skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: How is it living in SF/SV?
I looked at houses in these areas because I thought, well, if it's a million or two, I guess that's a mortgage that might be manageable someday. It's not a million or two. It's four or more in most places in the valley, and _sometimes_ around a million or so in SF.

How do people living in SF/SV save to buy a house? Is that even possible?
Looks really cool! Congratulations on shipping. Looking forward to reading some of the NYC books =)
I love Carl Sagan and especially love when he branched out into topics like this. But I also wonder if he ended up being on the right track - does anyone happen to know if contemporary research backs up many of his speculations about human evolution in books like Dragons of Eden or Demon-Haunted World?
NPM Expansions
It sounds like peering into the black box of autopilot and anthropomorphising some parts of it but not others. Why not say "autopilot sometimes drives into barriers and also humans sometimes drive into barriers."? In both cases the driver/autopilot failed for whatever reason.
What is really interesting is that human's natural sleep cycle is not to sleep continuously for 8 hours. Our natural sleep cycle is to go to bed when it gets dark and then to wake up for a few hours in the middle of the night and get up and do things (apparently this is also the time when most sex happened since other family members in the same room were still asleep) and then go back to sleep and get back up at dawn.
I'd heard CALORIE was selective with applicants in order to increase compliance.
I think the zonefile format is the one given in section 5 of https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1035

It seems to be a straightforward format for expressing tabular data using whitespace. I'm pretty sure that it was designed to be parsed using hand-written code iterating over an array of characters. Most formats that were defined by their implementation using a hand-written parser tend to be difficult to force into a grammar-based paradigm, because context-sensitivity is much easier to introduce when you write the parser yourself.

C is similarly difficult to parse with a grammar, since pointer declarations like char * ptr and multiplications like x * y are only distinguishable using context about the available types.
Motor vehicles in general are not completely safe. It's a question of where you draw the line.
I’m sure laws differs between countries, but isn’t there a law in Europe that forces you to log IP for eventual police investigation ?

It was true some years ago in France (a law from 2011 says you must keep 1 year of logs for user posting content on your website [1]), and it’s the big question I am asking myself for several months with GPRD comming.

Everyone I ask had its own way of seeing it and I’m confused.

[1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFT... (in French, article 3)

Edit: found the law
Update: There is now https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/30/17182824/tesla-model-x-cr...
Does it compile the Linux kernel? ;)
Because we integrate, learn, plan, abstract, create, have way more senses, complex memory, societal and cultural embeddings, and a whole host of things that make us human. A text box on hacker news is not the place for such a reply. Go take some cognitive science, neuroscience, anthropology, sociology, psychology, and philosophy classes and you’ll see why. “AI” as we know it is a joke, particularly as media has hyped it.

The original guys (McCarthy, minskey, etc) at least understand the gigantic complexity of the undertaking in so far as we understand how the mind works at all, and they never reduced things purely to classifiers. That’s like 0.1% of the job. The real researchers take philosophy of mind seriously — technologists want a quick and cheap solution that cannot exist.
I have a HP Laptop on the Ubuntu Desktop Certified list (https://certification.ubuntu.com/desktop/).

Since day one, every time I boot up there has been some sort of display error. The networking has never worked correctly.

Desktop linux needs to do what Apple did. Pick a hand full of laptops and desktops (or just ditch desktops) with some combination of hardware and just support those.

Until then, it's always going to be an "it works for me" situation.
I’d pay more money for an option without the endless phone calls and emails, it’s like advertising that you have to listen to.
Why the car was not able to detect and avoid the collision in such a simple situation (from a human POV)? We have seen Tesla's autopilot performing very well in a much more complex scenario than this. Ref:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FadR7ETT_1k
Either the same place or a nearby one (same pair of highways) did trick a human driver two years ago: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...

"[...] when it entered and traveled in an unmarked gore area, rather than the intended high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lane, and collided with a crash attenuator. The 990-foot-long gore, with an unmarked inside area, separates the left exit HOV lane for State Route 85 from the US-101 HOV lane."
Can you elaborate? I see to be one of those rare people who is genuinely fascinated by peoples' DMT experiences (and dreams!).

Speaking personally, I've done DMT twice but never at the doses necessary to break through. I've experienced ego death from psilocybin but it seems as if the DMT experience is different in terms of the vividness and visual complexity.
> First, is there any basis for assuming a more fuel efficient car is in fact more expensive to produce on a per-unit basis?

Great question! There's actually some pretty good literature on it from energy and policy economists. The auto industry, the EPA, and the NHTSA all pull from very similar general background estimates.

"A 1991 study performed by Greene[1] concluded that, for every one mile-per-gallon increase in vehicle fuel economy, the average, per-vehicle cost would be within the range of $100-200 dollars, in constant 1985 dollar terms, and corresponding to a range of $200-400 in 2010 dollars. A review of CAFE by Klier and Linn[2] found that numerous other studies have confirmed these figures. Using the range found in the literature, the projected 12.7 MPG improvement in fuel economy would cost on average somewhere between $2,500 and $5,000 per vehicle."

