skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is one of the most basics tenets of any legislative system that penal provisions be as precise as possible so as to avoid any abuse from the legislator or the executive body tasked with enforcing said statute.

If the legislation is principle based or overly broad so as to cater to the notion that it will be enforced in an ethical and moral manner the purpose shall be defeated.

As such, there shall be no manner in which the individuals who are regulated will have any sense of how to comply with the legislation and ultimately this undermines the rule of law as well as the respect of the public for such legislation.

Such legislation that sets out fines and penalties, especially the absolutely ridiculously high penalties provided for by GDPR, must be as precise as possible so as to ensure the public knows exactly what is prohibited and what is not. This is notwithstanding the fact that this marvelous bit of administrative madness has the ability to bankrupt any organisation up to and including developing countries.

To trust that the executive body will apply regulations in an ethical and fair manner is a rather paradoxical view especially when such regulations also include mechanisms for judicial review and public control. Thus, legislation which claims to be fair and ethical is also, by the same token, providing measures in case the system is abused, which is again rather paradoxical.

These are not apples and oranges, this is a massive administrative monster that container penal sanctions and as such must be rule based based on basic legal principles that apply in pretty much every jurisdiction, European or otherwise.
Ask HN: How do you make life's decisions?
Hi HN,

I felt I am very poor at making decisions. I have made very poor decisions in past.

I felt I left things till last moment and unable to make decisions. I fear a lot about what will be good for me and unable to make decisions.

Please advice me.
>If it's hard to provide the service to them, the price should be correspondingly higher to discourage use of the bus except when it would be efficient to use it.

You've got the economics completely backwards. Running a bus route has a fixed cost; where the fares collected fall short of that cost, it may be necessary to subsidise that route. You actively want to encourage more people to use that route, because it reduces the level of subsidy necessary. People who find the route merely convenient help to fund the service for people who vitally need it.

Bus subsidies are often remarkably cheap on a per-journey basis, because the service would only be modestly unprofitable without the subsidy. Paying a few pennies per passenger to make a service profitable is vastly cheaper than paying for taxis to ferry all of those people to their destination.
Wikipedia should maintain 3 separate threads for all these polarizing individuals and organizations. Obliviously biased for, obviously biased against, and the the idealt neutral statement of facts(with no facts removerførsel because they play negative or positive, they can be dismissed or remover In the biased sections only.
"Usually" is a quantitative claim (and one that doesn't have a lot of evidence). It doesn't have a lot of power to inform qualitative judgments like whether regulation is inherently good or bad.

Regulation, like software, can be designed well or designed poorly. It can entrench special interests or it can protect against them.

When Coca-Cola lobbied to have the FDA ban stevia as a food additive, it hurt certain regional sodas and entrenched Coca-Cola's market position.

But there are plenty of regulations that do not entrench market players, but protect the free market. Part 2635 of Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (5 C.F.R. 2635), for example, prohibits federal employees from accepting gifts from anyone doing business with their agency or seeking to do so, and implements limitations on other gifts. This significantly reduces the likelihood of bribery.
> Russia that doesn't give a f$#k about Wikipedia nor USA elections

why do you feel this is the case? that would actually be very strange if true.
I can't even fathom how EHR is not better for patients.

Having a patients entire history at your fingertips collected through their lifetime.

Being able to apply machine learning to their symptoms to find possible obscure issues

Being able to combine data from populations to find new symptoms for illnesses

Being able to identify outbreaks alot faster

Better ability to analyize complex data to prevent drug interaction

And so many more.

No I think primary care and internal medicine physicians are threatened by technology and are resisting it, because 95% of what their job consists of is exactly what computers are really really good at, crunching data to find statistically likely outcomes.

Tech is going to do to medicine what is already happening in Law.
Put 90% of physicians out of business by making the few employed physicians infinitely more productive.

In a 20 years we're going to view having a physician diagnose you as primitive as having a physician bleed you with leeches.
Many wikipedians are obsessive types. Also why would multiple people pretend to be one. Groups are more effective than individuals on Wikipedia.
Hahaha, the Slack support in emacs is really fun to see! I will give it a try, thank you for sharing :)
How Radar Relay Is Built (2017)
Chris Manning gave a really interesting technical yet pretty approachable talk on machine reasoning at ICLR this year. If you're interested in this topic, i recommend watching!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpNLp9SnTF8
Exactly and it will remove the artificial physician monopoly and put them in the same boat with the rest of the world
Plenty of math is demonstrable in a tangible way--see the scientific method.

That you can't communicate a particular piece of math suggests that it has no tangible relation to physical phenomena. To me, that's a major red flag.
> "Deleting stuff is just useless. It’s already [been] there. Perhaps the person looking for you copied the information. So it becomes a game of total misdirection: you have to keep the predator busy.”

