skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This article reads a bit too much like Brave New World. The article suggests to, literally, "...provide incentives to companies that resist automation, thereby preserving jobs for the less brainy." Preventing technological progress to ensure that we can have the "less brainy" spend their time carrying out tasks that are completely pointless? But it's okay, we can make sure they have plenty of soma - so they never concern themselves with their life's work being completely and absolutely pointless. Or does the author just assume they'd be too dumb to ever consider that? The problem with trying to be so overtly embracing is that it often reveals one's prejudices ever more clearly through implicit consideration of what is said.

I completely agree with the article that the decreasing relevance of individuals who are not all that bright is going to be an increasing problem. And this problem is confounded by really awful demographic issues. Fertility rate is strongly positively connected to low education, low income, and high religiosity. But at the same time trying to reshape society to embrace slower individuals is going to just result in an even greater stratification of society. We're already economically stratified with some implicit intellectual stratification. This would make the shift from implicit quite explicit as those who value intelligence would end up separating themselves even more overtly from the 'new and improved' society that has been, in the words of the article, reshaped "with an eye to the abilities and needs of the majority".

I also find the constant social science efforts to link "low" educational spending to decreased academic performance to be very questionable. At least by PISA scores many of the countries now outperforming us academically spend substantially less on education than we do. For instance Vietnam is now ahead of the US in math and science. In fact, they're 8th in the world in science. Their purchasing power parity GDP/capita is $6,925 ($2,305 nominal) and a total of 6.6% of that goes to education. That's $450/capita, parity compensated. In the US we spend 5.6% of $61,687 per capita which is $3455/capita - north of 700% greater than Vietnam's spending, parity adjusted. And even if you just take it in terms of poverty itself, the average income in Vietnam is around $1,800 a year - that's about $5,400 parity adjusted. Poverty is widespread in Vietnam. So is academic excellence. You can't just spend your way to people valuing and embracing education.

- [1] Convenient listing of the 2015 PISA results

- [2] List of nations by percent of GDP spent on education, one click away from conversion to parity adjusted $/capita

- [1] - http://www.businessinsider.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-of-mat...

- [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_...
Yup, if we truly valued intelligence then we should recognize the inequality of the American economic system is systematically wasting a lot of human potential simply because it so unevenly gives people the basic resources of clean food, water, shelter, education, medical care.
Possibly. But there's also a dynamic on Netflix (and HBO, etc.) of must-see-TV shows (to steal a term from an earlier era) that pull someone over the hump of signing up and then staying. You need the "filler" (which isn't really intended to be disparaging) too. But a large number of shows which are OK/fine doesn't get people to pull the trigger. Game of Thrones, House of Cards (originally), Man in the High Castle, Orange is the New Black, etc. do.
I'm not making excuses for Uber here. If their system was that broken it should never have left the test course.
I'm sorry, I don't buy it.

(1) you still hold the data, you are still required to comply with the law and cutting off access does not change that one bit.

(2) the period for a response is long enough that once you would receive requests you could handle them in time even if you processed them manually.

(3) you have been - or should have been - aware of all this for a very long time, either you failed at estimating the impact of the law or you do not know what you have or you changed strategies internally recently and now you're not going to be ready in time because you started way too late.

So in all, all you've managed to achieve with this action is to get the spotlight on you, and it is a 100% certainty that at least Instapaper will be solidly violating the GDPR come tomorrow.

If I were in your shoes I would use my designated representative to contact the authorities for guidance after explaining in detail what the problem is before I would let my end users pay the price for my own incompetence.
Clocks and Economic Growth
That sounds like exactly the same sort of way to me.
On the other hand, there is a POSIX standard, which you can use as a rough guide to write portable Awk if you suspect portable Awk is needed.
the officer also fired partially behind cover using a rifle at a distance of over 100 feet
(http://www.kansas.com/news/local/crime/v70e0w/picture1932940...)

if there had been a concealed weapon in the victims waistband, it could only have been a handgun or something less lethal.

Ever try and hit a target at 100 feet with a pistol? It can be done if you concentrate, have steady hands, and aim slowly; with practice. My point is that the officer should have waited long enough to confirm the threat. The element of surprise plus the advantage of distance, hardware, cover, armor, and backup afforded him at least 1 second of better judgement.
Problem is - a shutdown doesn't really make any difference. Dropping the data would make a difference, but just shutting down access could potentially (very unlikely though) mean additional infractions - the customers' requests for data access, corrections, removals etc. still need to be handled, and this could be seen as an attempt to skirt those rights.
I think the discussion about this will be had in the coming months - though at least the lawmakers' intent seems to be strongly discouraging "bundling" unessential things together.

> For some people this is desirable, but for others it may not be.

In principle yes, but I have a hard time believing the NPR text-only site was designed for usefulness.

