skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Israel is one of the few nations in the world that actually needs nuclear weapons to defend itself as a matter of last resort.

Notably, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states are not afraid of Israel's nuclear weapons. They are, however, very very afraid of Iran getting nuclear weapons. The Saudis, Egyptians and other Arab countries are cooperating with Israel to help stop the Iranian nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is talking about building their own bomb if Iran builds theirs.
Facebook Has Blocked Ad Targeting by Sexual Orientation
People don't typically have access to leverage for an index fund. Most debt is printed for purchasing land.
The problem, which people in medicine know full well, was the fact that blood is highly variable depending upon when and where you take it. It's why you have to take so much to get decent lab results.

A "fingerprick" was always going to be ferociously unstable.

It could have had value if taken repeatedly. I would be far more inclined to monitor myself if I had to only give a drop every 3-4 days. That way you could spot trends.

However, that was never going to produce a unicorn.
Runscope phasing our their Traffic Inspector
You don't get to a 100M+ net worth by following the virtuous advice of your parents.
I like to make a distinction between what I consider "neurobiological consciousness" — that which can be studied in a lab using the scientific method — and "experiential consciousness" — that which cannot be studied, because it is only capable of being experienced by one person and thus fails the criteria for reproducibility.

I agree with the article's author that it is bizarre that there are people who outright reject the existence of experiential consciousness. If I were to make a list of everything in order of my subjective probability that each item actually exists, experiential consciousness would be at the top of the list. Everything else on the list could effectively be faked by an advanced simulation technology.

I'm not sure that there is actually a resolution to the dilemma, because resolving it would require an experiment that can be reproduced, and by definition, something that is capable of being experienced by only one person cannot be experienced by another person. So there's really no way out of the mess. The "believers" and "deniers" will be forced to remain at a stalemate.
I like the part where he says, "We have a responsibility to protect your data, and if we can't then we don't deserve to serve you." Facebook doesn't "serve" consumers, it built an RPG that harvests user data and sells it to the highest bidder.
"Using data" (said at least a hundred times in that video) or even using Facebook data is not what the outrage is about. I missed the part in the video about third-party developers trawling user (and non-user) data and then giving (selling) it to other third-parties. And the part where the Obama campaign was one of those third-parties...
> There's tribal instinctual stuff

Well, yeah, that's what I was referring to. If you perceive someone as being from your tribe then you are predisposed to believe what they say, and if you don't then you aren't. Nowadays tribes are much bigger than they used to be, and tend to center around ideologies more than geography. But otherwise it's monkeysphere dynamics at work.
Commerce and law enforcement don't have opposing forces with huge political propaganda/PR machines behind them. Trump is opposed by the Democrats, and Obama is opposed by the Republicans. Both parties are public sentiment manipulation machines.
Section 230 protects against all kinds of collateral and contributory liability that a publisher of information might have, not just direct liability for publishing content that is illegal without regard to context.

Weakening 230 means that online services are closer to needing to treat everything that crosses the platform as the kind of legal risk it would be if it were produced and published directly by the company, considering, including in the worst case of conduct that people might allege it contributed to, with the consideration of how attractive the firm is as a deep pockets piñata for lawsuits where the other side has little to lose and much (even if it is unlikely) to gain.

Which is the whole problem 230 was adopted to solve, but conduct by publishers who were found liable even with 230 in place, proving it doesn't need to be weakened to address the conduct has, nevertheless, provided a pretext for an attack on it.
I got one ad that was 10 minutes and couldn't be skipped. I said, yeah screw that noise, copy/paste youtube-dl url
have you watch the video provided by the Tempe police? The woman was jaywalking, but it was far from running out. This is something that Uber should have picked up.
https://ijr.com/ijr-red/2018/03/1077083-ex-obama-campaign-di...

You have a former Obama campaign staffer saying that what they did raised alarms with Facebook. Hence, what they were doing was not OK by someone’s standard. Plus, the intent of the app is irrelevant. By using it you authorized it to get information on everyone in your friend list, something they’ve since disabled for, wait for it, privacy reasons because it’s not like the people on your friend list were ever asked for _their_ consent during the harvesting process.
Moderators: please remove
> I don't get why people are mad at Zuckerberg and not themselves!

Because Trump won and Zuck is the new scapegoat. No one gave a shit when Obama's campaign did the same thing, and they were even public and boastful about it at the time.
It's a damage control talking point, see Wikileaks (which at this point is basically a Russian propaganda mouthpiece) immediately suggesting it.
Uber phoenix crash video
See here for details of how CA's data was aggregated: https://theintercept.com/2017/03/30/facebook-failed-to-prote...

You can find that this survey was listed on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/HITsWorthTurkingFor/comments/27nnaa...

Half the reddit commenters claim to have gave them fraudulent information, and they paid people $2 for completing the survey.

