skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Lots of people imagine both: that the system will never be distracted and also that it will have superhuman reaction time.

And, like, once the systems are mature and hardware has evolved and so forth, I think that's right. It will. It might today under certain circumstances, like if it gets a really unambiguous sensor input (or it might not).

But I've never heard anyone actually associated with a driverless car program assert that their vehicles have superhuman reaction times today, and the vehicles drive extremely cautiously. I think it's likely that due to their difficulty in understanding their sensor readings, if you look at total time necessary to make a course correction from the point when an obstruction first could be noticed by an alert human driver, driverless cars are not winning and may be substantially losing in at least some cases.
notallcars
One for a UK employee where it was an open and shut case of breach of contract (unpaid wages) where the answer basically sided with the employer and the OP should just take the loss.
Self driving cars are one of the things where we absolutely cannot afford to do "move fast and break things".

If there was any whiff of shortcutting, poeple need to go to jail and Uber should be bankrupted by penalties and lawsuits.
"Alert and aware human" is already a high standard, given how most humans drive in routine mode, which is well understood to be much worse than "alert and aware".

From what I've seen I wouldn't trust autonomous cars to "understand" all situations. I would trust Waymo cars to understand enough to avoid hitting anything (at a level better than a human), at the risk of being rear-ended more often. Everything I've seen from Tesla and Uber has given me significantly less confidence than that.
It sounds like the author is associating greenery with ill-gotten power, because historically people with ill-gotten power have spent a lot of money on greenery. Here's an alternate explanation for this:

People with ill-gotten power belong to the larger category of people with power. People with power are able to spend money on beautiful things, and belong to the larger category of humans. Nearly every human likes greenery and sunlight, and these expensive glass buildings are full of both.
Interesting to see the SEC finally grow some teeth, between the recent ICO enforcement actions, Theranos penalty, and now this. When I was in financial software (06-07) they were basically a joke; my employer had developed some software to help enforce a (relatively obscure) regulation and tried to sell it to them, and they were completely indifferent. Kind of a welcome change, if they manage to get people to be more interested in actual productive activity than fleecing dumber investors, but it'll take a while to change a culture.
Apparently he's been working on this in Venezuela since 2015. Just being honest, this article actually gives me a little bit of hope that the petro may have some good intentions and most importantly local community buy in - whether they're manifested remains to be seen.
Yeah, they do the similar stupid "bike lane" crap here in Indiana as well.

Yeah, like a line is going to protect me from run amok car drivers who are too buy on their cell phones. Or it's going to stop the bus drivers from using them as pickup/dropoff areas, cutting bicyclists off.

Long story short, I bike on the sidewalks. I can be a responsible biker on sidewalks while heeding to pedestrians. My life is more important than to be biking on a vehicle road.
Sure, that works for a one-off. Not exactly a good solution though when you are selling a new product. "So, plug the cable into the rough hack-sawed connector on the back of our jankey product".
We already have plenty of case law and policy for cases where people are killed by mechanical equipment operated by businesses, and the type of penalties and compensation are appropriately different if the cause was negligence, malice, or impossible-to-eliminate fluke events. (Generally in the latter case, compensation is due but there are no criminal charges.) Obviously there will be policy adjustments and clarifications for the case of self-driving cars, but I don't think there's reason to think we can't apply normal and existing legal principles here.
Why "except twitter?" I find Twitter to be 100x more toxic, 1% as useful, and infinitely worse design.
Said that few times: how does any AI recognize whether object in front of me is just a white plastic bag rolling in the street, or a baby that rolled out of crib. AI cannot know and will never know. And we cannot have cars drive smoth in traffic if every self driven car will stop before hitting an empty plastic bag.
Uber Halts Autonomous-Car Testing After Fatal Arizona Crash
Car rapidly approaches you from behind.

Slow down?
Does anyone know what kind of violations they reported (and which companies)?
Wow. I am so glad my work laptop still runs Windows 7. I thought about upgrading to 10 because of WSL, but coworkers that already run Windows 10 are fighting problems constantly, every update is a roll of the dice, stuff breaks randomly, it is like the "good" old days all over again.
Sure, human nature won't change.

But when the incentives are aligned differently, the overall behavior of such a system could indeed affect humans differently.

Right now, the goal is eyeballs glued to the page, and thus the algorithms deep down find the most clicky/sticky things to put in front of your eyes.

If the goals were different, such a network might instead encourage different behaviors, like actually not using the site very much, etc.