E.g., articles like [1] still contain all the inter-article links of the original - however, instead of linking to the text-only versions of those articles (which would be the reasonable thing to do if you're already on a text-only article) they try to get you back to the full version.

Worse still, if you decline, you get directed back to the front page. There is actually no way to follow the links of the articles without either URL hacking or agreeing to be tracked.

Additionally, the text-only front page only gives access to the latest headlines - no access to archives or even just a search function. So again, without getting a link from anywhere else or URL hacking, it's not possible to do anything else than view the latest headlines.

[1] https://text.npr.org/s.php?sId=613996677
> whole different world when at the scene

That works both ways.

Sometimes, it's better to make national law enforcement policies when not pumping with adrenaline at the scene of a tense scenario.
When a rider is onboard there’s no autonomy, the bike is only self-delivering.
If they were smart about how transparent a business needed to be, I don't think it would be toothless at all. It would have given users more information about what is happening behind the scenes and allowed them to make their own decisions.

> So that users can opt-out of having unnecessary data collected. You should only be collecting the data needed to run the service. If your business collapses when users opt-out, your business model was nothing but data harvesting to begin with, and probably doesn't deserve to exist.

This is a really rosy view of things. The reality is that there are tons of apps / games / sites that people use and enjoy but would not pay for. And there are people who could not otherwise afford to pay for them but are able to enjoy them because personalized ads can be used as a form of payment. I would argue most of these things make the world a better place not a worse place. And that people should be able to choose how they want to pay for those services.
This is not a difficult experiment. If you keep a weapon, you should familiarize yourself with the relevant local laws. RTFM, as they say. If someone makes a threat against you that is not immediate, you should contact the police. Yes, you would be put on trial for deliberately going outside and shooting someone not on your property. Duh.
Look at a US population density map some time. Cable services are provided where people are, not evenly distributed across the country.
I agree. My former mentors and colleagues need to understand more psychology and how to improve themselves, because they tore our team apart and cost themselves and all of us incredible opportunities.

A good programmer isn't just one who can program. They must be willing to accept the fact that they aren't a special snowflake and that great achievements come from sharing and teamwork, having constructive and wholesome paradigms, etc.

I have been building world class e-sports teams for two decades. It breaks my heart for the future to see so many well educated folk ripping into eachother and themselves in these ways.
>They thought they were dealing with a highly dangerous situation and individual.

Are you saying hearsay from a random citizen is probable cause to go kill someone? If that's the case than the police may as well advertise themselves as the cheapest and easiest to use hitmen in the country.
I'm sorry but the people in this thread that ONLY want to blame the cops are damn idiotic. IF you had someone SWAT you and your mother or father died, would you really ONLY be mad at the cops?

Let me put it another way too - a swatting call is now rated at giving someone a 1/5000 chance they are GOING TO DIE when the police show up. I definitely think someone knowingly doing that to someone else deserves severe punishment.
Yeah only among weirdos.
This isn't really true at all. When I had Comcast, I used their streaming website, which provided on demand access to any channel on their lineup you were subscribed to. Ad content was about on par with other online services.

My new ISP relies more heavily on individual channel streaming sites rather than hosting their own central portal for it, but again, the on demand experience is more or less the same I was familiar with from Hulu, CBS All Access, and other online sites I've used.

In fact, if there is any issues with the comparison, it'd be that a real TV service will let you watch things live if you want to, whereas streaming sites often won't carry something until the day after. And if you get a DVR, you can hold live TV almost indefinitely, whereas on demand services tend to expire shows after several weeks.
My understanding is that one of if not the primary motivator of the "shoot to kill, not to injure" mantra is to reduce the liability of the shooter. It has been demonstrated many times that when you shoot someone, even if there is insufficient evidence to convict you, you are often able to be held civilly liable if the person you shot survived.

Not advocating for this, just repeating what has been expressed to me by many different people.
Remind me again, who fired the gun?
Dopamine manipulation via comment karma.
How intelligent is the ML driving the car? If the car slowed down and hit the 49 year old at a reduced speed the insurance payout to a now severely disabled individual would be far more expensive than the alternative insurance pay out with a pedestrian fatality. A choice between paying out for 40 years worth of around-the-clock medical care vs. a one-time lump-sum payout to the victim's family would be pretty obvious from a corporate point of view.
Richard Feynman and Quantum Computing Forty Years on – Idea Is Becoming Reality
Nobody will be stuck with USDT until the Ponzi scheme is finally revealed in the form of an indictment. Until then, investors don’t hesitate to hold a few USDT now and then, because the likelihood of being stuck with them when it all goes to hell is small.
The ROI might be more social, imagine reviving someone from hundreds of years ago, they'd be a living relic.
It's doesn't suck. It's murder.
AFAIU, the pedestrian who was killed has indeed part of the blame, and we probably would not feel as guilty saying that if it was a normal car that killed her. But for the topic of this general discussion, that is irrelevant; the emphasis is (and should be) on the incompetence and negligence of Uber, which lead to a person's death, albeit her negligence is at play too, and which demonstrated that (i) Uber is not capable of this sort of business as an unscrupulous and unethical company and that (ii) we should still be deeply sceptical of the capabilities of automated vehicles in responding to arbitrary reconfigurations and movements their paths.
Ratings don't matter to Netflix - subscriptions matter. The article hints at this but doesn't draw it out.

Netflix in general doesn't make its money from eyes on advertising - so ratings are not a good KPI for them.

Netflix in general does make its money from subscriptions - so shows that bring in subscriptions and those that are good enough to retain subscriptions are the KPI they will be looking at. I find it likely that they have metrics along the lines of what shows keep people clinging on to their subscription.

It seems likely to me that these two KPIs lead to very different conclusions about what shows to commission and cancel.
Northern New England is in general a pretty safe place to live, as long as you can deal with a little bit of snow or an ice storm once a decade. There's water enough that forest fires are a rarity, tornados are very rare, hurricanes usually have played themselves out by the time they make it this far, and there are no volcanoes. There are earthquakes pretty frequently, but they're such small magnitude that I mistake them for the Amtrak going by[1].

[1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j4EsVRA84Ck/UH7cea8dhOI/AAAAAAAAMx... - I thought this was the dryer walking around when it happened...
scrypt and bcrypt are a long ways out for supported Linux distros.

Presumably you're referring to some sort of special acceleration for these algorithms? Why is that a prerequisite for using them? Speed isn't more important than security.
> Swatting is a lot less effective in other parts of the world for the simple reason that in other parts of the world the results are super boring. Two officers will come to the door, ask if everything is ok, perhaps ask to look around, and then leave as calmly as they arrived.

I remember the outrage in Belgium when kidnapper/pedophile Marc Dutroux[1] was found, and it was revealed that police had been previously called to their house, and hadn't taken any action despite (in hindsight) strong evidence.

The hindsight is key here, and I'm absolutely not advocating a change of policy. I'm pointing out the kind of national emotional response that can lead to a change to a more aggressive policy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Dutroux
Okay, but this guy got a paid vacation. You're okay with that?
> So how is an Echo different from your smartphone? It feels like you've failed to quantify that.
> It's much easier to turn off voice-command activation on the Echo than your smartphone. The Echo is not constantly recording.

The difference is that a smartphone has the ability to constantly listen, but an Echo's primary use-case is to constantly listen. So if you're going to turn off voice-command activation on an Echo, there's much less reason to own an Echo in the first place than there is to own a smartphone with voice-command activation disabled.

Furthermore, an Echo is constantly plugged into essentially limitless power, while a phone is not. People in general are much more likely to notice excessive power consumption on their smartphone from the fact that their battery would drain more quickly than usual. Whereas, not many people are directly monitoring the power usage of their plugged-in Echo on a daily basis, so they'd be much less likely to notice if their Echo is suddenly using more power than usual (for example, by being remotely activated to listen constantly).

> AHAHAHAHAHAHA, see for example: https://www.google.com/maps/timeline The vast majority of Android users I've met unknowingly had this enabled. It doesn't record your conversations, but it still records far more than an Echo.

Granted, but there is no built-in voice command to send your timeline to one of your contacts.

> Why would remotely enabling recording on your Android phone be more difficult than on an Echo?

It's not that one is more difficult than the other, but rather that your risk grows with the number of possible attack vectors. If I already own a smartphone, then I may already be at risk, but adding an Echo to the mix increases my risk.

Two channels for remote listening will always be more risky than one. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you can replace your smartphone with an Echo, so the discussion about the risk of an Echo will always be within the context of _adding_ to the risk of having a smartphone. I don't think it's surprising when someone draws the line between the thing they currently rely on and the additional thing they can live without.
Show HN: Faster Fibers using Threads
Why is exchanging 1 BTC into 10,000 USD on an exchange more expensive then exchanging 1 BTC into 10,000 USDT - as long as you don't withdraw it?

Is it because you don't trust the exchange to honor your USD withdrawal the next morning?

What makes you trust that Bitfinex is more likely to honor USDT to USD exchanges the next morning?

It's almost certain that USDT isn't actually backed 1:1 by USD. If it were, it would be trivially auditable. You're just moving yourself from one category of potential risk (Your exchange steals your USD), into a category of almost certain risk (The shoe drops and we discover that USDT was a scam all along.)
OK but maybe your website should not use cookies without asking? You don't have a privacy policy either so not clear how u re going to use them. And maybe don't use google analytics without a privacy policy? Or at least anonymize the IP?
That's the longest possible way of saying the following two words, "ratings matter".
I don't disagree with you, but those are documents written over two centuries ago, mostly about long guns, and at a time when it was suggested that the federal standing army be no more than 30k troops.

The fact that these things are regularly trotted out as if they have anything but the most peripheral relevance in discussions about things like handguns, bump stocks, and silencers is nuts.
> how did this cop get a 1-shot kill at that range without a scope?

One cynical guess: it will happen eventually, and we didn't hear about the previous 99 times when a police officer shot out the porchlight next to some unarmed and confused man who pulls a sandwich.

> The shooter claims the guy held up a gun.

Remember that what he "sees" isn't what's there, it's what his brain tells him is there. And I'm willing to bet that police officers in the US who constantly see, fear, and think of people holding guns, will end up "seeing" guns a lot more times than there actually are guns there, and more so than officers in countries with much smaller gun threat [Citation needed :) ]. And if that's the case then that is just one more scary side effect of the US gun climate.

> The cop was even behind cover, and well across the street.

Which is why he (or anyone else from the look of it) wasn't in immediate danger and should probably be charged with the killing.
I would need you to explain how that happened.

The issue from the article is systemic. Everyone could easily accidentally be recorded and share that with random people
I am not at all contesting the value in the good parts of F#. It was my first foray into a functional language, and I was left seriously impressed.

> Do you have specific examples where F# semantics cannot map to JS such that the "80% rule" also does not hold?

Yes, my comment was around some of the C# compatibility things, which don't make sense when compiling to other targets.

> Tuples vs struct tuples distinction.

> Having both modules and namespaces

> Explicit interfaces

> The strange coupling of SRTP and inlining

I find OCaml's support for structural typing in classes and polymorphism to be more flexible than the above.

In typed FP, runtime reflection is seldom used, and I believe reflection support (and associated overhead) should have to be explicitly opted in.

I also faced weird issues when tracing the source of an exception in an async workflow, and some incomprehensible errors around automatic generalization. But this was a long time back and I no longer have the full context. These may have since been addressed.

My intent was certainly not to criticise F#. It has been developed and is used by people far smarter than me. It is just that after a preliminary evaluation I have not found a strong reason to prefer Fable over bucklescript in the absence of a more deeper commitment to dotnet stack.

I am also really fond of many modern JS features like Module <-> Filepath 1:1 correlation, explicit imports, ES6 proxies, tagged template literals (placeholders etc.) which TypeScript elegantly inherits from JS. Support for intersection types in typescrpt is also very handy.
Now that homomorphic encryption exists, why is data anonymization still a desired thing?
At 40 mph 1.3 seconds is 76 feet, right around the threshold of stopping distance if the computer slammed on the brakes at that moment. At the very least, it's the difference between an ER visit and a fatality. Far too short a time for a human to react to a warning, though.
I'm assuming Netflix's core KPI would be net subscriber count, and everything that Netflix does, in some form, would be driven by that.

Going further, I'm guessing that there are (or will be) some shows that show highly rated but producing more seasons would not draw in new subscribers or decrease retention rate. It might be that there are shows where their data shows that a large percentage of the fans of that show are unlikely to cancel their subscription, in the case that new season is not produced, and that a new season will not be the kind-of thing that will create new subscribers.

If wonder if Science Fiction might be a genre where the fans are unlikely to cancel their Netflix subscription, but a multi-season run in also unlikely to appeal to people that don't already subscribe to Netflix.
Yes 1Gbps up and down is overkill. In the real world, (outside of speed tests) the best I was able to get was around 100Mbps u/d when connecting to my company's colo via VPN after business hours. Even Amazon limits my connection to my AWS resources to around 70Mbps.

WiFi the best I can get is around 400/400 when standing right by the router on either my phone or laptops.

Video needs at most 20Mbps and I don't know how much bandwidth that my son's PS4 or Xbox can't take advantage of.

Every bedroom in our house, the living room, the gym, and my office are wired. But my 3rd Gen AppleTVs only have 100Mbps connections, my Roku sticks/TVs are WiFi and only the game systems, my computers in the office and my one 4th Gen AppleTV actually have wired gig-e connections.

On the other hand, the gigabit plan is the only one that doesn't have a cap.

But if I had XFinity (thank God I don't) even thier gigabit Service is limited to 35Mbps upload.
Given random person through-out the world could make a Swatting call, and more broadly, hearsay evidence of a terrible crime is always going to exist in potential, if you don't secure your procedures against killing people only on hearsay you're guilty of something kind of terrible.
As a private person, yes, they have that right. Doesn’t mean the police precinct needs to stock and hand out military or paramilitary equipment to all officers.
USB Port for Your Body? Startup Connects Medical Devices to Nervous System