How is that fundamentally different from this:

https://twitter.com/mbsimon/status/975231597183229953

> I ran the Obama 2008 data-driven microtargeting team. How dare you! We didn’t steal private Facebook profile data from voters under false pretenses. OFA voluntarily solicited opinions of hundreds of thousands of voters. We didn’t commit theft to do our groundbreaking work.

So a bunch of MT users voluntarily gave their information over, for $2, knowing that it would be used for research purposes, and clearly (at least on reddit) skeptical of giving over their information. But that's theft and that's wrong.

A bunch of Obama for President enthusiasts voluntarily give their information to his campaign, knowing that it would be used for research purposes. That's categorically different, for some reason.
That doesn't justify the fact that data was harvested for what amounts to targeted propaganda.

And this isn't some kind of whataboutism. Attention needs to be drawn to these abuses of private data, regardless of where they occur or whether they are technically legal.
> (When my parents’ ragged copy of the 1964 edition succumbed to water damage a few years ago, my mother delivered the news as if a relative had died.)

I'm willing to bet my life that the author has taken liberties with this "delivered the news as if a relative had died" part. I bet if there still exist actual record (say an email) of the delivery that it would be something he wouldn't want us to see. It's a small lie, sure, but it's so unpleasant. In an article whose supposed topic is honesty no less.
Something like millionshort.com would be interesting
The problem is, the "automatically updating" part of that rolodex is what requires a vast, privacy breaching, centralized surveillance infrastructure.
Assigned to acquirer.
Do you really think most of the outraged public understand the nuanced differences between the two? The reason the public is outraged is because of an engineered campaign by Trump's enemies.
I think the point neuronexmachina was trying to make about microtargeting is that Obama simply asked their users to send messages to their friends, whereas CA directly advertised to people.
How Much Does It Cost to Buy Luxury Condo in San Fran Not Live in It for 10 Yrs?
P_0 * exp(-k*d)

Where P_0 is the price in the heart of the city, d is the effective distance to the heart of the city and k is a factor to get units matching up.
Nice goal post moving!
The first video from inside the Uber self-driving car that killed a pedestrian
More affordable housing equals don't overpopulate cities. I don't understand why in a digital age we are not promoting a society that values a healthy balance. Capitalism creates an unbalance that favors the rich and punishes the poor. There is also a lot of white privilege happening still in America regarding money, access to education and other challenges. The tech industry should be diversifying and encouraging remote workspaces and helping build communities for free education and housing using new tools for training, such as augmented reality devices. We are not too far off, but I believe we need a progressive effort to get there by promoting and using open source tools.
Zuckerberg Says Facebook 'made Mistakes' on Cambridge Analytica – Mpelembe Wire
This sweep seems to have had a very narrow focus on facilitating sales. r/darknetmarketnoobs was allowed to stay[1] even though it's intimately related to r/darknetmarkets, which was banned, because they have been careful to push most market discussion to the latter sub.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarketsNoobs/comments/8641hg...
Hopefully professional news organizations will realize how little credibility there is to social media numbers (likes, followers, etc.) and finally decide to stop reporting about trends on social media as if it is news.
Earn more or move or commute longer.
People are trying so hard to create the false equivalency on this issue, too. Nobody ever did what Trump, Cambridge Analytica (Mercers/Bannon), Russia, Wikileaks/Assange did in coordination (allegedly, for now).
You added "law-abiding". How do you know this?
> ... These days most people regard that as horrible and in no way justified.

Sure, but does that mean the family of five that was finally able to afford a home last year after scraping for years should pay for that? They could even be in the same demographic as the original victims of those exclusionary policies.

> Furthermore, if housing is expensive, adding to the supply won't crater the price like the economy going bust does

I'm not so sure, depending on how it's handled. Housing is a free market, and as such it's subject not just to supply and demand, but people's expectations of supply and demand. If I just bought a house and policies were announced that I thought might not just stagnate my house value, but actually reduce it over time, inflation-be-damned, I would be mightily tempted to sell if I had options. Get enough people doing that, and you might have a run-away market drop. The people who mainly benefit from that are those that are poised to take advantage of the situation on short notice (those with money available already and can take advantage of the eventual rebound).

There are obviously ways you could crater the housing market in an area on purpose through policy, so it's not out of the question it could happen accidentally. I'm mainly arguing for people to see both sides and try to prevent that, and soften any blow and be prepared to counter a market that looks to be behaving irrationally.

> In the end, though, you can't have both housing that's affordable, and also treat housing like some kind of investment that's supposed to keep growing and growing in value.

I agree. I just think it's a complex situation that requires nuanced policy and constant attention, and isn't as simple as "build more houses" implies.
When you fix symptoms you create more sickness. When you fix the disease, only then will you solve the problem.
Mark Zuckerberg has been talking about privacy for 15 years
Using flamegraphs
> The problem is that no one wants to live there because living in dense cities for whatever reason is extremely appealing now.