Probably the best thinking I've seen on this topic is from Tristan Harris: http://www.tristanharris.com More info there.
Seconded. Despite the name it also handles things like EPUB and CBZ competently.
If solution does not solve anything, what's the point of the „solution“?
Most of the deaths on the road I hear in my country are the result of someone doing something really reckless and stupid. „Normal“ drivers do not kill themselves or others. So if self-driving car is only as good as a dumb driver — I do not want these cars on the road.
Also, interetingly enough there is little talk about human driver assisted by technology, not replaced by it. For some reason it is binary: either humand driver or self-driving. How about some human drivers plus collsion avoidance system, infrared sensing system (way too many people die there simply becaue they walk on the road in the dark without any reflectors/lights), etc.
This program is a great example how setting the right incentives can destabilize a criminal conspiracy. It’s also worth noting that “traditional” law enforcement in white collar crimes is essentially the same: the possibility of criminal proceedings almost always outweighs the sort of incentives a corporation can offer lower-level employees. Would you risk jail time as a bookkeeper earning a 5-figure salary at #bigCorp Inc?

It’s arguably the same dynamic now befalling the presidential administration, only that the salaries are even lower than in the private sector, and you’re almost certainly looking at 6-digit bills from your lawyer just because working in the building will make you a potential witness.
Do you know if this is factual? I've read that it's only a myth.
Can we please not overreact and send the whole self-driving research down the drain?

What does the statistics say? How many miles have the self-driving cars driven, and how many deaths were they responsible for? How does it compare to a human driver?

When a million humans drive a car for a mile, and 1 of them results in a death, it's easy to pinpoint the blame on a "random drunk/distracted driver".
How'bout start thinking of the self-driving software as a
combination of all human drivers, with just a much smaller odds of having a drunk/sun-blinded/distracted driver than an average human driver.
Can't help but disagree a bit with the premise that these awful properties of Facebook are something new.

> Facebook is using us. It is actively giving away our information. It is creating an echo chamber in the name of connection. It surfaces the divisive and destroys the real reason we began using social media in the first place – human connection.

I think it has always been more about "broadcasting ego" than "human connection", as the author admits two paragraphs later.

What's different today than when Facebook first launched?

While I applaud the effort to delete all your old posts and eventually the account itself, I wish the tone of this were more "we should be ashamed we let this happen" rather than "the good Facebook has been replaced by the evil one".

Broadcasting your ego--in fact your entire life--and selling it to random companies has always been your choice, not something Facebook recently started doing to you.
A police officer in Nashville shouted at my wife for riding her bike in the road in accordance with Nashville law. Basically, he didn't know the law he was enforcing.
http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/toyota-unintende...
This makes sure I won't use Edge _and_ Windows Mail. The browser war is still not a zero sum game - if Edge just plain didn't suck maybe more people would use it. But MS hasn't been able to get Edge to be usable for intensive browsing.
Unfortunately, many police forces don't train the police on how to handle bicycles. For example, in many places riding on the sidewalk is illegal, yet police will suggest a cyclist get off the road and ride on the sidewalk.

From studying many bicycle-related police reports, I was dismayed at how often I read the phrase "a pedestrian riding a bicycle."
One of the biggest lie sold in the West is that if you work hard, give everything you should succeed.

How is this a lie? There is no guarantee, just good odds.

at least people over there do not harbor illusions of meritocracy.

[Citation Needed]

May be sometime in the future we would have a universal human rights charter that expands and decides what are the basic needs of a human that a society should provide in exchange for basic responsibilities.

There was already a Declaration of Universal Human Rights from a commission headed by Eleanor Roosevelt.
I agree completely. Here, there's perhaps negligence of the system, and the driver that was supposed to be overriding it in situations like this.
That's referring to the user being < 1 ft from a virtual object, not a physical one.

The docs say "Currently we do not recommend to having interactions with objects within 30 cm of your view for prolonged periods of time. When users approach too close to content for us to display, fade content out gracefully rather than sharply clipping the view."
>If you have low conscientiousness and a low IQ, you're basically f-cked and you can't control this either.

The point about IQ is definitely worth worrying about. But the idea of moralizing a person with low conscientiousness as particularly f-cked (implying that they have gotten an injust dessert) seems odd to me. I have seen several sociological studies linking high conscientiousness with high income and other good economic/ health outcomes. To me it seems that not having the characteristic trait of "wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well and thoroughly" would have predictable bad outcomes, and there is nothing other than changing your approach that would result in anything otherwise. There is no injust dessert; there is only reality here.

Even with government/charitable intervention that is both well-intentioned and well-designed, those who are not conscientious will lag behind.

Edit: this particular comment has led me to a fair bit of introspection. Perhaps a Utilitarian formulation would be a good way to state the problem. Let's build a hypothetical world with two (otherwise equal) groups. A Utilitarian might explain the two populations (the conscientious and the unconscientious) as follows: a group that has a high utility associated with (aka highly values) good outcomes, and a group that has a low utility associated with (aka does not highly value) good outcomes. This definition is of course viewed through the lens of what we define as a good outcome.