This technique applies much more widely than personal privacy. It's exactly how propagandists/trolls work: Keep the seekers of truth busy. In the case of propaganda, the roles are reversed, of course; the seekers are the good guys, but the trolls' method is the same.

HN is particularly susceptible to it. Its method for dealing with bad information is that honest users will correct it with good information - the old, generally good idea that the answer to bad speech is more speech. Unfortunately, that's exactly what the trolls want, to keep the seekers of truth busy and not addressing the real issues. And the contest is highly asymmetrical: anyone can post a falsehood in seconds; it can take hours or more for the honest person to find the truth of it. The HN approach assumes a pact of good faith; propagandists take advantage of that pact. HN also forbids calling someone a troll, so the guidelines create for them, in a way, a safe, protected playground. I haven't looked at the front page discussion about Chinese foreign policy today, but I bet I know what I'll find.

The solutions aren't easy; this technique wasn't invented by social media end users, but long before the Internet by intelligence professionals.
I would have said they are less stable and more likely to crash on hitting a pot hole.

A simple look at the geometry of a scooter (the small wheeled kids type not a vespa or c90) vs a bike will tell you that.

Let a lone the better and safer breaking you have on a bike vs an electric scooter
I genuinely think that's a good response.

Maybe the majority of recipients won't act, or they'll even take offense, but if somebody in there chose to contact you because they look up to your position, you could easily find in a few years that you challenged somebody to get on the right track with one of those responses. Some people are on the fence and looking for a push.

Obviously it's up to you, but I think it's worth a shot.
There are a lot of efforts in developing models that understand causal relationships within mainstream machine learning community. Mostly to train models that don't require a lot of training examples. Deep learning usually requires a lot of data and trained models are not easily transferable to other tasks. Yet humans tend to transfer their knowledge from other tasks pretty easily to seemingly unrelated tasks. This seems to be due to our mental models surrounding causal relationships. One example of such efforts is schema networks. It is a model-based approach to RL that exhibits some of the strong generalization abilities that can be key to human-like general intelligence. https://www.vicarious.com/2017/08/07/general-game-playing-wi...
I was somewhat speculating, hence the 2 question marks in my comment. But to make it more clear: I don't think that it needs to be only either a consultant or a co-founder. I was thinking (maybe an unconventional approach, I know) of a GaaS company that has studied and has experience with, and then specializes in removing the obstacles (of the 'grind' - word from original comment I replied to) that startups commonly have trouble with. Could be with customer acquisition or customer retention or other areas, and they provide this as a service. In fact I would not be surprised if there already are companies doing this - there probably are. At least for different aspects of marketing I know there are.
SEWA TOUCHSCREEN – BURSA RENTAL 0838-7241-8719
Do you note this somewhere on your sites so that non-EU customers are also aware you're doing this?

While I know you believe that blocking EU customers over GDPR doesn't mean that you don't care about personal data, many of us do feel that way, and I know that I at least would like a way to avoid interacting with such companies in a more convenient way than running everything through an EU-based VPN.
Yeah, if only I could sort out the sums...

But then.. I guess that's the point!
There are competing operators in various places in Europe, the UK included.

The clearest example is probably Hamburg-Köln-Express in Germany, which operates trains that take around the same time as the state-owned incumbent (DB Fernverkehr), but on older rolling stock for a lower price.

The hard part is "how do you divide up the capacity on the infrastructure", but this is a problem that has clearly existed throughout the EU since 2007 (when there's been open access freight operators), though has in reality existed much longer (most international services, for example) hence track access and allocation being the subject of an EU directive all the way back in 1995.
It's really weird to see the Dutch authorities using math to determine which system is better; it's even more bizarre to see them caring about fairness. Here in the states such an approach would be unthinkable. Whoever had the most money would get their way, and any kind of math is viewed as tricksy confusing lefty crap.
Since you feel you have poor judgement, I recommend you try these steps:
1) Find some smart friends.
2) When you need to make an important decision, ask your smart friends for advice.
3) When multiple smart people are giving you essentially the same advice, take their advice.

When it comes to advice, "Wise men don't need it, and fools won't heed it. And those who want it the most like it the least."
Beyond just the breach, I think Equifax's business would be difficult under GDPR?

One of the major problems with the breach is that, if you are worried about Equifax's security, you can't just choose to not let them store your data: they will store it, and provide it to third parties, regardless of your consent.
He's written an entire book [0] on how to add notions of causality to the existing algebraic framework for expressing correlation. He alludes to the core idea in the next part of the interview:

"Mathematics has not developed the asymmetric language required to capture our understanding that if x causes y that does not mean that y causes x. It sounds like a terrible thing to say against science, I know. If I were to say it to my mother, she’d slap me."