So... that's the industry perspective. But that's a simple review of the background literature, so it's not that radical. The EPA and NHTSA dip only slightly below the low end, getting down to $2,000 using additional assumptions on that baseline, such as learning curves from past R&D making newer developments cheaper. But the regulators still estimate a positive cost per vehicle. The debate between regulators and industry is the extent of that cost, not whether that cost exists at all.

It's a fascinating area of research, notwithstanding the minefield of biases one has to sort through.

[1] Greene, David L. (1991). “Short-Run Pricing Strategies to Increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy.” Economic Inquiry 29(1): 101–114.

[2] Klier, Thomas and Joshua Linn. (2011). “Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards and the Market for New Vehicles.” Annual Review of Resource Economics 3(1): 445-462.
yep .. but not controlled (as parent implied) .. simply because there is so many variable and the mass is enormous. Standard model can't handle that. I'm just summing a section dedicated to that in Science & Vie [No 1175], august 2015.

We know how to start the process, but the disintegration of so many heavy part is intractable .. some part will touch ground, but we can't tell where with certainty.

Nice pdf.

edit: years
Honestly you'd have to read his book or some of his posts on the forum or blog to get a sense of his system thinking. I can't immediately point out any good links though, the book is a good start. It's not so much a personal finance book but about systems and models, I highly recommend it. At least you'd get the sense of what it looks like when a physicist writes a "personal finance book"
No it's autopilot steered into the median lane in the first place where it diverges from the HOV lane.
Fair. Could be rewritten as "AutoPilot seems to have made a grave error here, and drove the car into the barrier. AutoPilot should have either avoided the barrier or disengaged."
The canonical 80s/90s Mac OS answer would be, just open 2 (or 3 or 4 or n) file browser windows next to each other. Arguably the workflow of moving/copying stuff between windows was a key motivator for the creation of windowing systems in the first place. But today that multi-window workflow, while of course still possible, somehow feels less salient... the DOS/MDI-era Windows UI norm of "one window ≈ one application" seems to have taken over culturally as a baseline expectation for how GUIs should work - perhaps reinforced by non-windowed smartphone OSes these days as well.
Still my preferred dev environment. Mature package management, best CLI. But those little things makes me want a Mac at work.
I'd like to think that, but a service with 2 billion users doesn't end overnight. Even if this was the beginning of the end it would take many years for everyone to move on to something else. In the meantime, Facebook would still have a lot of influence in the industry.
So, i'm the closest thing to Chris's counterpart in language land (I own all of Google's production and cloud programming languages, including Go). We also go way back to nearly the beginning of llvm days.
Chris and I certainly talked about this.

I guess i don't really understand why anyone would think this is surprising. Like, i understand the knee jerk reaction, but I guess i don't understand why i would try to force him to do something else.

Chris is a high level engineer who decided he wanted to prototype and build a system in a language he's familiar with and feels is a good match for his problem space. People generally agree it's a good match for his problem space and his familiarity/etc makes him more effective in getting things done there. This doesn't mean anything else is a bad match (general purpose languages are often good at multiple use cases, hence the reason they are considered general purpose)

Why would I try to stop him and force him to use another language?

What tangible benefit would such a thing bring Google?

It's not like Google is a bunch of language zealots who think everything must be written in language X - it already supports a number of production languages, because different languages tend to have different tradeoffs for different use cases.

Outside of that framing, i have trouble thinking of a sane goal that would be served by trying to force him to do it in a different language.

But if i'm missing something, i'd love to know!
If you're interested in how that works, I can recommend psychologist Marshall Rosenberg (a student of Carl Rogers): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkQlAL8mVPs

Another student of Carl Rogers was Joseph Weizenbaum, the creator of ELIZA.
From their blog: "In the US, there is one automotive fatality every 86 million miles across all vehicles from all manufacturers. For Tesla, there is one fatality, including known pedestrian fatalities, every 320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware. If you are driving a Tesla equipped with Autopilot hardware, you are 3.7 times less likely to be involved in a fatal accident."

Notice it says one fatality per "320 million miles in vehicles equipped with Autopilot hardware." But, how many of those miles (or what percent of the time) does a Tesla driver use Autopilot? Also, maybe those good stats are due to the structural safety features and not the autopilot. It may be more fair to compare to other cars with excellent crash protection but no autopilot.

I think it would be a great service to the world to improve driving safety, but maybe we need to really start looking at the stats and get some more hubris as we transition to full autopilot. For example, require that drivers keep their hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. When more cars have autopilot, then mesh behavior between vehicles, and e-road features, then maybe we'll be more ready for driver-less cars.
The memo itself reads as if a manifesto of a cult, where it claims growth is simply GOOD, even worth sacrifice of others' lives. That makes me a little uncomfortable.

Also it feels so weak, that the author himself seems running into some existential crisis himself that 'questionable' practices such as he mentioned, begins to rock his 'faith', that he has to declare the opposite, loudly, confidently, to dispense his inner guilt.
> This report covers disengagements following the California DMV definition, which means "a deactivation of the autonomous mode when a failure of the autonomous technology is detected or when the safe operation of the vehicle requires that the autonomous vehicle test driver disengage the autonomous mode and take immediate manual control of the vehicle.”

So, you're right, there's no clear distinction, but I would further argue that it doesn't matter. Even if only 1/1000 disengagements are fatal, my conclusion remains the same. I think we're splitting hairs at this point, though.

Even if not fatal, I highly doubt a significant fraction of such events (as defined above) would allow me take a nap upon departure and wake up at my destination, so it would still be unacceptable to me. I guess we have to agree on what an acceptable end-game is for fully autonomous vehicles. If you think "waking up on the shoulder exchanging insurance" is acceptable, then that would indeed change the numbers (but by how much? Two, maybe four orders of magnitude?).

Humans get into fender-benders all the time, but surely we'd strive to eradicate this inefficiency in the automated driver. I think this is still an active area of debate; some assembly-line work can be made more efficient with machines, but we've seen humans out-perform machines in other types of work. I think driving tends to utilize more reactive, intuitive "System 1" thinking[0], so I imagine that humans will be vastly better than machines at driving for a very long time.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Reminds me of Boston Dynamics. Ten years ago, I was in awe and so entertained when watching their videos. Now, I am terrified and disgusted.
This is true, to the extent that the selection of input parameters to simulate provides coverage over the domain of all possible input parameters. At some point you're back to testing the failure of imagination of the simulation/test creators.
I repeat.

This is a very deceptively crafted sentence. if i drove on AP for 15 minutes and i was alerted to put my hands on the wheel 2 minutes in.

It would fit tesla's specially crafted statement.

It makes it look like user was warned and didn't respond by putting their hands on the wheel but its completely false. The AP drove him straight into the barrier with no warning.

But this deceptive statement worked as Tesla carefully planned. look at Jalopink title "Tesla Says Autopilot Was On Before Fatal Model X Crash, But That Driver Didn’t Abide Warnings"
You can change the dns server easily from wifi settings on ios.
Great, bet your life on it then.

I don't understand most people's perspective on this. It's like walking out in a crosswalk without looking; sure if you get hit the driver may go to jail, but you'll still be dead (or seriously injured).

Use your own brain, you can't rely on others to keep you alive. At the end of the day you're the one with whose got the most to lose, always.
Honestly, in a perfect world it might make sense. The fact that often there is more trust in private, profit-driven corporations over governments which are meant to represent the public and their interests is definitely something that needs to be considered.
The problem is the simulation by definition can only simulate things that are accounted for. Any number of completely arbitrary out of the blue things can happen in real life.
This is actually a duplicate of the same article published on CNN a few days ago, which got a lot of attention:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16684579
They could have, but that's why Apple has an app review process. It's been criticised (by me, for one) for being heavy handed and slow, but recent events have shown that there's a wisdom to it.
photo, I think https://imgur.com/a/iMY1x (copied from elsewhere on this thread)
Undiluted self-righteousness. Told they're the best and most worthy by their schools, thence to an employer where they tell each other they're the most virtuous and important. There is an yawning gulf between how they see themselves and how they appear to the rest of the world.
There are Facebook trackers on nearly every website and they siphon data from your friends & family which you have no control over. Yes, yes, I can and do block things via browser extensions and whatnot, but it's simply not possible to stop them from sucking up a considerable amount of data.
I use https://github.com/Pyroh/Fluor to change whether the function keys or the media keys show up based on the application in the foreground.

It works quite well for me.
Even if it was us... it probabbly wasn't!
Tesla has just announced that autopilot was on during the crash. https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident

It sounds like they are saying the driver had 5 seconds to notice the problem and react. It is scary to think that when you are on autopilot you may be 5 seconds away from death at any time. Better not take those eyes off the road!
My bad -- I thought that was one of the features of Autopilot. It still looks like the safety improved after the Autopilot rollout, but hopefully some public numbers with more granularity in regards to these software features can be released.
How do you progress beyond testing out "alert" on your console? I've tried this on both Firefox and Safari on Mac OS and I don't get anything beyond checking out the console. ???
Here is the confusing sentence: (dots added)

"The driver had received several visual and one audible hands-on warning earlier in the drive ... and the driver’s hands were not detected on the wheel for six seconds prior to the collision."

https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-last-week’s-accident
No set of test data can exist that covers every real world situation.
Actually the warning had nothing to do with the crash. if i drove on AP for 15 minutes and i was alerted to put my hands on the wheel 2 minutes in. It would fit tesla's specially crafted statement.

making it look like user was warned and didn't respond by putting their hands on the wheel but like i previously said, its completely false.
It’s kind of comparable.

