get type safety in your API, you get autogenerated client code, and you get http2 out of the box.

Personally I find the autogenerated client code to be the biggest upside. Anyone who wants to use your API, in any language supported by the RPC, can start doing it with very little work. Gone are the days of maintaining officially-supported client libraries.
Yup! I spent one very LONG weekend trying to get tensor flow running on my amd GPU. Managed to finally get it running but it was slower than using my CPU ....
I agree. Knowing how many steps i took today is so boring.
I was indeed wondering about the upcoming release.
> Additionally, automated assembly only runs well when EVERYTHING is designed for automation. That is not impossible, but it is expensive and time consuming.

Designing for automation can have unexpected benefits. Many years ago IBM sold a dot-matrix printer called the "ProPrinter". It was to be built on a new automated assembly line in Charlotte NC, so all the parts were designed to be easy to snap together, with no screws or fasteners.

Well, the robotic assembly line never really got going, so they hired a bunch of temp workers to sit in front of tables and put them together. And it turned out that the design was excellent for a group of recently-hired humans with no experience to assemble.

This video shows the assembly (you can skip the first bit) in under 3.5 minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spDYSKl3kmo
A better example: An insurance claim might use a sophisticated anti-fraud algorithm to reject claims, but they actually have to be rejecting claims for reasons of fraud, and not because "computer says so".
Jason Scott has attempted to get in touch but has not heard back yet from anyone at Digg.
I have Sigma DP3 Merrill (it's a special digital camera with a non-interpolating multi-layer sensor), which, besides being capable of very high quality results, is a perfect teaching camera, because it's both digital and utterly unforgiving of any mistake in technique.

I've loaned it to friends for learning purposes to great effect.
> Why is x 73rd on Google search ranking?

It's unlikely that a human would be able to produce the exact same ordering, for any possible search term for all the pages and pages of results that Google shows.
Discrimination.
Well, US domestic flights do too (it's more generous than EU carriers I believe), but still limited. However, my point was more than during my time in various EU countries and Russia, this limit is much more carefully enforced, especially on crowded flights.

Domestic US carriers never seem to enforce such limits for whatever reason, and it's a personal annoyance. I'm a nerd who follows the rules and packs as light as possible for travel, so part of this is just annoyance that others don't have the same courtesy, but it really is frustrating based on my traveling experiences to see how much more you can get away with on US flights in terms of bending the rules.
>Tim Cook, leading the most valuable company in the world, earned $13M in 2017

Not so fast, comrade :-)

You just showed his salary, but forgot the stock ownership which is part of the total compensation package.

In 2017, he cashed in at least 43 million from this sale.

https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-08-30/tim-coo...
It involved some reading.