skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A bit of a nitpick, but the Hackernews post history and comments are publicly available. Most of, if not all, privacy law treats public data differently.

Now the majority of Facebook data, which is visible only to a selected group of individuals, can not contradict privacy laws of a country. Despite whatever agreement you signed. Law trumps user agreements.

As an extreme example I can sign that I give you the right to kill me, but if you do that you have still committed pre-meditated homicide. So it does not matter what Facebook made you sign it is likely they committed (and still do) a crime in most European countries. For the U.S. the waters appear extremely blurry from what I understand... But I can not offer an opinion. If there is a lawyer/ privacy expert to pitch in this discussion that would be nice.
GAB.AI >
Great suggestion, we didn't even realise that! Check back soon and they'll be there, thank you!
Also maybe to look both ways before crossing the road?

Still, the bike and rider were in view front-and-center for plenty of time for an alert driver to brake (if not avoid).
{{Citation needed}}

Before edit, comment was originally: "Cuck is invented by alt-righters"
This is definitely not a case of someone jumping out in the road, as was previously reported. Sure, jaywalking at night is a bad idea, but this is exactly the type of thing an automated driving system should catch and avoid
Yeah releasing the sensory data beyond human visible spectrum would be way more informative about if a better designed AV would have dealt with this better.

I'm glad it was not me driving down that road that night, I don't think I could have prevented it.
> I can't give you a citation on who is buying the units because that is obfuscated by design.

So all you have is a gut feeling.

Thousands of units hitting the market each month is a LOT.
Logical Gates via Gliders Collisions
List of Bitcoin educational resources
Ask HN: Coding choices for a security professional
Hi HN,

I work in Cyber security. While my day to day work does not involve programming, I have been writing code since my teens.

I learned C and X86 assembly so I can have a better understanding of how software vulnerabilities and exploits work. I also know python and I am currently a novice with golang.

Since I don't write code for a living,I don't think it would benefit me much to learn a long list of languages.

What programming related specializations,methodologies and topics would benefit someone pursuing a career in Cyber security? My goal more or less is to become good at bug hunting and maybe someday develop useful defensive security software.
Your critics are correct that you have failed in your attempt to read my mind. You should not have needed to, so let me be more clear.

Demographic shifts forced on an area by an unelected bureaucracy are almost guaranteed to be detrimental to the lifestyle the residents enjoyed prior to the shift. Whether that is gentrification pushing up property tax, low income housing pushing up crime rate, large influx of practitioners of non-tolerant religions who verbally and physically assault resident women dressed to western standards, or even large influx of young western professionals who don't respect the religion that was previously dominant in the area before.

Neighborhoods are a sum of their parts, and those who choose to live in them, choose them because they like them the way they are.

Overriding the wishes of those people to push your own agenda can be necessary for a city, perhaps, but should never be dismissive to the point of blaming and shaming the original residents to assuage your own guilt.
There was almost a second where the woman was clearly visible and yet the car did not attempt to emergency break. I would not expect the vehicle to safely stop, but it could have definitely slowed down and reduce the energy of the collision.

This is not criticism against self-driving tech, I would not expect alert human driver to avoid collision either due to limited reaction time. With technology however, we should be able to do better than humans, particularly when it comes to reaction times. Clearly, there is still a some work to do.
I hope this only happens for people in countries where paying for Youtube Red is actually allowed.

It's fine on my computer thanks to adblocking, but using Youtube on iOS devices and Chromecast is so damn annoying. It's absurd that they ban me from paying to skip the ads.
Digital image quality is generally far inferior to naked eye visibility, but even in the image, the pedestrian can be seen for at least a full second.

The driver clearly was unfortunately not paying attention. She clearly reacts within a few hundred milliseconds of looking up, which is to say immediate reaction time in terms of mental processing. That means that we cannot use her reaction time to gauge how early she could have seen the pedestrian to compensate for poorer optics of digital cameras.

As I understand LIDAR, it should work even at night (as it generates its own light and measures response time). This is a pedestrian, walking across a road, with nothing possible to occlude her. There is no reason it should not have identified an obstacle in the road (she's been in the road for several seconds, after all, having crossed at least 3 lanes of traffic by that point). Even if the visual camera had problems identifying the object, LIDAR should have flagged it.
The 'safety driver' wasn't even looking out the windscreen. If your job is to act as a backup for an untrusted system, you are responsible.
Okay, isn't this the kind of a situation where the machine was supposed to excel?

The dynamic range of the video is very low so it looks like the victim comes out of complete darkness but weren't all these sensors supposed to see the obstacle even in complete darkness?

BTW, please consider the low dynamic range of the video when commenting on the human's ability to avoid that accident. After driving in the dark for a while your eyes will adapt and you'll be able to see much more details in the shadows than a regular video camera can record.
Frankly, I'm not sure I would have done any better.
How to Write a Plugin for Tailwind CSS
You mean like the Mercedes system from 2007 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6DMidknVCo ? I agree that IR should have caught the bicyclist earlier, and that it didn't suggests that these cars might also kill quite a few deer with a similar low light profile. (or this one from Cadillac : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPIpNG6mLCY)
The OCEAN model mentioned by the CA exec (Nix) was originally based on factor analysis, not ML. The key criticism of factor analysis is just that one can’t infer causality, but in an application like this no one cares about causation — only what works. I’m inclined to to think the Mercers got some ROI here.
That's a great point. I did think, looking at the video, that the street was unnaturally dark. The camera seems to be exposed for night lights and the headlights too.
Decision makers may not be fearful, but it may help if their electors are afraid and pressure them to solve the issue.
The author almost finds his way out of his impasse:

"Proponents of this view insist that their position does not eliminate consciousness, but instead reduces it to something else. They’re right, formally speaking... When you reduce chemical processes to physical processes, you don’t deny that chemical processes exist."

...but instead of following through, he returns to the truisms of his chosen tribe: "All true. And yet, to reduce consciousness to behavior and dispositions to behavior is to eliminate it. To say that consciousness is really nothing more than (dispositions to) behavior is to say that it doesn’t exist." The use of the phrase "really nothing more than..." is the response of someone who doesn't want to pursue the issue further.
And Jackson is really expensive. Not quite Bay Area expensive yet, but Seattle area expensive. There are some parts of the state that are cheaper, beautiful, and less wind blown, like the Big Horn mountain area where I grew up. But they're still cold, conservative places dominated by the extractive industries. I got out as soon as I could.

It is nice to see the state making an effort to attract new industries, but it's really hard going. This Bloomberg article[1] sums it up pretty well: The small population is a bit of a chicken and egg problem. People don't want to live there because there are no jobs, and companies don't want to relocate there because there are no people.

There's also cultural resistance to new industry. People (men especially) want their coal and oil and timber jobs back, not these new high-tech jobs. It's not even that the populace isn't smart enough to do them--mining is actually a pretty technical field at this point. But there's a deep rooted perception that sitting at a desk all day isn't a "real" job.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-12-19/why-wyomi...
Like parent said, it's low-light in the visible spectrum, but I'd totally expect these vehicles to scatter tons of light in non-visible spectrums, making these conditions well-lit in those spectrums. Like a bat using echolocation.
A theory that occurred to me last night is that if she was homeless, she may also have had an untreated eye condition such as myopia.
Perhaps, but the pedestrian also did not react at all to the car. Even though she knew she was crossing a street and should look for cars, see the headlights, hear the engine, etc.
Is it me or the street lighting is beyond mediocre? It is weak and alternate between a "lighted" portion and a literally black portion.

But even then, the driver was busy with his cellphone. The accident might have happened nevertheless due to bad lighting. But this could have been avoided was the driver on alert.
Wow, that self driving car is total crap if it can't pick up that obstacle. Doesn't get much more obvious than that. Slowly walking from the left lane into your lane on a fairly straight road.

I bet it was more visible to the human eye than on that video as well. You'd have to see someone crossing the road like that.

Of course the pedestrian wasn't doing the smartest thing but I believe a human driver would have at least hit the brakes had they been actually looking forward and paying attention.

I thought the actual advantage of self-driving cars is that they're always meant to be looking forward and paying attention. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case.
Most people who are starving will eat rats if given the chance. What you're complaining about isn't a human right, it's bells and whistles on top of a luxury. There are plenty of places that you can afford to buy a house. As you've said you don't want to do it because it isn't as nice.

So you've gone from necessities to Veblen goods. This is as daft as expecting the government to build gold toilets for everyone because the quality of toilets is so much higher when they are gold.

As for your point in suburbia: it's easy enough to build a high-rise anywhere. They aren't being build because people don't want them.
this data was voluntarily given to them by users

It was given to them by the 1 million users that authorized the app. Not the other 189 million (or more) users.

Also, that 190 million figure is probably inaccurate, because there is probably significant overlap in people's friends lists.

According to their own campaign manager, they "sucked out the whole of the social graph" with Facebook's blessings. So they may have actually had more than 190 million, since there are more US users that on Facebook.
An alert human driver would still have had a bad crash, but might not have killed the pedestrian.

In a two-lane road, you cannot simply swerve to the other lane w/out checking. I (and many other?) drivers would have just slammed on the brakes. But at that road's speed limit, I believe the brakes wouldn't have stopped in time, and a collision would still have occurred.

The pedestrian+bicycle was a direct obstacle, not at some slim and oblique angle. So it is odd that the car's collision detection didn't pick up on it.

tldr; a human driver may or may not have done better.
It says if you disclose an invention after you left it is presumed to be made before you left. So if you leave, make something, then disclose it, they will presume you made it, left, then disclosed it.
It wasn't, the word (from cuckold) is hundreds of years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold#History_of_the_term
I'm Arya, thank you!
Why is the car driving at full speed if it can't see the road ahead? Does the car know that visibility is low? What other sensors are they using? Did the car notice the pedestrian once they were fully lit up?

This video raises so many questions. I think we're going to be revisiting this incident over and over again in papers, reports and eventually textbooks.
Sorry, I don't see it either. Yes, Facebook makes money off of users data, surprise surprise! People know that much, they aren't stupid and the deal worked just fine for both sides so far.

The current outrage is about user's data getting into the wrong hands, and a rightful outrage it is. However I don't see how fixing that problem would endanger FB's business model. Quite the contrary actually.

The Bloomberg argument is artifical and relies on the assumption that people don't want to share any data about themselves at all, which is just plain wrong. They do, as long as they can be reasonably sure that the data is "only" being used for harmless things such as targeted ads.
Mine's kept me from hitting something while parking. It's awesome.
It certainly looks like a human driver would have braked enough to make this a minor injury accident. It's amazing that the additional sensors of the Uber car were not enough to avoid the accident entirely.
Dyndns?
I have driven in the US for over 20 years and have the opposite experience. I am constantly looking for people, animals (deer are quite dangerous to hit, and they move _way_ faster) and lost count long long ago how many times I have been in very similar or worse situations.

It's not even remotely rare. Drive on campus or downtown in AZ for a more than a few minutes.
Would you please stop posting ideological and political flamebait to HN? This question is being discussed elsewhere in the thread, and in other threads, without quite so much of that. They're pretty low-quality discussions, but comments like this one make lower the quality a significant notch further. That we can at least avoid.
I think you can generally say that there are few countries where one would expect people to cross a four lane road without watching out for cars. I'm not sure why you would think that to be a controversial statement, especially considering that the person being hit in the video is also not just walking on the street but crossing it.

Obviously the concrete level of awareness that drivers usually have is probably related to a lot of other circumstances (light conditions/amount of traffic etc.)
Not a huge fan of Google getting more control over the net. On the bright side, Cloudflare getting a serious competitor is good.
What about sound? Also, with myopia you should still be able to see a light source traveling towards you.
Offtopic: What legal mechanism do you propose to use to ban the private ownership of firearms in the United States of America?

Edit: Additionally, what do you want done about all of the currently legal guns that exist in this country when this ban goes into effect?
Uber clearly has a very terrible problem that their sensors did not pick this up and stop in time, but yeah... if what I saw as a human driver matched what the video camera saw and I hit the brakes the microsecond I saw them, my car still would have hit the person. Brakes aren't magic, and human vision has its limitations.

Still... IR should have seen this.
>hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S

How would something like that possibly be carried out?
I think that's true for the technical portion, or more precisely someone who has recently refreshed their knowledge in college junior level algorithms and data structures. (equivalent of Harvard CS121 at minimum, ideally CS124).
Why is the resolution so low?

Why is the FPS so low?

Why don't we see the IR/LIDAR footage?

Was the brightness adjusted after the fact to look favourably?

Why didn't the vehicle issue a full stop once the woman was clearly visible?

I feel PR handled.
Google has said that it's (at least) a billion per quarter. [0]

[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/01/google-cloud-revenue-passes-...
I wonder when/if Asians (incl. Indians) will start to be recognized as being in a disproportionate majority or too-large minority in tech companies. Then, will diversity activists be demanding that companies hire fewer Asians and more white people? Somehow they've been ignored in most of these stories. I suppose because they don't fit the popular believe of white racism?
Direct link: https://twitter.com/TempePolice/status/976585098542833664

The interior view tells you everything you need to know about why anything except perfection in self driving cars will lead to more accidents.

The driver specially selected and trained for exactly this job, does not look at the road! If someone specially trained for that won't do it, the general public certainly will not.

Also, in the video you can not see the bicycle till it's almost too late. But I have better night vision than this camera, I feel as a human I would have seen the bike. (For example the sides are pitch black in the video, but in similar lighting I can see stuff to the side.)