If we let the two groups act out their personalities over time, one could say that the resulting outcomes are simply the two groups expressing their preferences. When the unconscientious group sees that the conscientious group has built better outcomes for themselves, how do we express the morality of this situation?
> Are the salaries outside of FANG really that much lower?

Yes.
Google Now doesn't actually open Chrome, as far as I can tell; it opens an internal webview which acts like Chrome but does not appear to share things like the list of tabs etc.
Instant Apps: Google’s Latest Play to Woo Game Developers to Its Services
Why would there have been any attacks on DNSSEC? Literally no real-world system relies on it right now. It's "deployed" on a small subset of large networks, but not in ways where those networks are materially exposed if DNSSEC fails.

As for SMTP: the IETF is pursuing STS, which breaks that downgrade attack the same way HSTS does for the web (except far more powerfully, since the most important MTA relationships are far more stable than the web's), with an explicit design goal of not relying on DANE --- which nobody uses.
Simply because they worked hard to get the degree doesn't mean that the degree is useful, or benefits society.

If there is currently an over saturation of bio-chemists in relation to the amount of jobs open, he cannot add anything to the greater food. From that, there is no reason that his degree/hard work should grant him personal benefits, as he would be taking more than he is giving. Very few people would argue that someone who does a bunch of worthless hard work (something like digging ditches and refilling them) deserves stuff, simply because it required a lot of effort, as what they are doing adds no value to society. Therefore, if the biochemist has a degree that took him a lot of time and work, but isn't needed, there is no reason he should get benefits just because he did work.

I believe the issue is people saying "hard work leads to success" fail to add on that "hard work leads to success, given that you are doing something valuable".
For the "stay on top of patches" thing, that's why I'm a fan of sandstorm.io. It makes a bunch of sense to me.

And, no, I don't want to broadcast info the everyone. A blog won't cut it.

I want to restrict content to some people with authorization.
Recovering plaintext passwords from Azure VMs like it's the 1990s
The bit.ly approach might result in false positives as the namespace for bit.ly links is quite easy to iterate over (assuming you don't use a custom link).

Also, doesn't bit.ly access a URL to pull a title or generate a preview? This would send a click through to the canary as well.
If there's one company who hasn't demonstrated it's learned from its mistakes it's Uber.

But let's extrapolate. Say one day there are 20 self driving car companies. Should they be required to share what they learn so the same mistakes aren't repeated by each company or does the competitive advantage outweigh the public benefit from this type of information sharing?
I have some thoughts on a LinkedIn competitor. Want to chat?
There is a massive difference in terms of scale and choice (FWIW). Industrial automation is most likely to kill you if you work in the plant. The person who died here was a random pedestrian. If these cars were restricted to special areas the analogy might make more sense, but I don’t expect to be dealing with a self-driving car or an industrial robot when I step outside my front door.

Moreover it is not clear to me that not holding the companies that create industrial robots that kill people criminally responsible is what most people would consider just. Again, I think it’s just that there is a massive difference in the scale of exposure; there were not enough interested people to have a debate.
The racist message hidden in a masterpiece
I usually curl shortened urls, the response is either a 301/302 or an html page with a redirect (usually the latter)
> 1. Don't leave your Postgres open to the public internet and

you need to do better than that, since attacks within the firewall can occur as well, and this is probably a more common vector for corporate espionage these days. A compromised laptop can get a wide open remote exploit onto a companies' production environment if the database itself is open within the firewall.
Fewer people will die (probably). The problem is that different people will die, and you can't celebrate with the families of the people who were slated to die and didn't.
The NSA says they only monitor communication metadata. But that's already a lot of information. Let's imagine a scenario where FB can't read your messages, so it doesn't know what you talk about. But if you talk to people who are mostly Trump critics according to their Facebook activity, Facebook can probably categorize you as a liberal. If you added a new friend of the appropriate gender for dating, and your communication intensifies, Facebook can probably guess what's going on. If it intensified and goes quiet some evenings (predominantly weekend evenings), well, guess who's seeing each other (each guess come with probability percentages).
I think it'd be safer to keep the bikes in the far right even if they go straight. Yes, it means they have to pay attention to cars turning right. They might even need to stop until it's safe. This is a place where "bikes/peds having right of way" doesn't really make sense.
Tesla Autopilot != Self-driving(full autonomy)
Maybe because the ratio of self driving cars to human driven cars is 1:100000000 ?
Free markets are as close to egalitarian as is possible with markets. Supply and demand set prices while skill set and productivity set wages. It's not perfect, but it's better than anything else we've tried.

