skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: Best way to update broken links on HN?
A recent discussion reminded me of an interesting hackernews article from a while back [0]. Unfortunately, the link to the originally referenced link is dead. It looks as though the article/site has been moved to a new location [1], and I guess I'm just wondering if there is a way to
update the original post?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8440486
[1] http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2014/10/10/things_i_wont_work_with_peroxide_peroxides
"And even if the driver had been carefully watching the road, he probably wouldn't have seen her in time."

I don't know about that.

1. Count the lane markers. (It looks like a astute driver could have stopped? Plus, most drivers might have picked up the reflection a bike gives off when head lights are flashed on it? Just a flash of light bounced off metal, or reflectors is enough to get my attention. There are times at night where I just notice a slight reflection in the peripheral of my vision, and I know to precede with caution, or slam on the brakes. It's usually an animal darting across the street. I don't think I've ever had to slam on the brakes for a bike.)

2. The woman looked at the car while it plowed onto her. She had a look of astonishment? Like why is this car running into me?

3. Uber is in deep trouble.
That was different than what they did in 2012 - which was a facebook hoover.
Undistracted, sober humans actually don't make a lot of mistakes.

Distracted and impaired humans do, and when a mistake is made we can put them in jail. Who can we put in jail for software errors?
It's very disingenuous to release this video. This is not the picture the car saw nor the human. That coupled with the fact that no radar or lidar data was released makes me wonder why the police seem to be bending over backwards to absolve Uber.
Robotic Fish to Keep a Fishy Eye on the Health of the Oceans
Would love to see the log files of the car to see why and how this occurred. I'm pretty sure it's known internally - but is Uber obligated to release them for the public?
It's pretty clear to me (from the second half of the video) the driver was looking down at her phone and glancing up at the road periodically. IMO if she had been focusing on the road, she would have at least started braking before hitting the pedestrian. Or perhaps actually stopped before that happened.
Either way, the LIDAR must have seen her, and would have been emitting it’s own laser light.
>I was surprised that the headlights did not illuminate further down the road.

You are surprised because your intuition and experience tells you that it is very easy to see much further down the road when traveling on a road with street lights and non-high-beam headlights on. The footage is highly misleading regarding how far a human eye would be able to see.
It's too late for California. Either housing prices do come down considerably, and a lot of people have their futures ruined, or they don't come down considerably, and a lot of people have their futures ruined.

Theoretically massive inflation would be able to fix this, except that would screw over everyone who's using the US dollar outside of California.
As if which lane the car was in matters...

There was a car coming. She shouldn't have been in the road, period.
" ... since the pedestrian showed up in the field of view right before the collision"

Either the woman had just said the words "Beam me down Scotty" and materialised there like the video feed footage implied - or she'd been in view for quite some time - at least enough time for a person pushing a bicycle to cross en entire lane. If Uber's tech is only capable of detecting her as she "showed up in the field of view right before the collision" - their tech is not fit for purpose and should he held 100% at fault here. (Not that doing that will help her family or friends, but it might help stop Uber and their competitiors from doing it again...)
No caching provided either. Full on egress charges. Surely that makes the comparison apples/oranges.
Unfortunately the EPA is working hard on going the other way at the moment. I don't care that much about anything else Trump does but cutting on environmental protection is truly evil in my view and will damage the country for a long time.
It’s a different scale only in the timeframe of a single campaign. 3P trackers have an *ongoing central vantage over many campaigns, giving them data which they accumulate and sell to each other, causing leaked “private” data to accrete and spread in essentially a viral fashion.

The resulting dataset over even short periods (< 1 yr) time is comparable to a total datadump, including an accurate social graph. A “very specific pivacy concern” it is not.
I worked at aol and if yahoo’s stuff was worse I can’t imagine how bad it was.
> You're missing the point.

I think you are the one missing the point.

> The OFA app determined who should share what with who by running all the extracted profile data (including that taken from opted-in users' oblivious, perhaps anti-Obama friends) through their psychographic models.

Yes, this was a political app, downloaded by people motivated to get obama to be the president. They shared that info willingly to the obama campaign. The obama campaign used that information to suggest "hey man, we need help in texas and you know someone that might be able to help us. Can you do us a solid and send them some of this info?" Nothing I have seen suggests that they did anything untoward with the information voluntarily and directly shared with the campaign. They used it to suggest people to share the message to. And they did any action with the direct permission of the people using the political app.

> It's identical, except, for "the good guys".