I think you answered the "whatever reason" with your next sentence.

> The price of a house grows exponentially with the minimum travel time to a metropolis from it.

Jobs are in metropolises and people prefer shorter commutes over longer ones.
>combined with funds illegally collected from a hostile foreign power

If you can prove it, Mueller is all ears.
As somebody who followed closely some of the issues mentioned here, especially the Tribunal one, seeing the legislative procedures being fearlessly broken and actually listening to the parliamentary debates, being able to pin-point the carefully crafted manipulative messages that weren't even internally coherent as soon as you gave them more attention than usual media coverage does, I can see you mindlessly repeating all this stuff right now. Try to diversify your opinion, read various sources, and especially don't buy into the completely stupid "they tried to do bad stuff and failed, so we'll now successfully do twice as bad stuff as they wanted to, cause we're in power now and nobody will stop us and hey, they were baddies too" argument.
Sorta like making everything you disagree with Russian?
If you do them in a transaction with the correct isolation level, it will appear as a single atomic update.
If anyone has any questions, let me know.
For some reason, the thread you linked never hit the front page, however your thread did. How odd.

The highest rank that thread got was #39, which is page 2 http://hnrankings.info/16643056/
The dynamic range of small sensor digital cameras is so poor that it is impossible to judge whether or not she would have been visible to the naked eye based on the video.
Leave. Or ask millions of people to kindly stop existing.
Would you compare the change from being part of the USSR to a republic to a change of government from Monarchy to republic? I think you just start over.

I'm not Polish so I don't know the situation exactly, but it's also been 30 years. I live in Poland and I see nothing even remotely resembling communism (besides the ugly Soviet buildings they haven't demolished yet). I think the government is using this as a scapegoat to push their agenda, but that's just an impression.
The description given before the video was released painted a picture in my mind that the woman was on the median and "suddenly" entered the roadway in front of the vehicle. I pictured someone darting across the road directly in front of the car, with no way to stop in time.

This video shows a completely different scenario. The woman started on the median, but the vehicle was in the #2 lane. She wasn't visible to the naked eye but she also wasn't darting into traffic and had to cross the #1 lane before even being in the path of the vehicle. A human driver certainly would have difficulty stopping in time, but why did the sensor package not pick her up? This doesn't appear to be the close call we were told it was. To me, this seems like exactly the scenario that autonomous driving vehicles are intended to prevent.
> Nice goal post moving!

I'm not moving any goal posts. User sverige and everyone else has declined to even mention which "it" is being referred to in this whataboutism of "Obama did it too" stuff. My point is and has always been that there is no comparison to be made here, the usage and methods taken by Obama's campaign are totally simple and small and legal compared to the methods taken by Cambridge Analytica/Facebook/Trump et al. recently.
Did not enjoy that video auto playing in my twitter feed.
I'm my opinion Trump won _only_ through emotional manipulation (remember "croocked hillary"?); in many other nations (e.g. Germany) its usually a bit of rational arguments and a bit of emotional manipulation, not only the later.
Isn't that the exact same video in poorer quality?

I think the question now is how well a LIDAR is supposed to work in the dark. I keep hearing people saying that the hardware should've "seen" her, but speaking purely in terms of physics, how exactly is that supposed to work? Doesn't night vision still require a minimum threshold of light in order to work? How much light?
I've got a working theory that the problem isn't necessarily just in how we've changed eating, but in what we do in our free time.

I don't know about your parents, but when I look at what was done for free time when my grandparents(born ~1930s) and my parents (born in the 1950s) did in their free time vs what my friends and I did I can't help but see a significant difference in the time spent active. I'm not just talking about going out to ride a bike/play basketball with my friends, but later in life. When my grandfather went to work, school, and even to a bar he always walked and my father had a similar relationship with mobility during his early to teen years. Of course that changed when they both were old enough to own a car, but for both of them that wasn't until they're late teens.

Combine that with the only entertainment being other places or outside you have a populace who expends significantly more calories every day than my generation (Millenial).

As time progresses I think you might see parents from the earlier generations feeding their kids at the level they were fed as kids not recognizing that little Billy watches youtube for 3 hours after finishing his homework instead of going and playing basketball with Tuk-Tuk leading to a daily calorie surplus. Over time a daily intake of +200 calories can easily add up to a significant amount of weight.