Interested in why you think the playing field isn't level, outside of the "luck" aspects I mentioned earlier (since there's nothing to be done about that, life doesn't care about fairness unfortunately). I'm open to new info :)
May have been allegorical to describe what would happen to engineers if their bridges failed.
Ah I didn't notice their "US Based" qualifier.
Not only that, but Firefox and Chrome have "fired" some of the largest, "most important" CAs on the Internet. We know there's no TBTF problem with the Web PKI. But there is literally no way to fire a DNS TLD operator. In this scheme, they are prêt-à-porter TBTF.
I find Fortnite BR really special - greater than the sum of its parts. I'm an avid gamer who does not like FPS as a rule, but I'm also always looking for one I'd enjoy. BR is the first FPS I've been delighted by since Quake 3.
Those sort of bike lanes teach cyclists that they should under take slower moving traffic - the problem is the majority of deaths in London are due to vehicles turning into undertaking cyclists.
I've actually never seen a bike lane that looks different than that...
Show HN: Check your public and private ip address
> The problem is that each year definition of "strong password" changes

Luckily, you can change your password.

Also, you could say the same thing for the hashing algorithm. Every year you'd want to up your iteration count or even upgrade algos (e.g. use memory-hardness when scrypt was released).

It works both ways, but overestimating is never a bad idea: if someone hacks you now and cracks it in five years, some passwords may still be in use.
Please don't reply to a bad comment with another bad comment. That just makes this place worse for everybody.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
How to Make a Free Call from Bangladesh to Saudi Arabia and UAE
I partially agree. “There is no reason the person who programs or the person who makes money from a self-driving car...”

The person who profits the most should be held the most responsible. But the separation of roles between the executives and the developers is likely to mean that no one gets punished at all.
Not specifically that one way.

In order to allow transportation to co-exist with pedestrians without collisions, you need some kind of separation between the two. With subways, the protected lane is literally underground, but it does definitely have a protected lane. If you don't go under ground, you can go above ground, like several subways and metros do around the world.

If you don't do either of these, you have to make concessions on the ground level. My personal preference would be tall fences around the roadway, and pedestrian bridges that go over or under the roadway (but both have problems). Another would be to still have the fences, but automate some sliding barricades that would activate when traffic halted, which is somewhat like how train crossings work. We could also implement hybrid methods, like that at Shibuya crossing, for very congested intersections.
Yeah, it works really well, also allows me to configure CI/CD in VSTS/TFS via Windows agents for AWS deploys to Lambda. In the end, I'm pretty pleased with it. I've mostly used Node, but Python binary dependencies would have the same need.

Not entirely sure why I got the downvote, other than the tongue in cheek aspect and "lol" at the end.
Cyclists here (in Seattle) have a healthy habit of calling out "to your left" when approaching from behind. Things like this need to become more widespread.
Reminds me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr1ym96abkg
I'm pretty sure everyone involved and observing also vacillate between those two mindsets. Regardless, events like this will likely hamper progress.
Encouraging bikes and other personal mobility devices to use the sidewalk pushes the danger to pedastrians. I'd argue there really shouldn't be right turn lanes except in really select circumstances. Cities that have a lot of bikes like Copenhagen don't really have that many turns lanes. And when they do the mixing area from protected lane to unprotected bike lane is pretty clear.
Can we swap in https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2018/03/19/announci... which is the official announcement and a more detailed post to begin with?
That makes sense. It's like when 37Signals said they were worth a few trillion because they sold a fraction of a share for $1.
This is how cars came to be on the road in the first place. Despite the fact that they were erratic and deadly, and spewed noxious gas everywhere, the manufacturers and automobiling clubs succeeded in convincing everybody that roads were for cars. Uber may well be the worst actor in the self-driving industry, but the industry as a whole is going to need to invent new crimes akin to jaywalking. This will allow it to shift blame to those killed by autonomous vehicles, just as jaywalking implies pedestrians are to blame for being hit by manned vehicles.
That's not at all the same thing. When commercial pilots engage the autopilot (or autoland) they're still actively flying the airplane, just operating at a higher level of abstraction to decrease the workload and fatigue. They're not sitting back and playing Candy Crush on their smartphones.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2014/08/...
Haha, completely true, but you get a lot of latitude and you are actually valued as an employee — unlike most salaried jobs, there is a direct correlation between your paycheck and the company’s revenue. There is also a high incentive for the company to pay to keep your skills up-to-date.

The culture in consulting has its problems, but things are getting better and we’re seeing a lot more women entering senior roles which is starting to fix some of the bad behavior that has traditionally gone on.

As for acting self-important? It takes a fucking ego to have a 27 year old kid tell a 50 year old SVP how to do his job. But as a result, people in consulting generally respect each others large egos, which gets you some degree of professionalism.
It's not that simple. Who is going to take responsibility for such incidents? The company that owns the car? The person behind the wheel (if any)? Or the engineer that designed the algorithm?