Not even a little bit. The Koger fellow used the data he harvested from those psych profiles and also got the friends information that the people taking those "tests" doubtfully wanted them to have. If I take a silly test that is a facebook app I would not expect them to datamine my friends to later sell that information off to a political campaigning firm to later use for a political campaign that they may not have wanted it to have. If trump had used an app that did the same as obama I would have had no issue with it. he didn't, and I do.
Whataboutism isn't new, nor is it intellectually dishonest to point out when it's being used. Soviets started using it during the cold war era, and it's still in use as a deflection tactic today.
Then slow down. If you can't stop or swerve when something becomes visible to you then you're driving too fast regardless of the posted speed limit. Period.
You would have gotten killed in the 90s if you think real estate could just go up. You definitely have risk that prices might not be where you want them to be when you need the liquidity.
It's not a function of seeing it the dark, it's that human eyeballs have really good dynamic range, which is exactly why they'd beat cameras in those conditions.
If it were a human driver, human eye, etc., then maybe this would be the case. But Lidar isn't limited in this way, and reaction time shouldn't have been an issue.
100% fishy
I dont know exactly how autonomous cars works, but is it possible there was a warning (beep) before the system tries to stop the car, She got confused, hits the accelerator, disabling the system, and hits the pedestrian by accident? How autonomous cars decide when there is an obvious obstacle and the driver hits the accelerator?
That's not the fault of the legislators. They are not experts in writing a CS curriculum suitable for elementary and high school students.

The key question is whether they can identify competent people to do so. Recognizing an expert in a field where you are not an expert is always a difficult problem.
"fluoride"?
Ha, you have a good point. I think my comment was directed more to "distributed cloud store" applications, much more so than databases. That begs the question - then what capabilities have those apps been focusing on that they didn't get from existing databases (or thought that they didn't get from existing databases)...
"Kids don't need huge yards to play, kids need other kids to play with". I don't recall who said that, but it really rings true to me. In the place we rent now, there's a huge yard, but the kids mostly ignore it. They're always happy to see friends though, and with friends, a yard 1/4 the size would more than suffice.

In Italy, we essentially had no yard at all, and they were mostly ok - often we'd take them to the park where all the other local kids went, and they loved it, because almost always they saw someone they knew.
Let's also set limits on how much milk farmers can make.

Producing enough milk to fully satisfy demand only helps farmers.
> The use of the phrase "really nothing more than..." is the response of someone who doesn't want to pursue the issue further.

I don't see how consciousness can simply be predispositions to behavior, because I have conscious experiences without any behavior. It also doesn't make any definitional sense. My experience of seeing red isn't the same thing as whatever behavior I might have as result.
Is it possible that driving under intermittent street lights messes with the aperture or image recognition? It would be like flashing a strobe light at the camera.
> Yet this crash proves that all the equipment in the world didn't catch a very obvious obstruction.

It's a bit too early to make that conclusion. For all we know, the equipment was malfunctioning. Which I guess technically leads to your point, but we'll have to wait for the investigation to actually know what failed vs. what met expectations (I worry that expectations and tolerances, as set by the car companies, will be revealed to not be as comfortable as we might assume).
Agreed. Many of us are expecting the machines to do better, by design. Humans will make mistakes. Mistakes will be baked into the designs. Should be just once.

And it is surprising to see how limited this first run of sensors apparently is.
That depends on the law in each individual legal region (most probably country). For example, I believe Euthanasia is legal in some European countries.

Even the opposite can be true. Life saving medication may be illegal in one country but another provides it without restriction.
I remain curious about the set of detection mechanisms in place - if this video is the only one, I’d say Uber is culpable (of course it’s not the only one), and if it’s not the only detection mechanism, then where’s the data from the others?

Another note: I haven’t heard criticism about the driver’s inattention...
We used Computer Organization and Design in college. Great book, did well in the class, felt I had a grasp of the material.

But man, 6 months out and I retained nearly nothing. It's just so esoteric and not very relevant to my every day schoolwork(then) and career(now) that it's slowly seeped out of my brain.
Speed limits are for optimal conditions. Night driving is not optimal so the vehicle was going too fast.
The car has a LIDAR sensor mounted on the roof. It is supposed to continuously scan 360° of the environment. Since LIDAR is an active sensor (it emits light), the car should have seen the person and bicycle even in the dark. That it did not do so suggests the car does not evaluate LIDAR input, or it dismissed the object as erroneous data.
It’s a natural consequence of living in an absolutely huge country where we can spread out as much as we please. Cities grow but eventually people look around and say “wait a minute, for the same money and a slightly longer drive I could get a bigger house, a yard, less noise, more privacy...”
That would be criminal. Nobody at Uber would risk that.
Nope. That person + bike would have been completely trivial to detect with the LIDAR those cars have mounted on top.
Apple pushes their own stuff: they are monopolists! Ready the pitchforks!

