skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Any feedback from the response of the vehicle to the commands would be absent. So would whatever happens next. If the computer says "steer left a little" but the video keeps going straight, what's the computer supposed to do next?
Perspicuous!

Why do it? Because they can?

Without Javascript it would not be as easy.

With the help of the "modern browser" and its defaults, its like shooting fish in a barrel.

The original HTTP/1.1 RFC has some reasonably low limits on simultaneous connections; todays ad-sponsored browsers ignore them.

Turn off Javascript and the web marketing Rube Goldberg machines begin to fail.

Most web pages try to coax users into turning on Javascript, or even installing a different browser.

At this point, a web developer will jump in and try to convince us the web cannot work without Javascript.

This is false. There was e-commerce on the web before Java1 or Javascript.

1. Java began life as a language intended to be embedded in devices. It was repurposed to be a scripting language for the web. That was a failure.

Javascript is a "success" but in the ways that it is abused, it can be every bit as annoying as a 1990s Java applet.
No, I won't. I've seen this page before and I've disabled a lot of the stuff that I'm uncomfortable with having them track. Google does a lot of shady creepy stuff, but I think just linking to your activity timeline doesn't add much value. How about writing a blog post about which items you found most surprising instead?

I do wish we had was better controls. For example, if you disable location tracking, Google Maps won't remember any address you visit. Why can't it be cached locally? If I regularly visit an address on my phone, it should be included in my autocomplete. I don't need cross-device history or tracking, I just want my damn phone to remember places I've visited previously without uploading it to the cloud. Taking an all-or-nothing approach seriously harms the user experience.

Despite it taking years, I've gradually been migrating away from my hard dependency on Google services. With that being said, if I were locked out of my gmail account I'd be seriously fucked. Maybe some day I'll reach the point where that's not the case.
> “Improving public safety has always been the emphasis of Arizona’s approach to autonomous vehicle testing, and my expectation is that public safety is also the top priority for all who operate this technology in the state of Arizona,” Mr. Ducey said in his letter. “The incident that took place on March 18 is an unquestionable failure to comply with this expectation.”

This after the police claimed no fault.[1] Not quite sure how those two statements square...

[1] http://fortune.com/2018/03/19/uber-self-driving-car-crash/
Radical comes from radix which means root. The exact meaning of radical left-wing may be up to debate, but it doesn't mean "ever so slightly left of mainstream", downvotes or cuteness don't change that.
> Great VR content with the ability to personalize it using AI with tons of personal data will lead to major addictions in my opinion

Do people really want that? Or do they just want good VR games and experiences? I'm not sure what kind of personal data would get added to a VR experience but it sounds...creepier than most people would want.
All the more reason to run dd-wrt on my linksys router.
I was surprised to see that they track every app I open on my phone. Anyone know if that can be disabled?
Ask HN: How to invest $1000 into customer acquisition for exec coaching?
A friend has an exec coaching biz.

She’d like to try out investing, say $100-1000, into customer acquisition.

What might you suggest?
Lots of respect to the man Swartz. Not a big fan of news (mainly the cable) myself but the absence of it is pretty terrifying as well. Whatever is left of little accountability will pretty much vanish.

I'd argue that the problem isn't the news, per se, but the fact that news is a business, with a primary motive of maximizing profit and not necessarily 'informing' the public objectively. But on the other extreme, state run media that do not have the same objective of making profit are even worse.

We'll pretty much have to live with it :)
You are right about the importance of understanding problems.

But in your story, a lot of the problems came from people giving you (wrong) diagnoses. dkarl is saying what works for him is just working directly on the constellation of traits he has without looking for a diagnosis. True, things got much better for you when you got the right diagnosis of autism. But as i14ng points out below, autism is "just" a name for a for a constellation of traits similar to dkarl's.

It sounds like your case is a lot worse than dkarl's so I believe you that naming the syndrome was a good thing. But overall, would you have been better or worse off if society just made fewer psych diagnoses and you never had the right or the wrong ones, but people just helped you work directly on your traits?
How did you minimize your usage of Google?
Most of the smart phones are juggle between Apple and google? Where do you go for research questions and topics?
> what job offer to take

... or be offered.

Part of Google Cloud Job Discovery is letting seekers find jobs ... the other is getting the "jobs in front of the right candidates." Does this sound familiar? It seems like another opportunity for an individual seeker to be put in an algorithmic jail, with opaqueness and little recourse we usually expect from Google.
> people have no right to criticize FB or Google

I’ve never understood the phrase “X has no right to Y.” In this context, it’s doubly absurd. Americans have a right. A Constitutional right. The very first one in the Bill of Rights.