Regardless, I still think having the most relevant features already extracted is all they need to ask many of the questions they might want to. The point is that that’s still quite bad.
Tesla's current autopilots are pretty far off, but I think Waymo and possibly others are much closer.
As someone who drives this exact stretch of road every day, in a Tesla, I agree. This lane is the end of a long stretch of road with either zero or minimal shoulder, where even the slightest glitch could cause a scrape on the side of your car. I'm always paranoid driving this stretch.

This concrete barrier is also quite a distance past where this left exit lane starts to separate from the rest of US-101, so there are really only two ways you'd risk hitting it. First, and probably most common, is people who change their minds last-second about taking that exit. Second, would be a serious AP screw-up (like what might have happened here).

FWIW, I've never had AP engaged when driving through this spot, and almost instinctively disable it when taking a highway off-ramp/change-over.
and he took no action despite having five seconds and about 500 feet of unobstructed view of a concrete highway divider.

I suspect he may have been distracted or otherwise not paying direct attention, thinking "the car will drive itself, I know I need to watch it but I'll probably be fine if I don't watch it all the time"... and just happened to pick a very wrong time to not pay attention.

...and even when he did realise he was going to crash, there might've been a very strong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass effect which prevented him from quickly deciding which way to turn the wheel.
My understanding is FB is still going, it's just that Zuck is sending somebody else. FB is in a lot of countries, he can't go and personally talk to every parliament for PR purposes. He said he is happy to go to the US one. I'd do the same, go to the US one and send others to the rest.
That's disingenuous.

The only reason a human drives into that barrier is if they swerve to avoid something or are otherwise not properly paying attention (texting, etc.).

There's no good reason for the autopilot to have hit that barrier.

The mental gymnastics going on in these comments attempting to absolve Tesla of any responsibility are truly next-level.
Indeed.

But maybe this is just a variant on https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-autopilot-why-crash-radar/ That is, maybe Mr. Huang was following another vehicle, which merged out of the way, and his Tesla ignored the stationary object.

If that's so, Tesla ought to emphasize the failure mode.
It's nothing to do with reducing your arousal, but redirecting the nervous energy away from the genitals.
Tesla’s faith has been sealed. Bankruptcy in late 2018.

> No one knows about the accidents that didn’t happen, only the ones that did.

The same applies to jobs, and yet Obama’s “jobs saved” were cited as major accomplishment of QA. lol...
I had disagreements with Boz via text while I was a rank and file employee at Facebook. It didn’t change his mind, and I still thought he was incorrect.

But I’d sure as hell take that situation over many others I’ve had where my only contact with execs is through occasional, content-free memos.
Great point. What's the over-under on a road-worker death when autopilot plows through a confusingly-marked construction zone at 70MPH?
PLEASE stop comparing crash statistics for a car with MSRP $80-150k to the general population. Sample bias (among other basic problems) is such a basic consideration that Tesla ignoring it makes me sick. This company will do/say anything to manipulate public perception. People on HN should at least attempt to see through this rather than buying it because Tesla gives them the warm fuzzies.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601849/teslas-dubious-cla...
They are trying to defend a themselves disingenuously, they provide numbers that sound impressive, but lack any meaning because context is lacking.
The other factor is:

At 9:30 am, the left lane (lane #2, that stays on 101) is usually packed. He may not have been able to merge in from the #1 lane (HOV-to-Hwy85-flyover lane) into that left lane. Especially if there was a big speed differential.

Although 150 meters is plenty to stop in the median.

(Do we know which lane he was in before hitting the divider?)
हनुमान जयंती , हनुमानजी के पैर का सिंदूर, रामबाण उपाय, 7 पीढियां करेगी राज
> distill some insights about people from this data

i'd argue that insight is the bit that's important, and the bit that's the privacy risk.
NOAA just prevented SpaceX from showing its rocket in orbit
TensorFlow Model Analysis – A library for evaluating TensorFlow models
> It starts this early so parents can get their kids to school and start working afterwards, without getting fired.

Numerous teachers in my school told me the real reason school doesn't start later is because of... wait for it: Sports.

Sports games/teams often finish practice/games as late as 6-8pm, especially after traveling for a game - and that's with a district whose high school started at 7:40am and middle school at 8am.

Is it too much for schools to actually prioritize academics over sports? Colleges are the same way.
https://github.com/carols10cents/rustlings
http://exercism.io/

These are probably the two best sites for small, exercise training programs in Rust. Once you've gotten through a few of them, you'd probably be ready to build something useful, which might be more interesting.