Apple pushes someone else’s stuff: They lack confidence! They look weak!
well now the video was released. she was walking from the median.
So yes, that seems like a colossal failure of the system.
Sell the premuim quality cow to buy two crappy cows. Sell their crappy milk dirt cheap to undercut the premium quality milk market. Invest, repeat, and race to the bottom.
I feel sorry for the driver. Now his face is plastered all over the internet forever simply for doing his job.
I'm not sure what you mean. There are quite a few skyscrapers in London. They are all new luxury properties and doesn't drop the price of anything.
Just not the oppressive gender norms, the work-life balance at mainstream employers, the level of direct political corruption, or the thousand other very real problems Japan has that are worse than in the US.

Let's not idealize foreign countries, please and thank you.
This is drummed into students during the motorcycle training syllabus here (Sydney Australia) - "Do not ride beyond your field of view. It you can't see beyond a curve, crest, fog, rainstorm, queue of traffic or whatever - make sure you're going slow enough that you can stop before you get to the end of where you can see".

I always explain it to friends starting out "you need to assume that just around every corner there's a stationary shipping container that's fallen off a truck. If you cant stop in time by the time you see it - it's your fault for going too fast."
Americans are really noisy and unruly. I grew up in a city and I hate the suburbs, but I kind of understand not wanting to live next to others in America.
Backup is not archive.
There's no tactical or even strategic value to this other than as a terror-based deterrent.

Of course. It's explicitly a second-strike weapon: if it is ever actually used, it has already failed in its mission.
> but makes no such effort for studies on plant-based foods

. . . specifically whole plant-based foods. He describes the health problems of hydrogenated oils, sugar, and products made from them.

Is there a whole plant based food industry funding studies on broccoli and collard greens? If not, is he biased or simply stating what his research implies?
I think it's important to have a bit of perspective on this graph. While it includes the tail end of "the bubble", the vast majority of this graph documents a time that is pretty difficult to compare with any major city. After the bubble, real estate prices lost up to 80% of their value. It slowly crept back up and in the early 2000s there were signs of vigorous recovery, but in 2006 when the government saw prices going up again, they restricted loans. This stabilised prices. In the last decade, while the prices have gone up and down, the price index now is practically the same as it was in 2010.

There are a couple of other important factors. Between 1988 and 2013 (the part documented by the graph), the population of the country grew by only 5 million people. Tokyo's population grew from about 11 million to about 13 million in that time -- so it absorbed almost half of the total population increase of the entire country. Although I haven't looked, I'm willing to bet that Osaka absorbed the other half. So it's quite a bit easier to focus the government when all of your growth is in the same place.

Furthermore, if we look at the population increase and compare that to the household increases in the graph, something is pretty apparent. Population increased by 2 million and households increased by 2 million. What that means is that Tokyo was overcrowded in 1988, with large numbers of people living in the same household. As new residences became available, they spread out. It's especially important to understand that in the early nineties, prices were getting cheaper, so that made it easier for people to move.

So while building new residences is important, there are a whole host of other factors that led to Tokyo's success in this regard. Personally, I think the resolve to avoid real estate bubbles, even at the cost of economic growth is huge. One last thing I really need to point out because it's confusing for people who don't live in Japan: "Tokyo" usually refers to the prefecture of Tokyo, not just the city. There are parts of Tokyo prefecture that are decidedly rural, so it is doubly difficult to compare it with cities in other countries.
Apart from all the questions about the camera, resolution and culpability, we need to re-think what it means to be training and evaluation of autonomous cars with respect to the rare incidents.

Training the cars based on data collected from roads is heavily biased towards incident free conditions. This does not give any training or feedback on the rare occasions such as these. If there was a learning algorithm deciding what to do (assuming hand coded rules are brittle and hence one would want to learn handling these scenarios) then it perhaps has no training data.

Evaluating the cars based on incidents per million is fine but doesn't tell anything about how the incidents would have been handled if they had happened. There is no incentive for the learning algorithm to slow down the car to prevent fatality, if all it cares about is an incident happening and not the severity.

One possible solution, autonomous cars are trained in real life simulations (using realistic lighting conditions, dummies and what not) to be able to handle the rare incidents and they are also required to pass regulatory testing in similarly realistic conditions to test for their behavior in rare incidents, before they are allowed to drive on actual roads.
Uber has built tools to track and avoid police. This is NOT below them.
Then you should probably not be living in an area where land is in short supply and high demand.
or, or, hear me out...