Users quibbling at Facebook is negotiation (albeit ineffectively done). Voters complaining via political channels is activism, a First Amendment right.
https://www.uniqsofts.com/blogs/aptoide-for-ios/
<a href="https://www.snaptubeforpc.com/"><b>snaptube for pc</b></a>
[url=https://www.uniqsofts.com/blogs/vidmate-for-pc/]vidmate for pc[/url]
As far as I know the selection of officially unlockable phones is extremely humble. Unlocking a phone usually means using hacks voiding warranty and/or violating licenses. I absolutely support the people choosing to go this way morally (and am one of them myself) yet I think it's sad that people are forced to do illegal-ish hackery to configure their phones a reasonable way and protect their privacy. I have also heard about a man that was put in prison for hacking his nintendo so the whole thing gets scarier and scarier.
Lobbying is the legal front company for constituted bribery. And this is wide spread and just more expensive due to laws making it illegal. So why not make it legal as in.
(25% percent of the power in congress goes to economic forces /tax dollars of all economic activity) * individual company paid taxes = voting rights of a company in congress.
> the only ones that know how to make modern computers at all

75% of Intel's fabrication plants are still in the US, so the core of modern computing is still domestically owned and operated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si...

But for many other computer components, such as displays, it's incredibly difficult to find a U.S. firm that hasn't outsourced manufacturing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_liquid-crystal-display...
https://www.snaptubeforpc.com
https://www.uniqsofts.com/blogs/vidmate-for-pc/
https://www.uniqsofts.com/blogs/aptoide-for-ios/
Would it really?
I am more shocked by what Facebook hasn't revealed.
For ex, FB tracks most viewed profile by user and this data is accessible to employees who work on munging data. Not revealed in any Facebook dataset that you could request and download from the site.
New Kind of Network
Umm, please explain?
You don't really know what's going on. You only know what you're told, and there's many ways to interpret the source data.

You really can't have a good sense of corporations and governments unless you work specifically for a particular company or government and know the inner workings and side effects of what's happening. And if that's the case, you don't need to read the news to learn about it.

You don't know much about the wars nor the relations between countries. You never get to sit in on leader meetings or see first hand what's happening and not happening.

You think you know something about Michigan because you learned about the Flint water crisis. But do you really know what failures took place or the economic state of all of Michigan? What about all of the other crises in America you didn't hear about, simply because the news chose to make you care about Flint and not another crisis?

Data breaches and environmental disasters are often reported in a way that makes corporations seem negligent when other information is left out. This is why there's so much "debate" and "different opinion" on such matters. There's no right answer, yet the news does a good job of presenting a singular narrative.

The news is definitely endlessly intriguing, just like a drug. The worst part about it is you only ever have a very small fraction of the totality of what's going on. Every time we hear about Trump, we're not hearing about local politicians who arguably have a greater impact on our lives.

You can't really be informed about most topics, and it's less likely to be informed the more we focus on matters outside of our local proximity, depending on journalists to translate events with inevitable inaccuracy.
> Laws like this are very hard to vote against because of TV ads opponents of politicians could run demonizing them.

I've never understood this argument. Many bills are a thousand pages long and involve dozens of completely unrelated subject matters.

If you vote for the bill your opponents will be able to use it against you because some parts of it are unpopular. If you vote against it your opponents will be able to use it against you because some parts of it are popular.

So how is that an argument to vote for it? If anything it's an argument to vote against it. If you vote against it you can at least provide a defensible reason -- you were voting against the bad parts of the bill, not the good parts of the bill.

By contrast, voting for a bill with poison in it is completely indefensible because the alternative exists to hold out for a bill with only the good parts.

People understand that doing nothing is better than doing something bad.
Someone once said something equivalent about the Roman Empire.
I worked at two GSuite companies that handed out Chromebooks to the outside Sales team.

Automated Google Sheet reports, easy to maintain organizational documentation.

One was acquired by a S&P 509 and forced to convert to O365. The CFO quietly carved out an exception in the budget citing "conversion costs" so Accounting and Sales don't have to convert.
You're sadly misinformed as TRP doesn't promote violence one bit.
What do you mean by, "People are paying for more and more subscriptions"? Nextcloud subscriptions?
Google is not making it easy to avoid Google but I've done what I can to cut them out of my life. My smartphone is a custom build of Lineageos, clear of any closed source Google code, I don't use gmail or any other Google services and block Google cookies.
Regardless of bracing style, I still interpret `return a` as a special case with respect to control flow due to the indentation. `return b`, on the other hand, is on the "happy path" — if this wasn't simply a max function, I'd assume from the indentation that it'd return `b` most of the time.

A max function is one of those rare moments where a ternary statement just seems right, but it's an admittedly simple example.
> if we stopped medicine every time a patient died in a trial, society would be worse off.

