skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Further expanding on the article, ATT sells a spy service to police departments and many police departments are paying 100k and more yearly to ATT for this.

https://mashable.com/2016/10/25/att-selling-data-police/#DuI...
Sucks for the buyer too. Ever tried to use PayPal (or credit cards for that matter) to buy something from the US with a Canadian shipping address while you're living in Vietnam with a Vietnamese IP address? I did; I got fraud blocked.
Whining about Comcast might be actually valid, but for most people of this world it's largely irrelevant. People from every place have Facebook access. Comcast customers are minority - Americans are minority. That's why Facebook has a lot harder time (also, ditching Facebook is more achievable).
Why would this be a surprise?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_collision_avoidance_s...

I'm not an expert...but it seems like for airplanes there are standards that manufacturers need to abide by for avoidance systems...which would mean testing and certification by an independent association before it's deployed. With manufacturers doing OTA updates...there's really no guarantee it's been tested...you'd have to trust your life to the QA process of each manufacturer. Not only the one of the car you're driving...but the car next to you!
> Life by every metric is getting better, can it be better? Maybe.

Not with that attitude!

> Now we could discuss how to improve the system, and its flaws, but this level of cynicism is hard to handle.

Agreed, we need to identify the problems and then be optimistic about solutions.
> Supply-and-demand theory once made sense. That was before employers gained so much power.

Except power itself is determined by supply and demand. Employers have gained more power precisely because of the increased labor supply (more women, more robots, more foreign workers) that is also responsible for stagnant wages.

The power, of course, comes from the need for others to have association with that person/business. In the current market, if one employee doesn't like the terms and conditions of the job, there are many others who will be quite happy to take their spot. This gives the employer leverage as employees want to be employed.

However, if there were actually more employers than employees, then the reverse would be true. Employees would be free to treat employers however they wanted, and force them to pay more money, without repercussion since if the employer walks away, there would be many more willing to take the worker. This gives the leverage to the employees as employers want employees.
People should also include credit card companies as they've been tracking purchases and inferring data long before Facebook has existed.
While I agree that the strawman "hustler's ethic" presented by the article is false, there are mindsets that correlate with wealth.

There are numerous sociological studies presenting the high correlation between conscientiousness and income/wealth [1]. It would be very difficult to separate the cause and effect, but in action you are left with a Pascal's wager scenario:

Knowing that conscientiousness correlates to wealth, and knowing conscientiousness to be a virtue in and of itself, should you try build a mindset rich in conscientiousness?

The conclusion seems obvious to me. It's possible that you can't change your personality enough for it to matter, but that's just another facet of the Pascal's wager.

[1]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3498890/
"The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is very excellent and only a few pages long (under 10 if I recall correctly)
A year and a half ago, an actor-singer friend of mine and I decided to give a concert of our personal favorite Tom Lehrer songs. Turnout was tremendous. The bulk of the audience was of that age where they would have been in high school or college when they first heard him, but there were plenty of older and younger people too. It's fantastic how his songs continue to resonate with people after so long.

The problem with performing Tom Lehrer's music nowadays is that your potential audience basically falls into two groups: those that know about Tom Lehrer, and know all the intros and lyrics by heart already, so they don't laugh quite as much anymore; and those who don't know about Tom Lehrer and don't get his humor.
I recently received a "terms of service" update from Comcast, with the notification that they can now "monitor and record anything going through the network. Including, but not limited to: audio recording, video recording, ..."

I don't even have an alternative in my area.
Cost of living in AUS is decently higher than the US, and they have more exemption categories from minimum wage than the US.

Equivalently to your argument of picking the highest value you can find and claiming others getting a discount, maybe Australia is overpaying for labor, and has been getting less as a result.
I'm surprised nobody has thought about putting more money into education.
Being able to physically run your mouth in public has little to do with free speech, including shouting fire in a movie theatre.

Free speech is the ability to express any opinion or idea, anti-government opinions included. This is why online posts and various non-verbal actions (like burning a flag) are protected under The First Amendment, even though nothing is being physically said. Additionally this is why threatening violence towards somebody isn’t protected: a threat of violence isn’t an opinion or an idea.
There was this study that actually studied a minimum wage increase in Seattle that did not paint such a easy picture of wage hikes.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/uw-study-finds-seattle...
Baha'i, actually. It's a weird offshoot, I'd say they're roughly like an Islamic version of the Unitarians.
Pretty much all of them. http://phonetic-blog.blogspot.com/2010/11/vowel-inventories.... says that the average number of vowels in a language is just below 6, and "large" vowel inventories are of size 7-14.
You blame women and immigrants, but a much more likely explanation is the decline of union participation in the private American workforce. They've been on the decline since the 1970s, and the more they've declined, the more that productivity has been captured by upper management and shareholders.
Haha, no, I am one of those annoyingly generic users. But honestly I kind of expect them to block that. That seems pretty suspicious at first glance.
Well if you listened to Heller vs DC, the court decided that it wasn't a predicate based on the interpretation of preceding and subsequent state law and other historical reasons.
Or if you want to get experience with data science: Stats 134 (easy), CS188 (medium), CS189 (hard).
This became painfully clear to me particularly during the 2016 primaries. I watched as news organizations I formerly respected--CNN, NYT, NPR, WaPo--shamelessly twisted facts and spun deliberatly misleading narratives, even on their front pages. CNN now acts indignant when Trump calls them fake news, but because of what they did, they've made him not entirely wrong, and I'm annoyed that they gave him that ammunition.

I think the best way to combat fake news is to have trusted, respected news organizations. But now both the right and the left no longer fully trust these organizations, so people have started looking elsewhere. IMO, the only way to fix it is for these organizations to start reporting honestly to try to regain our trust---so I think fake news is going to continue to be a problem.

Disclaimer: I know that CNN/NYT/NPR/WaPo propaganda is nothing compared to Fox News/conservative media. But it was misleading enough to shatter the trust of many people, including me.
* 3% fee for processing credit cards

* Platform play where the first stage is to amass users and then use that audience to sell to businesses (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/07/venmo-m...)

And I always assumed that the short delay for transferring money out of Venmo allowed them to eek a small margin against the time value of money somewhat similar to Robinhood (https://www.investopedia.com/articles/active-trading/020515/...)...but I don't know for sure.
Maybe Zuck can prevent some future scandals with this new feature. Unfortunately we all know they aren't actually deleting the messages, just hiding it. You can probably still buy the data.

{
message: `They "trust me", dumb fucks`,
isDeleted: true
}

In the UI: "Your message was successfully deleted!"
Mani Matter comes close for me, if not in the delivery but definitely in the lyrics. But his songs are in Swiss German (Bernese actually), so not as accessible for as many people (and I also grew up with his songs so I might be a bit biased).
Whenever you think "why don't users care about this privacy issue" stop and ask yourself "wait, do people actually know about this privacy issue and do they understand the implications, though?"

Do you think most people have actually thought about how their ISPs must track their every interaction with the web and read all of their unencrypted chats and traffic?

I think that what's needed is more awareness about what the ISPs are doing, but I really don't like headlines and articles like this one that try to minimize what Facebook and Google are doing.

The ISPs tracking may be more all-encompassing, but a large portion of the web, especially popular websites are becoming "dark" to them, as major sites adopt HTTPS encryption. Their next most valuable tracking tool besides HTTP is probably the DNS server. And to get people to change that you'll need raise a lot of awareness about it.

I guess Microsoft, Google, and Apple enabling their own DNS resolvers by default on their operating system would be a small improvement, but you're kind of moving the problem instead of solving it. And Google already does that with recent versions of Android, I believe.
I'm actually getting a pretty solid Sondheim "Into the Woods" vibe.

I do enjoy the fact that now that common core is catching on, people are whining in almost the exact same way that people did 50 years ago.
I find the suggestion that the Government was pissed off at Elon for launching his roadster to Mars oddly compelling. SpaceX does make a lot of the "entrenched" space capability look bad in comparison.

That said, I think a simple lawsuit would settle this issue and help give clarity to the powers granted the NOAA. I expect a number of Cubesat experiments might get caught up in this escalation of power as well. And while you're more likely to get someone to say that a cubesat with a re-purposed 10MP cell phone camera is a "remote sensing" camera I think it would be difficult to convince a judge and jury such cameras were a threat to the national security, regardless of where they were pointed.
New tech podcast on emerging, trending, and state-of-the-art technologies
And, also: we’re just a few weeks away from launching Stack Overflow Teams, the biggest upgrade to Stack Overflow ever, so that’s going to be really cool.

Ah that explains firing up the old blog editor again content marketing ftw!
Don't forget Rainey Street.
The Hadza are also often held up as having one of the most diverse microbiomes of any living human population[1].

1: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24736369
Yikes. I'd be sure to lodge a complaint here, note about the local monopoly: https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us

I'm curious where you are located [if you don't mind sharing]?
Yes, you live better than people 100 years ago. But what about 40 or 20 years ago?

Is it easier for an average person to buy a home or car than it was for their parents? Do they work more or less from their parents? Is it easier to have and raise kids?
> I know this Gucci handbang is not counterfeit.

> My prescriptions are the real deal.

How does the blockchain solve any of this? You still need a human to say "this Gucci handbag is not counterfeit". A human still needs to type in "yup, this prescription is real".
I've heard on and off for many years (15 years?) about ad-hoc wireless networks for cars. Whether it's car to car, or car to some devices on the ground (lane marking, stop lights) so it knows where it is at in relationship to the road and other cars - and it would know if the car ahead is going to break or slow down.

Now the cars are relying on cameras, lidar to figure things out. What has happened to putting sensors on the road to broadcast what/where the roads is. Is that out of the question now because of cost?
Agree. I didn't say anything about Fox. They are definitely MSM.

An accurate perspective of the reality of uniparty puts Fox News mere nanometers to the right of CNN.
Also interesting:
http://matt.might.net/articles/tenure/

(That‘s a repost, because the Quora question has been deleted)
This doesn't seem like a very good analysis.

For one, it makes sweeping generalisations about the economy. It is not true that employers always have market power and employees don't. There are lots of areas where it's inverted. The most obvious example right now is AI researchers but software in general is and has been for a long time an employees market. By the same logic that this author uses to justify minimum wages because it's hard for employees to find new jobs in some sectors, you could justify maximum wages because it's hard for employers to find new employees in some sectors. But nobody would support that - it'd be absurd.
Yes. Google and Facebook both have global reach and billions of users, but they also spend millions of dollars on PR to convince you the ISPs are the real privacy threat.

The author's LinkedIn includes recently working for a law firm, Fenwick & West, which proudly brags about Google being one of their clients on their career page.

If an article is doing "whataboutism" that minimizes the danger of big tech, check their resume, it's probably their job.
Because most people haven't actually thought about this very deeply and if they did they would realize Facebook doesn't "know" a fraction of the things people claim they do[1] which makes the whole CA hysteria even more absurd.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/d7c955ac-3213-11e8-ac48-10c6fdc22...
They can't read the contents of conversations masked by TLS, but Facebook can. This is incredibly relevant to modern services and technology.

Telephone is an audio stream, so speech-to-text is a bit more wobbly. SMS, on the other hand... well, at least their price gouging was cost prohibitive for a few decades.
A few month ago I clicked through quite a few youtube [0] lectures on "system dynamics," the 1960ies hype technology, and the people who did system
dynamics back then are entirely reasonable, well aware of its limitations and the applications are very interesting, but their work got completely drowned in bullshit. Very similar to "the Internet" in the late 90ies, "web 2.0" in the early 2000nds and block chain today.

So block chain is a really cool algorithm, that under ideal conditions can solve the Byzantine Generals problem, but there is at the moment just so incredible much bullshit surrounding blockchains, that it is sometimes hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/lectures/comments/7jtg5e/dennis_mea...

r/lectures thread, see the videos linked in the comments.
Right, but surely you don't believe that robotics is stuck where it is, we haven't quite figured out everything, but it's still a new field.
He probably meant "decrease of $20 for every $1B pulled from the market"
National brotherhood week is a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgASBVMyVFI

You don't need to know any history, but it probably helps if you went to a public school or had siblings.
Location: Pune, India

Remote: Yes, if work is exciting

Willing to relocate: Yes (with family)

Email: anandsaha at gmail.com

Resume: http://teleported.in/resume/anand.saha.pdf

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/anandsaha/

Github: https://github.com/anandsaha

Blog: http://teleported.in/

Technologies: Deep Learning, Computer Vision, Reinforcement Learning, C/C++, Python, Distributed Computing, Enterprise Software Development

I am passionate about bringing cutting-edge AI research into practice as a deep learning engineer. I focus on Deep Learning and Computer Vision. Prior experience of 14 years in developing enterprise products in data backup and telecommunication domains.
I understood what you're saying; what I'm saying is that we should be careful not to assume someone want to ban something just because they're being disrespectful to it.
Which university and class was it, if you don't mind me asking? I'd like to keep track of where the model is being taught. Feel free to email me at the email in my profile if you'd rather not respond publicly.
It's not a _complete_ explanation, but I agree with @grecy and have to expand on your response.

> the workers have a drive for increasing profits too

Whereas companies tend to have increasing profits as their only and primary goal, for workers it is not their only drive or the only factor they need to consider. If jobs leave my city, I can't just pack up and follow them; I need to think about my family, my kids, their school, their friends, my house, etc.

Companies are much more flexible because as entities they don't have the same moral obligation people have towards other people and themselves.

This is especially true for big companies. The bigger the company gets the more impersonal it becomes, and the more leverage it has because individual employees contribute less and they can invest more resources into hiring.
New Immunotherapy for Lung Cancer Shows Promise of Success
Yes I agree. All those problems to the existing system can theoretically be fixed by this and many other approaches.