But the real issue is that self driving cars should have better vision than a human, not worse!
Usenet still exists
(April 2012)
Video has shit dynamic range compared to the human eye.
This is brilliant, how did you do it, scraping or via an API? I'd love to do something similar for different subject areas.
Not to the naked eye.. this is a video. No way does it appear that dark to your eye.
"And not to drive any faster than possible under the assumption that someone will cross the road in camouflage at night."
It's clear from the video that a human driver actually would've had more trouble since the pedestrian showed up in the field of view right before the collision, yet that's in the visible spectrum.

That's not at all clear to me. I don't know too much about cameras, but it looks to me like the camera is making the scene appear much darker than it actually is.

In the video, you can see many street lights projecting down onto the ground, and the person was walking the the gap between two streetlights. The gap between street lights (and hence the person) was in the field of view of the camera the entire time; they just weren't "visible" in the camera because of the low lighting. I'm confident my eyes are good enough that I would have been able to see this person at night in these lighting conditions. (Whether I could have reacted in time is another question.) It seems to me like the camera just doesn't have the dynamic range needed for driving in these low light conditions, which is a major problem.
I wonder if this was affected by the fact that the pedestrian was in another lane up until the very last second. Perhaps the car detected the pedestrian but failed to consider it an obstacle since it wasn't in its direct path. It could be unexpectedly difficult to account for pedestrian crossing speed if it caused automated cars to stop when a car in the next lane happened to "wobble" towards the automated car's lane.
Keep in mind the video isnt nessisarily representitive of what you would see with the naked eye. Most cameras have very poor contrast in low light situations that are interspaced with lights like a typical street with streetlamps, your eye does significantly better.
A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.
You don’t need to stop. Slowing from 40 to 30mph decreases the fatality rate by an order of magnitude. Maybe the car shouldn’t have been going above the speed limit if the conditions were so poor that it couldn’t plausibly see humans walking right in front of it.
Curious, why does a condo not count as true ownership in your opinion?
> the pedestrian is invisible until the last moment

In this crappy video, yes. Maybe it was scaled down massively before handing to the police or made darker, we don't know. It might have been visible for a normal person.
That is utterly terrible. The car should have reacted to the pedestrian comfortably. I think something in the change in lighting confused the sensors (the road appears to go from having street lights to not having them at the point of contact).
Ah yes, Channel 4, the most implacable enemy of Trump. And that time they did an exposé of how Poundland wasn’t actually cheap, it was due to their vendetta against Poundland, and not at all due to the fact that they do bloody investigative journalism.

What would you prefer them to do, in depth investigations into how fuzzy cats are? Generally, in investigative journalism, someone gets hurt. It’s not a conspiracy against poor innocent Trump, just the nature of the beast.
Are these cars electric? They can be pretty quiet, even at high speeds.
I believe in reality the pedestrian would have been much more visible than this to a human.

When I watch night videos from my dashcam, they look similar to this but in reality my night vision is much better.

I believe I would have had time to slow down significantly in this situation.

That car supposedly had LIDAR and whatever else, so WTF wasn't it able to at least slow down?
So a repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution?
It's incredible how bad the self-driving system failed in this instance; it's clear that any self-driving system (Uber or any other) -including any update/change to its software- should be audited by the government AND all major tech universities (e.g. MIT) before a single one of those cars go into the public streets.
Yeah, but you don’t operate an automobile by looking at a video display.
Setting aside the fault of the vehicle in this case, why didn't she get out of the way? Would she not have seen the car coming at 38 MPH?
The speed limit is only 35 not 40 on that road unless we're looking at different roads? If the driver is paying attention they could turn the wheel a bit and split the left lane (there doesn't appear to be anyone else on the road) and avoid the person who was half way through the lane at time of impact. Might not clear the person but clipping the back of the bike would certainly be better than a direct impact. You wouldn't even have to jerk the wheel and swerve at such a slow speed and on a dry road with modern tcs even over-correcting is handled by tcs to limit what your input does. Of course all this is just playing arm chair quarterback so who knows if someone including myself would have been able to react in time. More of a thought experiment to how an alternative could have occurred.

I'm curious how the visibility differs between what we see on this camera and what a human actually sees in person.
Are the big social media companies working together to ban content? What are the odds that reddit and youtube ban similar content on the same day?

What a sad day. Reddit used to be something so special.

If only tech giants stood together and fought the corporate interests and NGOs pushing censorship on them.

I've pretty much stopped using reddit because it's full of political nonsense now anyways. If they are going to be banning subs every 6 months, what's the point of reddit anymore?
Our algorithm roughly parallels NMT systems, and is mostly based on seq2seq.
>The street is far darker than the accident photos/Google Maps made it appear.

it's a video. Was the street darker? or the video darker...
401k, defines benefit pensions, HSA, IRA, 529 plans, etc. There are tons of government subsidies for the stock market, and not just via tax incentives.