What on earth do you mean? Clinical trials are stopped all the time when people have adverse reactions & die. And people who die in clinical medical trials are volunteers, consciously aware of their participation, and having signed a waiver. In the U.S., medications may not be sold or administered to the public before being approved via trials. If Uber had to meet the same standards as the medical industry, Elaine Herzberg would be alive, and we wouldn't see autonomous vehicles on the roads for several more years.
I see my Youtube views. Shortly after getting my first Android phone, I got creeped out by a link like this (and the phone's "helpful" suggestions for products and services) and asked them to stop tracking everything that I could find an option for.
FB has control over both collecting personal data and filtering what news to show. Not to mention scale.
So they'd defend the privacy as long as it doesn't require any serious effort from them - like denouncing Zuckerberg - but the moment the interests of their business and their users contradict, they'd throw the users under the bus. Understandable position, probably, but not exactly the one that should be a source of pride.
If Facebook does fail and fold, I will be looking toward these communities with great anticipation of what fills the void. Human ingenuity will prevail, and these communities will communicate just as well. My hope is for small tech communities to be inspired for smaller scale, more community friendly technology specific to their problems.

At least that's an optimistic view. Of course some other evil corp could fill the gap. Who knows.
As an iPhone user I’m really not surprised by any of the data “in my file” – google maps queries, google queries, and YouTube videos.

It makes sense that Facebook gets all your call data and Google knows things like what apps you have when your operating system allows it.
Here is the issue with the OG:

1). He has no sources. [0]

2). Sample size for Uber deaths is 1

3). Miles driven is also sampled at 1

2+3). With only one pair, it is a rate, not "rates" of death by Uber. There has been 1 death by Uber. As opposed to the many deaths motor vehicles accidents have caused

4). Per mile is an arbitrary metric, and in this case, false equivalency due to n=1. One Uber car killed one person. As opposed to millions of cars killing thousands of people. You cannot compare the cumulative results of the many to the single result of the one.

4.1). Per mile is an arbitrary metric. It tells us nothing but how many miles of road must be driven by every single driver until 1 death will happen. How do we measure total miles driven in a practical fashion? We can't. We estimate months later.

4.2) Per mile is an arbitrary metric. It doesn't let us know how quickly deaths happen. Do they happen every 1,000 hours? Every 10 hours? Every 100 years?

6). Comparison is unstandardized. 1 kill per ~100m miles is an aggregate and 1 kill per ~3m miles is an absolute. To normalize the data, you would take all the drivers who killed people, their total aggregate miles driven, and graph them on a standard distribution. Plop Uber in there to get your real likelihood of an Uber killing you compared to a regular human.

I might even do #6 if I can find the data.

[0]https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx
I believe the safety drivers are primarily responsible for getting the autonomous cars to resume driving again after they've stopped for some unknown reason, not to react in a fraction of a second to divert a disaster.
RISE Lab – UC Berkeley publications
Yeah, in a nutshell, there is a huuuuge gap between two kinds of human drivers.

1) people who, like, you know, just drive, man, and like, as long as everyone else does the right thing, then like, i guess things will uh, like, work out dude

2) defensive drivers.

Obviously, self driving cars need to be more like #2 if they plan to actually be as safe as an average human, and have a shot at actually beating humans on this... I suspect Waymo gets this and Uber, well, is uh, ''moving fast and breaking things''
> Why are we surprised Big Tech is doing the exact same thing?

I think you're conflating FaceBook (including Comcast & Verizon - surprise!) with the rest of "Big Tech". I'd like to hear how Apple, Amazon or Microsoft are part this coalition, or as "evil as Big Oil", etc.

Facebook has some poor timing in this news, but lets face it, there're privacy proponents and opponents. Facebook is almost never for privacy.

Notice: Comcast and Verizon are almost always on the wrong side of the issue, including this one.
That’s not entirely correct. The CE Mark is a representation by the manufacturer / authorised representative that the device conforms to all relevant European directives, including the electrical safety ones (which typically require additional marks and third party verification).
Yes. Extremely valid point, yet somehow overlooked in these discussion till now.

But can you explain how, if it is statistically true, can have a different real world outcome?
Agree, it's a great platform for advertisers and they know it's great for targeting and conversions.
Most of the outrage and awareness seems to be in the tech sphere (the vocal minority?) while the rest of the world just gets on with it.
Adevărata origine a ţiganilor (IV)
End of gender standards near as the Army turns to functional fitness testing?
It's always like this. People who get exposed to new scary information always react with 'you are a tinfoil hat person arent you', until it's obvious to everybody that something is true. Takes many years, every time. I'm usually someone who sees these things well before they get public, but there is no point talking about it until the public is ready for it and the thing has again become obvious.
I'd say because night time visibility in Arizona on a clear day is way, way more than 50 feet, and the low-quality dashcam footage you see here is highly misleading.

Low visibility on a clear day is simply lack of illumination, and it is a horrible excuse, because:

1. The car is equipped with headlights, which solve the "limited night time visibility" problem;

2. The car is equipped with multiple types of high-quality cameras;

3. The car is equipped with a LIDAR, which is an active sensing system.

Finally, if one accepts that the visibility was limited to 50 feet, as the video misleadingly suggests, THEN one has to concede that the car was going too fast for how much it could see.

People are taught to drive so that at least three seconds worth of road ahead can be seen. If you believe that either the car or the driver were seeing the equivalent of what the webcam footage was showing, the car was going unsafely fast.

Hanlon's razor would suggest, though, that the car simply wasn't able to process the data available to it. We'll know for sure if the investigation is successful.
It's not just the first amendment, but a three-step failure: (1) government can't restrict people's speech (first amendment); (2) for-profit corporations are "people"; (3) money is speech. That gave us Citizens United[1], and as long as politicians are a bit more subtle than Duke Cunningham[2], it's allowed.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham#/media/File:Du...
That non-profits play the lobbying game only means that lobbying has won.

I'm pretty sure if you asked them EFF and ACLU would support restrictions on lobbying - they can't compete against billions of dollars funded by well funded corporations.
Missed Connections remains. All the solicitation will move there in a thinly veiled manner, most likely.
Two different and unrelated agencies and levels of government with different incentives.

The state has strong precedence over local authorities though, so whatever some garbage local keystone kops have to say is kind of irrelevant here. Local coppers are known in general to have a bias in favor of motorists for obvious reasons...
I'm pretty sure I could steal food too, but it might not go as well as expected. And there is the problem of transporting one's ill-gotten gains.

I mean I see your point, going to war to take what they want is going to be the preferred solution of some countries when things go bad but I also think for some reason that will actually make the situation worse instead of better.
Nitpick: He seems to consistently spell ‘users’ as ‘useds’ in this article?

Edit; he does so everywhere. What am I missing?
Feel free to make that happen.
So, HN then? (I'm only half-kidding. I have an unhealthy addiction to HN)
Its funny how I regularly have to visit this page and delete new stuff.

This time it shows my activity on the Google Play developer console all the way back to a couple of years ago. That wasn't there last time I went to empty their spy machine trashcan.
Haha, as I joked in another article comment thread, their current crash rate ironically means a somewhat drunk but otherwise defensive driver is probably much safer! What a world.
So he explains some reasons why we should not use Facebook. Fine.

Next question is: do we have alternatives? You know, the "libre/FOSS" version?

GNU social or Diaspora, maybe?
I know you want to quibble part of that one sentence. Let me help you read the full sentence / context so that you can see the deeper point, in case you missed it.

If you read the full context, I said "in my opinion ...", and not "according to American constitutional law ...".

I am using the word "right" in the "moral" sense of the word, and not the "legal" sense of the word (and you can look up the definition of the word "right" if you prefer).

Now, perhaps, you can look at the entire context of that sentence and give address the actual point I was trying to make.
O.M.G.
I've thought about this a whole lot. If I understand your various comments here correctly, I agree with you that it should be allowed while not being exploitation.

The problem as I see it is that most people who feel that way will do what you are doing here and speak out against women being exploited. Meanwhile, there are still huge practical barriers to women making good money via other avenues.

Due to my compromised immune system, sex work is out of the question. If this were not true, I might well have moved to Nevada where it is legal because trying to get taken seriously as a woman, trying to network and make business connections, trying to get business people (who are mostly men) to engage me substantively, help me figure this out, open doors for me has gone just so painfully slowly and I remain dirt poor.

And it frustrates me to see these kinds of remarks here because I feel like most of what I say falls on deaf ears. On top of that, I get a lot of ugly push back where I get literally called a liar (quickly edited to merely say not honest) and accused of having a political agenda and told I need to just shut up about my life for some reason or other. Rich men express similar opinions, though often not in an actionable way, and that's basically OK even if others don't agree. I try to talk about it and try to say in practical terms "Hey, if you sincerely want to see women not be exploited and pushed into such choices, then other doors need be opening for us." and that's often all kinds of ugly drama.

But, seriously, how else do you think that works? I have stayed the course due to extraordinary circumstances giving me no other viable options. I wish to hell and back every single day that I had an easier answer that would make my life work.

I am not asking for charity. I am asking for help to become successful at earning a middle class income.

That's the missing piece here. Women need other doors to open. And if that isn't happening, then decrying sex work, one of the few well paid things reliably available to women, is just cutting off options and making things worse.

I don't understand why that seems so extremely hard to get through to people.
Azure Blob storage supports append blob: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/storageservices/un...
What would alleviate your dependence on gmail? Maybe there's a product out there.
How is this company still in business...karma is chasing it all the way down to oblivion!
I see your point, but

> as long as you need to while you look for a job

Google never added this condition.
I think I can plausibly claim to be top talent.