For how long has the current system existed again? Exactly.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. No predicate (or in this case, prefatory clause) could undermine or limit an operative clause that straightforward, at most it could be considered a motivation: i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms is intended to (at least, but not solely) give those people the ability to keep and bear arms sufficient to feasibly form an armed militia.
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon don't have a single bit of data on me, I'm not a customer. As opposed to Facebook and Google being present on just about every webpage and gobbling up data about all the people on the planet that have internet access.

The article has this bit in it:

"Your internet provider doesn’t just know what you do on Facebook – it sees all the sites you visit and how much time you spend there. Your provider can see where you shop, what you watch on TV, where you choose to eat dinner, what medical symptoms you search, where you apply for work, school, a mortgage. Everything that is unencrypted is fair game. "

The last part is the important part: hardly anything is unencrypted these days (and if it isn't it really should get with the times). So if that part of the article would have been adjusted to the present day situation that only thing that remains is that if these parties are your provider then they can indeed see which IP addresses you connect to (if you don't use a VPN).

They can't see what you watch on TV unless you configure your TV to tell them (or use a set-top box to choose your channels for you), they do not know where you choose to eat your dinner unless your smartphone leaks GPS coordinates to them (regular triangulation is too coarse for this) and they do not know where you apply for work and school or a mortgage.

In general this is a whole bunch of alarmist hoopla, yes, providers see too much data, no it's nothing compared to Facebook and Google.

What should worry you is AT&T and other cellular services providers access to your call records (which they are required by law to keep for a long time in most places) and SMS data as well as the possibility of them recording all your voice calls without your consent.
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/04/05/debunking-bu...
Haha. Aside from the things I can buy with it, I can't buy anything with it!
I'm not as concerned about CA having data I've given to FB as I am about their admission of using it to spread false information. If cable and phone companies were politically weaponizing my data the same way I'd be just as concerned.

On the one hand, maybe worrying sooner prevents issues. On the other hand, I don't want to assume a slippery slope out of principle.
In many ways, blockchain tech is the stupidest thing that has ever existed. It is a colossal monument to the inefficiency of human behavior. You are literally throwing energy and immensely valuable computation time out of a window simply because people can't trust each other. It is a massive sink for the destructively self-interested behavior of mankind. The problems that blockchains are trying to solve are not inherent difficulties involved in the tasks that they're being applied towards, they're problems with us. We can design an astronomically more efficient system for accounting, but it would be have to be one that is not being run by stupid, short-sighted apes. The entire overhead of the blockchain is devoted to dealing with a problem that we shouldn't even have, the whole thing is basically made of market failure. If there's any value in it, it's that we can use it to establish objective metrics for just how much value is destroyed by human irrationality and information deficits. We don't need to fix centralized accounting, centralized accounting works fine. We need to fix human beings.

Meanwhile, imagine if every GPU used for mining right now was being used for training neural nets instead. The value in that is nearly unimaginable; we could be making massive leaps in almost every field and industry, because the applications of deep learning to making tasks marginally more efficient are essentially endless.
It is a lot easier to avoid paying a fee on Venmo than it is to use a cryptocurrency to send money to someone: just don't use a credit card.
Agreed. If you can get hired as an engineer at FB, you can get hired as an engineer at a less shitty company.

If FB started hiring unskilled laborers and promised to train them up to be a software dev, I could see this argument having some weight. But, AFAIK, they don’t.
It's like every time something new is created, everyone gasps at how expensive it is. Surprise, new technology costs more. I bet cars were prohibitively expensive when the first came out, but now you can get a used one for very cheap.
You can setup your own VPN on a provider with generous transfer allocations. You can buy an off the shelf vpn. You could also use DNSCurve and exclusive https.
Regardless, Python 3 is hardly a celebrated success story.
Wow this is awesome! The pure HTML site is quite nostalgic too. I wonder how long the display lasts before the texts fades?
Don't kid yourself, the number of people who own cryptocurrency is vanishingly small, and the number of people who own cryptocurrency for any other reason than a get-rich-quick scheme is microscopic.
We just bought a new TV and it was rather amusing that not a single model advertised it being "3D". Not on the box, not in the software. Nowhere. I'm not even sure the new 4K TV we bought supports 3D....

Last TV we bought years ago.... everything was 3D this, 3D that...
If you make 150k and frugally save over 20 years or so, you can be a single-digit millionaire. To be a billionaire, you have to play a different ballgame.
I'm not sure if you read the article or not, they are attributing the slow down Tesla has in production because apparently Tesla is betting on automating everything related to production as opposed to what other automobile companies do which is only automating things that are easy to automate and make people do the rest.