I could use adblock, a free and crowd-sourced adblocker, to... block the ads.

YouTube already makes copious amounts of money outside of advertising and Red exclusivity. don't force that kind of an annoyance on people if you expect them to A) use your service or B) not subvert the crap you put in front of them.

there is no argument for ads anymore.
New skyscrapers are going up all the time in London.
I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace.

It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.
NewPipe also supports most, if not all, of these features, and it's open source. https://github.com/TeamNewPipe/NewPipe
As with all investments, you must ensure you have sufficient capital to not be forced to liquidate your investment when it’s not advantageous to do so.

Your market investments did fine if you could weather 2008. If you had to liquidate, you got wrecked.
Founding Ruby developers meet in Bristol
Even if those in-wheel reflectors are removed, the wheel rims are reflective and the seat post is reflective (at minimum). And additionally there are several things that are way less reflective than a bicycle that you don't want to hit in the middle of the road. Like a deer, or a pothole, or a pedestrian.

A bicycle shouldn't need to be covered in reflectors to be safe from getting run over by a car. However anybody who cycles at night (as I do frequently) should wear reflective clothing because the road is full of reckless drivers.
Google StackDriver; Free Replacement for Pingdom Monitoring?
That pedestrian obviously didn't have good situational awareness, but are we happy to let self-driving cars mow down any unaware obstacle on the road? Broken-down cars/deer/children/roadworks?

Honestly, that video proves to me that this tech is nowhere near ready. That was the most obvious of obstacles and the car did not even slow down.

I believe a competent human would have at the very least slowed down in that situation, and likely stopped completely.
Having high beams on in the middle of Tempe would be reckless to other drivers.
I watched the video a bunch of times and I'm not 100% sure how the vehicle could have reacted at the upper maximum of time where she would have been visible to LIDAR, and maybe for Radar, to make a significant difference. At least given the two options where it could have slowed maybe 10km/hr at most (from the 40mph aka 64km/hr speed limit) but that's still an if and I'm not sure it would have ensure the survivability of the jaywalker OR safety of the people in the vehicle at that speed.

The other option is swerving which might have been a possible solution here as well, but that would also have been highly dangerous for the people in the car as well at those speeds, within that timeframe, possibly causing >1 fatality or serious injury.

Regardless I'm very much speculating here regarding reaction times based on watching a low quality video, I'm really looking forward to expert analysis here rather than speculation on the capabilities of LIDAR/Radar + computation speed at 60km/hr... even considering a human driver would have 100% hit this person.
Here is what even a GoPro can do at night:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0HamWCVrFI
These people need to watch more videos of people getting run right the hell over before it finally sinks in. I’ve watched enough that I never walk close alongside any road, and keep a good distance from an intersection while waiting for the cars to stop, because sometimes they don’t!
This seems like a really bad attitude to have against people that are trying to improve in a meaningful way. It's like making fun of an overweight person sweating hard in the gym.
Okay, so Tempe police aren't going to be able to get & grok the raw data on how the AI was handling things. So how does that shake out in an investigation? It seems like they'll have to rely very heavily on the good faith of Uber (hah!) to honestly interpret & communicate the truth of that side of the story.

Releasing the video so soon without the equally important (probably more so) AI side is almost deliberately misleading, and at best shows Tempe ill equipped to deal with the investigation if they believe that video to answer any more questions than it raises, and I can't believe they don't know better. The video screams "Blame the poor light/lazy driver/idiot pedestrian!" at least for viewers that aren't more savvy on the tech involved.
I think this thread has jumped over the moon...

(And that original metaphor was a bit mismatched, actually.)
At the absolute bare minimum, hit the brakes and reduce the impact. An attentive human driver would have at least started to hit the brakes. The software should have had plenty of time (I'm estimating a full second) to do something productive.
This is a great example of the impact of the 'ruse of solvency.' A solution which appears to the public to solve a problem yet actually doesn't is oftentimes worse than no solution at all, since it will erode pressure and advocacy by convincing people that the problem is already solved. This is a tactic frequently employed by lobbyists and legislators to cool down a hot issue.
The cars don't have to increase ISO to get detail, that's for human eyes. Increasing ISO only works because we can't see details in shadows, but computers don't have that limitation. A neural network wouldn't have to add 100 to each pixel to make out detail, like a human would.
It’s worse than that:

4) researcher is a serial p-hacker who even boasted about the practice

5) reason given for the small sample (most recipes had changed) was a lie and sample appears to have been cherry-picked
Fluoride is a foreign substance which is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice.