skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Aldi spams /r/frugal and has been a gigantic turnoff. Like straight astroturfing.

I dont really trust the company anymore.
I worked on the autonomous pod system at Heathrow airport[1]. We used a very conservative control methodology; essentially the vehicle would remain stopped unless it received a positive "GO" signal from multiple independent sensor and control systems. The loss of any "GO" signal would result in an emergency stop. It was very challenging to get those all of those "GO" indicators reliable enough to prevent false positives and constant emergency-braking.

The reason we were ultimately able to do this is because we were operating in a fully-segregated environment of our own design. We could be certain that every other vehicle in the system was something that should be fully under our control, so anything even slightly anomalous should be treated as a hazard situation.

There are a lot of limitations to this approach, but I'm confident that it could carry literally billions of passengers without a fatality. It is overwhelmingly safe.

Operating in a mixed environment is profoundly different. The control system logic is fully reversed: you must presume that it is safe to proceed unless a "STOP" signal received. And because the interpretation of image & LIDAR data is a rather... fuzzy... process, that "STOP" signal needs to have fairly liberal thresholds, otherwise your vehicle will not move.

Uber made a critical mistake in counting on a human-in-the-loop to suddenly take control of the vehicle (note: this is why Type 3 automation is something I'm very dubious about), but it's important to understand that if you want autonomous vehicles to move through mixed-mode environments at the speeds which humans drive, then it is absolutely necessary for them to take a fuzzy, probabilistic approach to safety. This will inevitably result in fatalities -- almost certainly fewer than when humans drive, but plenty of fatalities nonetheless. The design of the overall system is system is inherently unsafe.

Do you find this unacceptable? If so, then then ultimately the only way to address this is through changing the design of the streets and/or our rules about how they are be used. These are fundamentally infrastructural issues. Merely swapping out vehicle control systems -- robot vs. human -- will be less revolutionary than many expect.

1: http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/
But Docker created containerd to begin with...?

https://www.docker.com/docker-news-and-press/docker-extracts...
The more after reports on accidents involving self driving cars I've read, the more I've become convinced that the current state of the art in this field is merely an illusion. Reading between the lines, the complete disregard for basic safety protocols like you've just described comes across as more than just a brazen continuation of the "move fast and break things" Silicon Valley culture. Viewed in this light, this entire niche of tech R&D begins to take on the appearance of a giant game of smoke and mirrors being played for the benefit of those recipients of Big Investment $$$ that wooed investors to bet big with promises of delivering a marketable self-driving car within the next decade.

The way I see it,there is only way to make sense of a field where the most respectable R&D house (Google/Alphabet) limits their vehicle to a relative snail's pace while everyone else (including notoriously unethical shops like Uber) is taking a gung-ho, "the only limit is the speed limit" approach. That is to assume "everyone else" is cheating the game by choosing a development path that gives the appearance of being functional in the "rough but will get there with enough polish" sense while the truth is that it's merely a mountain of cheap and dirty hacks that will never achieve the goals demanded by investors.

The only reason a company would overlook such a simple safety protocol as "slow down until a potentially dangerous object is positively identified" is if their "AI" fails to positively identify objects so frequently that the car could never achieve what a human passenger would consider a consistent, normal driving pace. The same can be said for any "AI" that can't be trusted to initiate panic braking in response to a positively identified collision scenario with a positively identified object. The fact that they specifically wrote an "AI" absolving workaround for that scenario their software means the frequency of false positives must be so high as to make the frequency of "false alarm" panic braking incidents unacceptable for human passengers.
I know many people will downvote, but in my opinion, just say no to this ancient "programming language". It's so confusing, completely text based, designed ages ago in an entirely different environment. There are many better alternatives, like Python or Powershell. Why not use them?
Naughty Dog went way beyond a DSL. If it was just a DSL they would have been able to use the debugger and tooling from the host language.
`perl -n` wraps code in an awk-alike start and finish stanza.

`perl -p` wraps code in a sed-alike start and finish stanza.
I used to have friends in the oil industry in the 90's, and I remember them talking about the industry maybe using dried up wells the same way.

I don't know if it ever became anything, though.

As much as people consider the oil industry a bunch of evildoers, it is always at the forefront of the absolute latest in tech. Hard problems + money does that.
Nobody owns a HTC One, so why would anyone care about the problems it has?

iPhone 6 probably sold 100x times as much as the HTC One
Salary range - "What's the least you're willing to pay a barely-concious droid who squeaks by with the bare minimum of effort to not get fired, versus the top-end for the 'does it all and then some' purple-squirrel candidate who ascends your corporate achievement ladder with a Greek chorus of rainbows and unicorn-giggles?"

Fully remote? Yes or no would suffice. I just might _be_ that aforementioned purple secret squirrel for your role, but my 50 square-mile chunk of rock might be nowhere near your 50 square mile chunk of rock. Would this discrepancy be resolvable by a convenient global communications network and low-latency link to same, or are you mired in last century's "manager must be able to see your butt in a chair at all times" model of employment?
Better Title: Pactainerd Man: how containerd ate all the dots
The conclusion of the linked article has a reference to a relevant paper
That's half of what makes the Metafilter discussions so good (the other half is aggressive behind-the-scenes moderation)
I think we should at least attempt it instead of throwing our hands up. One good thing would be to get rid of giant bills like omnibus bills and make all legislative changes more atomic.
And what exactly does this "vulnerability" mean in real terms? Let's be honest. No one cares what conversations are going on in your house _unless_ you're someone specifically targeted. There's little use in mopping up data with no goal.
The voice part is already in beta and on the Google Home.

https://cloud.google.com/text-to-speech/docs/wavenet

That is the part that freaked out people as you can not tell the difference between humans and computers any longer.

Google is using a DNN at 16k cycles a second in real-time. Suspect that was only possible to do at scale and at a reasonable cost with the TPUs.

They are competing with a much less compute intensive approach. But Wavenet gets a much better result.

The other aspects of Duplex will enter testing later this summer. So not long to wait.

"Google Duplex: An AI System for Accomplishing Real-World Tasks Over the Phone"

https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/05/duplex-ai-system-for-natur...

This is the type of thing that contributed me buying the Google Home. Google is just so far ahead of everyone else in AI. Really every layer of the stack.
If you’re gonna test something like this on public roads, there need to be better engineering failsafes in place.

The place for the product folks to override safety features is the test track. If the feature didn’t work, they should have pulled the drivers because they were not trained to properly operate the machine.

If you give the “driver” training on a car with an autonomous braking system, then give them a car without it, that’s not on the driver. Someone was negligent with safety in regards to the entire program.

I’m not saying anyone needs to go to jail over this, but there do need to be charges IMO. Personal liability needs to be involved in this or executives will continue to pressure employees to do dangerous things.
The Dinosaur-Killing Asteroid Wiped Out Many Birds
What if you receive the same tweet 3 days later? It should only be counted once.
Posed question asked: "If you had it your way, what info would every job posting include?", not "What can you realistically expect an employer to share?"

In practice, though, assessing the financial future of an employer before committing your most essential resource, time, is important.
Great story! Thanks for sharing.
"My husband and I would joke and say I'd bet these devices are listening to what we're saying,"

Think about this statement for a sec. Of course is listening to you. It has to listen to you because it needs to be able to respond to "Alexa". So yes, this is always listening.

Now, once you come to terms with that, do you feel comfortable having a technology with access to the internet, location, habits, account, contacts, email, phone, CC information etc etc, to be actively listening to your most intimate private conversations?

It does not take a 5 year old two seconds to figure this out.
...and activated a "call" skill.

Heh, skill.
Data structures used to build AI models
What are the data structures used build AI model files?
That's a freshly launched, Electron flavored, Skype instance.
https://imgur.com/FmKZhTZ

I rest my case.
I know you feel like the story is not being fairly presented, but you are almost certainly not helping Amazon by posting here about it.

Why? Because from a PR perspective, it doesn't matter what Amazon or the engineers intended, all that matters is what actually happened. You said:

> There's no way a team would get the "ok" to build a skill that randomly records private conversations then sends them to a random contact.

But that's exactly what happened. Whether it was a bug or a feature doesn't matter. Imagine if the wing fell off a plane and an airframe engineer came on here and said "hey, there's no way we would get the OK to design a wing that falls off in midair." Yeah, we know. The fact that it happened by accident doesn't make it better (maybe worse, actually).

Now you've got dozens of people responding to you, and BTW a lot of reporters read HN too. Do you really want to see stories like "Amazon Engineer Calls Customers Conspiracy Theorists"?
> There's no way a team would get the "ok" to build a skill that randomly records private conversations then sends them to a random contact.

Of course. But it is entirely plausible that somebody builds a skill that records certain conversations, and somebody builds a skill that sends recording somewhere, and then due to some bugs or coincidences or missing controls to prevent such occurrence, the first skill is activated when it should not be, and the second one is activated when it should not be and with wrong parameters.

So there should be more checks. Like - ask for explicit permission before sending any voice recording out, or ensure that the target where recording is set is validated against whitelist explicitly set by the user, etc.
>I think a major effort in self driving is solving the Goldilocks issue of reacting properly to impending accidents, but also not apply uncomfortable breaking if it’s not needed.

This is also an issue with current production automatic braking system. One that was largely solved with on track testing, and on road testing logging false triggers with a driver driving. There's no need to risk lives unless you're just cutting corners to avoid the cost of a test track.
IANAL but I think the idea is this: The plaintiff claim that Apple knew about the defect, and so it was willful deception to omit the defect in any written materials which could influence a purchase decision.

Apple's reply is that customers weren't given any written materials prior to purchase, not even the box. So there was no way omissions in the written materials could have influenced purchase decisions.
I mean there's lots of things we could do to people and usually we don't. What makes you think we would do it to chrononauts more than, say, people in comas they're expected to wake up from?
a lot of exchanges don't support USD conversion due to increased hassle of dealing with the dollar/us gov regulations. its easier to be a crypto only exchange than a crypto/fiat exchange
If you replace "fuzzy human speech-command detection" with "buttons which can accidentally be pressed" - how is this different from butt-dialing?
It is the same when on holiday in Europe. Disappointing Apple does not do something about it and ok with having a product with a worse UX than competitors.

I remember when Apple approach was to be the best.
The Contiki Travel Model
>because life isn't fair doesn't mean someone else should be able to vote themselves money from your wallet

Except it happens all the time by unelected leaders of major corporations.

For example, when there is no alternative to say Comcast in your neighbourhood and they can charge whatever they want and you need internet access for work, they are taxing you.

And I don't know about you but I must have missed the election where I get to choose who is in charge of Comcast, or any of the other regional monopolies[1] run by "producers" that we sadly depend on.

[1] Health insurance, banks, pharmaceutical companies, grocery store chains...
What is the track on Winklevoss' proposal to a self regulation org for crypto currency exchanges?
I'll point out that there's always been a big class of hobbies where average people make a few bucks here and there, but money is not the focus and doesn't really detract from the enjoyment of it as leisure.

For example, everyone that likes DIY/fixing things/tinkering. Will I fix something little for my buddy for a case of beer? Sure. Will I do the brakes on his little sports car for a few bucks, him providing the parts, and letting me take it for a drive up in the hills? Sure. Will I work on his daily driver with him needing it for work on Monday? Nope. It's a hobby, not a job. It's enjoyable to do in my spare time, relaxed and with a beer in hand, the moment it becomes a source of stress I'm not interested.
I don't disagree with any of your points. React is faster. React has a larger community. All of it, I agree.

But. When it comes to productivity (actually building something and maintaining it), I can achieve way more in Ember.
You could also possibly get around GDPR by telling EU citizens to use a VPN/proxy (assuming you have no physical presence in an EU country). IANAL, but I'm fairly certain you can't sue someone over an international border.
So their VP must be lying:

>“It’s also developed by us, the leading adult entertainment platform in the world".
What's to settle? Google's INTERNAL use of copyrighted material is within the legal bounds.

For instance, you are free to add a copyrighted song to a family vacation slideshow only intended/accessible to your family offline. IF your son leaks the said video,are you to blame?
StumbleUpon was a game changer, and a big gateway into discovering truly weird and wonderful things about the internet. I used to bind the Firefox plugin to middle mouse click, so I could keep browsing with a hotkey.

Haven't used it in years, but still sad to see it go.
I think there's an implicit "something it’s programmed to do under normal circumstances" in there.
Video Q+A: App Academy’s Kelly Chung on developing a programming curriculum
Agreed. And the story was well-written. It takes time for people to appreciate that their mother and father is them as well.
The Spitfire actually used the jet propulsion of the rearward facing exhaust for an extra few horsepower. Many piston engine aircraft do this.
> I often have pedestrians walk towards the street and I assume they will stop so I don't slow down

> the self-driving system software classified the pedestrian as an unknown object, as a vehicle, and then as a bicycle with varying expectations of future travel path

Little different, huh? If you see something that looks like it might be in your way, and you aren't sure what it is, you just keep going?

And if I see a pedestrian in the middle of the road at a random spot, especially at night, I'm slowing down since I don't know WTF they're thinking. Or if I'm in a neighborhood with regular street crossings carved out of the sidewalk and someone's coming up to one of those - I don't know how well they're paying attention to their surroundings.
Hey, one of the co-maintainers here. Thanks for your comments.

>> rows to randomly sample ... hash (using ... 32 bits) the column ... mod the result by the [constant] value

> This is not random. It deterministically selects the same very predictable fraction of rows.

Yep, you are right. We didn't intend the sampling function to be part of the anonymisation but just something we tend to use and we thought it would be useful to have it.

Its objective is to pick a portion of the input data. No more.

>> UK format postcode (eg. W1W 8BE) and just keeps the outcode (eg. W1W)

>> Given a date, just keep the year

> Partial postal codes and dates quantized to the year are still very revealing. Combined with other data (such as a hashed name), the partial postal code may allow a lot of people to be uniquely identified.

You are absolutely right. Depending on the use case and your data, having the outcode, the city or the year might be very revealing. In some other cases even having decades or centuries might be revealing.

We don't pretend that each function provided applies to all use cases. But in certain use cases partial postcodes or years can be good enough.

>> Hash (SHA1) the input

> Hashing does not provide anonymity.

We are very aware of that. That's why we offer the option to add a salt (that the user of the tool can make as long as possible and throw away after the anonymisation process).

>> range

> This is the only feature that could provide anonymity, if it is used correctly to group large numbers of individuals into the same bucket. This is probably more difficult that it first appears.

We usually work with sets of data that are tens of millions of users. Choosing the right ranges and, specially, analysing the data and making sure you anonymise the outliers (by choosing your bottom and top ranges carefully) it's crucial.

Again, this tool is a hammer. We expect a person that understands about wood and nails to analyse their problem and use it.
> I wish more offices would install motion sensors facing keyboards from above, tune-focused for finger motion detection.

A new dystopian developer-productivity metric.
Cryo API
Google’s competitor here is AWS.
AWS’ comparable product is ECS.

ECS also lost. Roll on EKS.
I do not want to set up this feature on my Alexa for precisely this reason and I am finding Amazon to be really aggressive about forcing me to enable this feature and harvest my contact information. The Alexa phone app is almost unusable for me, as it constantly goes into the telecom setup screen whenever I try to do something else in the app. I am forced to exit the app and come back into it, whenever this happens, to escape that screen.
For a government-authored report, that was very readable.
And you too ! :)
I think by "vulnerable to fractional reserve," he means that since there is no way to transparently verify or audit their USD reserves, they could run a fractional system while claiming to be fully backed, like Mt Gox did.
> I think that the rising level of professionalism in computer security has robbed it of it's mystique

It has, though basically every one of the now-respectable-looking professional security outfits you could point to has one or more of these late 80s early 90s "mystique era" hackers working for it (and I can probably tell you what their old bbs handle and/or irc nick was).
You might consider investigating say ESP8266 or ESP32, MicroPython, Raspberry Pi, OpenHAB, MQTT, OneWire and wave goodbye to your free time!
I'd argue that with more than two people in a household and everyone switching to streaming services, you'll need to offer at least 400-500GB data caps for fixed wireless 5G.

Several of my renters are single, and their streaming usage for an individual is ~450GB/month.
You dedup against the old data. Easier than deduping a month's worth all at once, since the old data is sorted.
I suspect that the capability is already there, to be turned on at the request of law enforcement.
Not to mention a real compiler for building executables as well, should that be of interest.
> There is absolutely no reason to believe they are not conspiring with the NSA.

Or, more likely, being made an offer they can not refuse by the NSA. And the rank-in-file engineers may not even know it's happening, all it takes is inserting some diverting code into the pipeline and calling it "QA monitoring" or something. Couple of people in the whole org would know that somebody from some IP connects and downloads these "QA" data periodically, all the rest would be completely ignorant and indignant at the thought. Don't see anything preventing this from happening at Amazon - or anywhere else.
It is very different to have access to your data versus people you interact with.

Apple privacy agreement allows them to collect data on my wife, kids and others I interact with.

I am pretty OK with my data being at Google. But NOT ok with data being collected from people I interact with.

Then on top Google has their dashboard in the US with everything they collect in one place and the ability to remove or download.

We have nothing like it in the US with Apple and that really bothers me. What data do they have on my kids or friends since I interact with them?

I carry both an iPhone and a Pixel 2 XL. But several of my kids have iPhones so when on holiday will share my location in iMessages but have no idea what Apple is doing with the data. No transparency like Google.

Then the entire thing where Apple handed all their customer data over to the China government have a huge issue with. I like Google approach where the China government tried to hack Gmail accounts and Google indicated not acceptable and left the country.

Seems like Apple was willing to give up their users data for the mighty buck.

To be clear I do NOT think it is acceptable to be collecting data on people I interact with! These people should be able to control if their data is collected and their control of it getting collected should be respected!

Some might not want Apple collecting it and I should never get to say it is OK for others.

My brother for example is very, very against any company having his data. He does not use an iPhone. Do not think he uses any Apple products.
This makes no sense at all, and is not how business works.

Most economic activity is positive sum. When I'm hungry and on the go, a taco is more valuable to me than raw taco materials, so I pay more for it. Value has been created. The taqueria owner takes money in, pays their expenses, and is left with a profit. Taxes are paid out of that profit, and you could just as well model it as another kind of expense, a societal infrastructure fee.

Many countries use value creation as an explicit taxation model: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_tax

Those are still positive-sum interactions in the economic sense: https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/qa-what-is-a-positive...
I hate to be that guy, but each subreddit is different. This is arguably the main selling point of reddit vs other link aggregators like facebook. Grouping all into the same toxic culture is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.