I don't have any data to support this other than my anecdotal story and how I approached weight loss (by decreasing intake and increasing passive/everyday calory burn rate), but I think it'd be a cool thing to see studied.
They aren't nuanced differences, at all. And a substantial majority of the public can be counted as "Trump's enemies" (whatever that paranoid label may mean) probably because they understand how different 2016 was than any other campaign in the US, ever.
Commentary on Zuckerberg's dominant body language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F9JfZDJKCQ

This likely explains many of his motives.
How is this video "better?" This is clearly somebody holding a camera recording a screen and seems to have much more artifacting and brightness changes.
Here's Obama's 2012 campaign manager discussing this. They did it different four years later, and Facebook had four more years of data and tens of millions more users at that point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZmcyHpG31A
You will have drug/gun/nazi/porno running wild in that place very quickly.
Yep, it's also a known tactic for deflection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Not sure if offtopic but how does Facebook make money? They talk about micro targetting me but, while I click often on adword ads because they know me, I have literally 0 times seen any interesting or a even remotely relevant ad on facebook? They know everything about me... I did an advertising engine for a big datingsite long ago which was stupid as mud but got vastly superior ads for for my demographic based on the data the site had about me than facebook has ever shown me. So am I just ‘unlucky’ or am I missing something?
> So Obama's campaign violated the Facebook terms of service and illegally used the data they obtained

By a campaign staffer’s admission, Facebook personally told them that what they were doing was not OK so... yes?

> combined with funds illegally collected from a hostile foreign power

Is this a new talking point? Russia financed the Trump campaign now?
I'm definitely interested in the legal expectations too. If it turns out LIDAR completely dropped the ball here, it might not be the case (given AZ's lax rules) that Uber would be penalized for LIDAR that was substandard.

Presumably, there'd be regulations for software too, classifiers and AI decision making. Has any jurisdiction set standards in this?
So you really think that because they swore to the Communist party 30 years ago they still push that agenda, even though it was a foreign power, that doesn't even exist anymore..?
Daaaang. That is monstrous.
> because of a new housing policy, it's possible their home could drop quite a bit in value

Is that even true though? If an area can become more densely zoned because of higher demand, isn't your property more valuable now? I could probably sell my house with 1-acre plot (I don't have one, just hypothetically) for a lot more if a condo developer were allowed to build on it.
which will only help the property developers IMHO
Alright, while we wait for physical evidence to be public, I will take the assumption that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck it is probably a duck.

With so many Russians already indicted over this and clear money flows recorded from investigative journalism, I think it is quite clear what happened with foreign funds being used from Russia -> NRA, Trump orgs, etc prior to, during and after the election.

Edit: I have been banned again from replying to HN comments, I do not understand why but I guess it has to do with a lot of people downvoting me quickly. I don't know. Anyway, here is my reply to the comment below.

> CNN

I don't understand what the entertainment company CNN is doing in this conversation. They have nothing to do with this?

> FUD

I am not spreading FUD. I am merely talking about recent news articles in the New York Times and Washington Post. I'm not sure what you mean by FUD here, but surely if there is FUD about it is the FUD that Trump is the legitimate president and that no outsiders or illegal actors had any influence on democracy in the last number of years. That would be the real FUD of the situation.
Well, if we're demanding robocars that are better than people at this task, then that is a higher standard than we currently enjoy.
> [...] fake news is fake information [...]

What is "fake information"? The word 'fake' has been transformed recently to mean something that is not well defined. Everyone knows that a 'fake' watch is a counterfeit watch, and the same goes for a 'fake' id. It's fraudulent, and that usage is well established. Past that, lines get blurry. A "fake" person is someone who is superficial and cares a lot about appearances. Where does "fake" information fit in here? If we photoshop freckles out of a photo or slim down a waistline, we might call that a "fake" photo, but the picture is still mostly accurate.

Does true information that has been stretched or selectively omitted fall under "fake"? Does it have to be completely made up?

> [...] But the intent is not deliberate or malicious. [...]

So it comes down to intent of the author in your mind? Wouldn't you agree that calling some news "fake" is primarily a statement about the author, then? You're saying, "the information is inaccurate, and the author did so with intent."

Have you disagreed with me?
Facebook is an addiction for several billion humans. It is in itself a quagmire, but is not going to go away any time soon.

And the business of making money off profiling private behavior online, for commercial or other purposes, is not specifically a Facebook thing, it is ingrained into the backbone of the internet itself. It won't go away any time soon.

Facebook will of course be responsive to demands by the joint forces of tax-revenue collecting agencies + old media (who are seeing their business models dissipate into the pockets of Facebook, Google and a few more), and so we'll probably see some adjustments which will try to satisfy them; less tax-havens and a trickle of the revenue stream back to the original news creators.

But nothing drastic.
This scam is always the same, no matter which famous person is used. There is no such thing as "send me $5 and get back $15". It's stunning people haven't caught on yet considering crypto scams are everywhere on Twitter.
I listen to Youtube fairly extensively while working, but don't get any ads because I have an ad blocker.

I don't even get "you have an ad-blocker installed" warnings...