skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There is no motivation to stop it. China doesn't want to do it because they would have to hike prices to offset the cost, thus making them less competitive. US companies don't want to change anything because they don't want to start paying for proper disposal either.

Also, free trade is freedom from regulations / tariffs, etc. I always thought it was free to compete (i.e. anti-trusts / monopoly). Silly me.

So it could be said this is a direct result of free trade in it's classical economic term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade
Surgical Precision JIT Compilers [pdf]
How can it be freedom? They don’t have a living wage, healthcare, education, etc- none of the things we consider necessary to be free.
> The academic style probably blurs the fact that this has very deep practical applications

Whilst this is certainly true, and worth pointing out, it's also rather a shame. The paper's abstract says exactly this, in quite a clear way, but I think many people wouldn't even make it as far as reading the abstract :(

> List comprehensions are a widely used programming construct, in languages such as Haskell and Python and in technologies such as Microsoft's Language Integrated Query. They generalize from lists to arbitrary monads, yielding a lightweight idiom of imperative programming in a pure functional language. When the monad has the additional structure of a so-called ringad, corresponding to 'empty' and 'union' operations, then it can be seen as some kind of collection type, and the comprehension notation can also be extended to incorporate aggregations. Ringad comprehensions represent a convenient notation for expressing database queries. The ringad structure alone does not provide a good explanation or and efficient implementation of relational joins; but by allowing heterogeneous comprehensions, involving both bag and indexed table ringads, we show how to accommodate these too.
The title kinda reminded of Evangelion where all the choices are made by 3 independent AI super computers with a majority vote.
Mercurial was pretty close to contemporaneus. And when git was first launched it was extremely bare bones and even more incredibly hard to use than it is now. Darcs, Monotone, and Arch were slower and I think predated git. Darcs in particular blew the doors off of git as far as ease of use given the problem domain.

Git won almost entirely due to two factors.

1. The linux kernel used it so that brought some prestige.

2. Github made git hosting easy and free for a lot of people and had the cultural cachet to drive adoption.

Git has a very solid underpinning. But it's user interface and lack of guard rails has always made it painful. People endure the pain because if they don't they won't be able to use the tool that their industry has chosen. But some of us wish a different choice had been made in the dvcs arena.
Often times it's easier to use binaries and manage their input/output through shell code.

Having a good understanding of shell code will also allow you to easily write slick one-liners that will save you lots of time.
> In fact, as costs come down we will have a glut of movies people produce in their bedroom.

Phrasing?
But that's not a bad thing from the perspective of most of these "OMG blockchain" uses that are internal or with a controlled set of partners. In practice, very few people want to be forced to do business with somebody they later decide they don't want to do business with.

Even if they did want that for some reason, most countries have anti money-laundering laws where you have to be able to stop doing business with certain parties.
Will there be a chapter called, "Can't you just...?"
What if JavaScript wins?
If I lived alone, I'd probably agree with you.

I'd argue that there are still a large majority of millennials who are aware of antennae broadcasts. The oldest of this group is in their late-30's.

I've seen just as much shock and awe by older Gen X'ers and Boomers when they switched to HD broadcasts over the air and I showed them what's coming in now. "No more fuzzies!" was the generic response.

It probably is voodoo to my children's generation (Z). However, technology doesn't surprise them at all. They'd view the antennae as another app that just plugs straight into the TV. They're quite used to "there's an app for that"; even if they interact with a voice assistant to find it.
Meeting the Modern Vehicle
Not sure what you mean but my post was a sarcastic comment about how people choose an arbitrary level of significance so that the "right number" of "discoveries" can be published each year.

If there is a lot of data they would have too many "discoveries" (it would seem too easy) so they need a more stringent threshold. If the data is very expensive they would have too few "discoveries" so the threshold gets relaxed.
All the cool new shells I've seen are either completely POSIX incompatible (powershell, xonsh, etc.) or they try to be bash supersets (zsh, osh, etc.).

Bash is a de facto modern standard.

The only new purely POSIX shells I know are for embedded stuff (dash) and that space is neither fast moving nor in dire need of a better shell, since most modern shell features target interactive use. Or they make coding easier and/or safer, in which case we're back to point 1, with the POSIX incompatibility.
Functional programming (FP) is an important paradigm with many practical benefits, such as preventing bugs, improving parallelization, etc.

JavaScript is a language in which one can apply the FP paradigm, with some (considerable) effort. This book explains both the underlying FP paradigm and how to apply it in JS.

Other languages (e.g. Haskell, Scala, F#) are designed for the FP paradigm and make it much easier to apply. But the paradigm itself is the same for all of them, as it arises from fundamental mathematical laws.
Competing implementations sounds like a potential downside to me. That’s just more possible configurations where a bug could be hiding. Even if you use standard posix shell, you’d be wise to target a single implementation and stick to it.
Of course. Especially when proprietary software/intellectual property is involved.

I don't know of any tech shop that makes the source code available to the QA. QA is normally a "black box" operation. It exists to test/use the software as your client/user would. So QA just tests the software/app and then signs off on it or if there is an error, they update the bug tracker and assign it to the relevant dev.
i'm surprised it doesn't recommend using set -e /other flags. [http://redsymbol.net/articles/unofficial-bash-strict-mode/] maybe it is not covered because it is not considered 'style' but i think those flags are some of the most important things you can set when writing a bash script. i guess if you are writing scripts that start other things, and then check their error codes it can be annoying because you have turn them off/on.
I don't think you're being too harsh. There's a weird sort of subtle trolling that goes on on online discussions to the point that I don't much engage in online communities. I don't think it's trolling in the sense that people don't consciously do it; they're just negative: "STOP LIKING WHAT I DON'T LIKE!!"

Internet discussion has become very toxic (well, perhaps it always has been). The other day I was on IRC and asked a question about Eclipse which was doing some quirky things that I didn't know how to disable and one of the people in the chat (not a huge open freenode chat but the chat of a smaller, private community) responded "Java is horrible" or something along those lines. I hadn't even mentioned that I was writing Java! What's funny is that I can't imagine anyone responding in this way were it an in-person conversation. You get much more "I don't care much for Java" or even "What are you using Eclipse for?"

I guess because if you're a nasty person AFK people will avoid you and you do face the risk of some social ostracization. However, with the internet, it's harder to prune these people from your social circle.
You are right, of course. The text I quoted comes from the abstract. He articulates the same idea slightly differently on the second page:

Time is no more defined by a clock than pressure
is defined by a pressure gauge, speed by a speedometer,
or gravity by a graded spring. Time is not defined
by clocks. It is naturally fixed, manifest in motion,
as with the celestial bodies. By defining time by his
clocks, A. Einstein detached time from physical reality.

He is saying that a clock only measures time; a clock is not time and does not define time. I agree with this.

He is not saying celestial bodies are better clocks than atomic clocks. Because all clocks are oscillators. 'Time' is measured with an oscillator.* This oscillator can be a clock, celestial bodies, or atomic oscillators. They are oscillators with different oscillating mechanism and different periods.

As he says, time is "manifest in motion" and what these oscillators measure is motion. We define the motion of the oscillator to be our unit motion and measure the other motion.* The count of oscillations is called 'time' but nothing about philosophical or physical time is revealed by these measurements of motion.

That's why I said that Einstein, like all physicists, reifed 'time'. He thinks clocks (oscillators) define and measure something called 'time'.

So, the correct way to state the relationship between gadgets we call clocks and 'time' is this: We don't know something called 'time' other than motion. Clocks are oscillators and they are used as unit oscillators to count how many times the motion to be measured occurs in the unit motion of the oscillator. What is measured is distance, ie. distance covered in unit motion of the oscillator.

(Motion cannot be measured. What is measured is always distance.)

I’m not sure what he means when he says that time “is naturally fixed.”

* What is measured is distance, not time and not motion.
“Pupose” – New Haryanvi Whatsapp Status – 2018 Whatsapp Status
Use Ruby. It doesn't change much from version to version, thank God. I curse python every time I have to install a package. Nothing Just Works.

If you install just one gem, bundler, you can get dependency management in a one-file script. Checkout Bundler Inline:

https://github.com/bundler/bundler/blob/master/lib/bundler/i...
By what metric would you measure the difference?
TF2 was my world back in early college. I ran a number of online communities, and a number of modded servers. I also think back to enemy territory wolfenstein as well. Back then you joined a server and played on a community. I really miss the derth of dedicated servers now a days.

I agree with the sentiment but the servers I played on are either gone, or drastically changed.
5 Companies Looking to Profit from Cannabis Legalization
And on Windows there is something better than Bash, called PowerShell.
This takes me back to the first internship I ever had. I found this library and used it for displaying graphs in JS more than a decade ago.

I shudder at the code I wrote during that internship.
Discovering Your Store’s Potential Addressing Visitor Traffic Glitches
CFTC Official Urges SEC to Clarify Ether’s Status
Briefing: Elon Musk: Tesla ‘Flattening’ Org Structure – The Information
My First JavaScript App
That isn't a mini PC unfortunately like the NUCs, that a mini-tower. Also having official NUCs ensures there is good driver support via standardization.
Which actually supports linux with PS 6.0+
While it strucks me as a very creative concept, I also find it deeply flawed. Here are my concerns - perhaps you can help me eliminate them:

1. The assumption that the ability to provide logical, convincing explanation indicates ethical behavior/intentions. First, I think there are many sitautions in which you can come up with perfectly logical arguments supporting actions which humankind considers harmful. Agent Smith was quite convincing for example ;) Jokes aside, I think it boils down to simple rule - the one who is a better orator/rhetorician/liar wins. Just like in (organic) life, but in case of AI being better comes down to having access to bigger resources.

2. The assumption that the "honest" AI will truly act according to humankind's values. If we can be sure about that we don't need this debate at all.
Welcome Your Intercom Users on Twitter
ERC20 Token Development on RSK with OpenZeppelin
I've developed on consumer grade routers from big vendors - Asus, linksys, netgear etc, and they are all using identical quality scripts for a large majority of the router's data processing. These scripts may not be pristine, but they are sure not always just a toy.
We run Linux on all of 18 of our new AMD machines and it works.
A good start might be to just implement the Platinum UI in Pharo and work from there.
So you think that competition between gcc and clang is harmful to the C and C++ ecosystems? If you find bugs in an implementation of POSIX sh, you should report it to that implementation. Multiple competing implementations is a sign of a good standard, it proves the standard's correctness and demonstrates its maturity.

There is no standard to hold bash to. Any strange behavior of it might be decided as by design and kept forever (and replicated by anything which tries to be bash compatible) or it could be determined to be a bug and, when fixed, break the scripts which worked around it or depended on it. There's no way to know how this is going to shake out because there is no objective specification for the language. At least when there's a bug in one of these competing sh implementations that you're so worried about, it's objectively a bug and can be fixed.
30 years of MPEG, and counting?
Thanks. Your sibling post answered the question with a link.
Physical sciences have the benefit of being pitted against reality. A physicist a generation ahead of his time can make predictions about reality which will prove him correct, even if nobody else can understand what he's saying. A literary critic who truly understands more than everyone would have no recognition to show for it if everyone else were simply incapable of understanding it.
Though this is well written and I'm sure Sam is trying to set a tone of respect and appreciation of what is good in vgo so as to start on the right foot, he is also "burying the lead" in that he never gets to the point.

I think Russ did an unusually good job of explaining the ideas around vgo, grounded by using real world examples. He set a high bar there, but hopefully Sam adopts some of the same methods of very concrete examples to explain his criticisms.

As it stands this is an interesting piece of reading but is too high level and abstract in its criticism to be effective. Looking forward to future installments that hopefully that will make Sam's criticisms clear.

From what I can tell one piece of criticism is the inability of vgo to define incompatibilities. That is that if you know these versions won't work, you can say never allow that version in your dependency graph. I'd love to hear more examples of this in the real world. Since vgo dependencies are basically always "pinned" this seems like that not big a deal to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps this is something that occurs with having two of your dependencies having different dependencies on a third package and one of those works only with dep3@v1.2 and the other only works with dep3@v1.3 or somesuch.

Maybe there are ways around that or maybe that's not the actual problem (again, hope Sam explains more in the future). I think there is a really interesting element to MSV that will actually drive Go culture though (and I'm a big believer in the importance of the culture of a language) which I think may minimize the problems that Sam is talking about and for the betterment of the community.

As others have noted, I hope that Sam comes out with the rest of this series quickly so that the go community can commit do a direction sooner rather than later and move on to actually building this new ecosystem.
Do you have a link by chance?
Have you tried looking for what they mean by safe AGI?

Ex: https://blog.openai.com/concrete-ai-safety-problems/
A number of kickstarters have started to saturate this market with semi-capable meshing text-only gadgets: GoTenna, Beartooth, and Sonnet come to mind.
> This is a stark contrast to vgo which is intentionally solving fewer problems than other modern dependency management tools.

The thing is, modern dependency management tools for development suck. They are complex and slow and terribly unreliable.

A fresh, unconventional approach is needed, and vgo may be it.
Working around a full time job and other responsibilities, I maybe invested 10-15 hours into the project. It required a hardware upgrade (the WiFi card needs to be of a certain kind of model, and I had to wait on that to be delivered), some patching of the DSDT (which I had no experience with, though I pulled it off), and general troubleshooting. I was able to work through a series of guides online, which helped make the process somewhat less painful (though the devil's in the details, and there were a lot of details). I would say the biggest time suck was the troubleshooting.

I'm not a programmer or an engineer, and I've done little in the way of repairs and upgrades to machines beyond upgrading the RAM, but I was able to figure it out.

Among the biggest time sucks: I did run into some headaches involving the Intel graphics card not booting properly sometimes, but it took me a while to figure out that's what it was. That probably was a big part of the reason it didn't take me, say, three hours.
Uber ends mandatory arbitration in sexual assault, harassment cases
I did mention using bookmark keyword searches as hack to get sync, but I'm talking about proper support for syncing user registered OpenSearch[1] providers (and any user configured keyword shortcuts for them)

As of now you can add an OpenSearch[1] provider in Firefox using the javascript api `window.external.AddSearchProvider(engineURL)` where engineURL is the XML file description of the search engine like this one for IMDb search:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/images/imdbsearc...

This is the method the Mycroft[2] project uses, which Firefox recommends. Chrome though, besides also supporting that API, looks for a search meta tag in a page's head after you visit it liking to the same OpenSearch provider xml

<link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="https://m.media-amazon.com/images/G/01/imdb/images/imdbsearc... title="IMDb">

In Chrome, after you visit their home page with that metadata it's registered as a provider so once you start typing Imdb in the omnibox, you see an indication to press 'Tab' in the right corner of the omnibox, and it switches to searching imdb instead. Even providing autocomplete if the search provider supports it.

Firefox could make registering these more discoverable from the UI (adding via a page action as an example at least?)

[1] http://www.opensearch.org/Home
[2] http://mycroftproject.com/
Why we built Gauge
It's the ancient logic of we vs them, they believe AI will necessarily destroy humans, so any means to prevent it are acceptable.
> equity

AFAICT equity is a lottery-ticket at best, and is usually bubkes.

What novel information do you have about equity?
Francis is not legit?
Isn't it at least literally true that biology encompasses all of physics, plus some added complexity/emergence on top of that?
AI Learns to Play Google Chrome Dinosaur Game
Because people can show their side projects here. You might be really advanced and not impressed, that's fine. There's always that set of folks who are never impressed. I wish to see more Show HN. I like to see more folks building and less talking.
P. G. Wodehouse, the writing-machine with a tragic twist
> On a related tangent, this also showed up recently: (NVIDIA’s inpainting). A lot of people I know -- intelligent people who are familiar with machine learning and image manipulation -- were confused as to how this approach was "recovering" data.

Realistic image inpainting & synthesis has been going on for decades, so I’d guess the main confusion is due to reading the title of Fortune’s article, rather than the paper’s title “Image Inpainting for Irregular Holes Using Partial Convolutions”. BTW, Kudos to Fortune for actually linking to the paper. I felt like it was pretty obviously inpainting, and suggesting arbitrary training data just from watching the video, so maybe the confusion was from reading the PR title only, and not diving any deeper?

Here’s my favorite inpainting paper, partly because the author is a friend, but also because it’s able to hallucinate written text, which most inpainting algorithms since then haven’t been able to do. It’s not a neural network though, and the training data comes from the single input image itself. http://graphics.cs.cmu.edu/people/efros/research/EfrosLeung....

> it’s more and more dangerous... I feel like the same blind spot would be attacked with “seeing in the dark” as well.

It’s possible, yes, but it does depend on what the authors did, how the network was trained, whether they allow reconstruction from pure noise, etc.. I would agree that this paper title is a bit provocative, and suggests assuming the output is realistic. The problem might be the title, and not the technique.

While it is important to understand that NNs are hallucinating output with training data, it’s also a good idea to reflect on the history of analog & digital photography & photoshop, and recall that this slippery slope of danger against fake realism has been warned against multiple times before. There are lots of legitimate uses for inpainting (movies, ads). As someone who’s worked in film, I’m excited about the possibilities that NNs bring in terms of new techniques and reduction of labor.
Ironically, I think at least part of it is due to less amateur content, in turn due to the dominance of mobile phones, that enable you to easily interact casually and superficially with content, but create a myriad of minor, subtle cues not to create content, just to consume it.

In a PC, in the "olden internet days" that the article misses, you had to be in front of the PC. It was an activity on itself. But creating content was easier. You had a bigger screen, a slower connection, you saved funny memes in a folder in the Desktop. When bored, in was mentally and physically easier to alt-tab into amateurish internet than to get up to do something else. So lots of people ended up losing time interactively, in front of a hundred keys asking to be pressed.

Whereas today, most of the users interact through a mobile phone with one thumb, on 5 minute intervals, in a micropause throughout the day (and possibly even during a conversation). Small screen real estate, maxed out app, no hint to alt-tab, painful to create content (you have to tap in onscreen keyboard that eats up half of your screen, you have to add the second thumb and lean over the minuscule screen, you have to go to another app to navigate a folder to upload a meme, etc). Everything takes more effort, needs to be more conscious. And when the user mostly consumes, the whole UX evolves towards that, making it easier to consume and more difficult to create, in a viscious cicle.

(I'm typing this on my mobile and it is a pain. I only see about 20 typed words, even moving the cursor back to noher word is a minor pain, etc. I just want to get it done, and I have already thought a couple of times whether it makes more sense to kill the comment mid-redaction and keep on browsing HN)

Edit: and of course people keep using laptops an pcs, but the existence of mobile phone users change the dynamics of every content community a lot.