His home page [1] links to several presentations (e.g. [2]) where he lays out the key ideas.
[0] "Causality: Models, Reasoning and Inference", Pearl

[1] http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/jp_home.html

[2] http://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/IJCAI99/ijcai-99.pdf
Haha never got the $10 personally but I’m familiar with the rationale (from Thiel/Hoffman).

So in this particular case I’m less concerned about seeding as I am about viral coefficient and viral cycle time. I’m not seeing the metrics I want yet, so looking for ways to boost them. I think the fundamentals are working but it’s clearly not enough to leave network growth to the whims of users. They’ll often fail to bring others in even if they would like to. But by contrast I want the motivation to be organic and not necessarily a product of dark patterns or incessant prodding (imo in the best case these besmirch the app’s appeal and in the worst contribute to churn).

Without getting specific, our app is already naturally amenable to friend invites - that was a prerequisite we considered before even scoping a prototype. So really just need to add fuel to a solid platform now.
> Wikipedia is useful for looking up technical info that there is no conflict over.

Even this isn't true. As a former contributor to the Linux desktop community, false information about projects and codebases I had runs rampant on Wikipedia. One Wikipedia editor with more time on his hands than any of us [0] devotes his time to maintaining those articles, despite self-admittedly having little topical knowledge [1]. Trying to correct these things quickly caused me to spiral down into edit wars I wasn't that interested in winning, and tomes of naming policy after policy.

To get something incorrect on Wikipedia, you just have to be persistent and cast your WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:DEMOCRACY, etc. spells at the right time. Anybody interested in correcting the record will eventually tire out and have to go back to doing the work...

[0] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:ScotXW
[1] https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2013-No...
"Shameful" is a good word for it. Stuff like this is a major reason --- maybe the major reason --- behind most of the limitations of the Wikipedia platform. It is, for instance, the primary cause of "deletionism": marginal articles are difficult to police, and so the project has to establish a notability cut-off so it can constrain the problem at least to articles where there are sources to tie claims to.

I'm not saying you should feel bad about yourself, but it's good if people can recognize what WP is up against.
A Complicated Man, Outlined Clearly in Emily Wilson's New 'Odyssey'
I agree. I feel like this is an implementation problem not a problem with EHR in general. Just because a Ford Pinto is a bad car doesn't mean cars in general are bad.

As time goes on people will figure out new ways like you're suggesting of using the technology.
Exactly what is it we're supposed to be looking at here? And what does "Wikipedia", as an entity, mean in your comment?
Is that so I still had to pay for my prescriptions (and I was on a lot of meds) with chronic kidney failure for around 2 decades (before I was on dialysis) even when I was on the waiting list.

It made sense to buy the annual pre pay card for £104.
Re-Ask HN: Tech Scene in North Carolina, US?
How's the tech scene in NC in general? I see there are some BigCo's. What about smaller companies and startups? And what's the situation with salaries? (full-time as well as contractor rates).
Vicarious is shit company and the only thing worthy of note they have done is raise large amounts of money!
Most of these examples don't seem relevant to RCA at all.

> shifted from pumping, to plugging, to hull repair

Pumping and plugging are immediate response, just like a decision to temporarily shut down the website when a compromise is discovered, or pulling the plug on a smoking computer. What do these have to do with root cause analysis?
Because many people would get upset if "my-political-party" was hiring team of editors to change the wiki articles.

And if they are indeed getting paid, the organisation might have an important turnover. By using a single account (or multiple shared accounts; I doubt there's only one), you keep the 'prestige' you have built.

Your 1 week old new recruit can edit texts left and right while most people think it's a legit old wikipedians tidying stuff up.
Simple economics and public choice theory would say that, if parents are willing to spend lots of money to send their kids to a private school, rather than sending them to public school for free, then they believe (and most likely with good reason) that it is preferable to do so.
Next time Jimmy pesters me for a donation I'll be contacting him and citing this as a reason why I won't.
If it's "rampant" on Wikipedia, you should have no trouble pointing out examples. So, respectfully, I'd ask that to support your argument with evidence, you do that.

I had trouble editing technical topics I was familiar with, too, and found it incredibly aggravating. I'd write demonstrably true, helpful, factual content about something only to have it struck for lack of sourcing.

It took awhile to get through my head the model of the project, which included as a basic premise that I, as an editor, am not a valid source. I came to the project knowing that, of course, but didn't realize viscerally how much of the technical writing I do implicitly relied on my own experience and understanding as a sort of "source".

On articles that WP'ians pay attention to, you won't get away with doing that. You'll have to tie claims to a secondary source (you usually can't just point to source code, because then you're doing interpretation, which is a form of original research) both for the claim itself and, sometimes, for the noteworthiness of the claim.

The best way to metabolize this is to realize that Wikipedia isn't the Hitchhiker's Guide; it's an encyclopedia, which means the project has explicitly opted-in to some limitations as a tradeoff to accomplish other things.

(Some articles also just have possessive editors; there is dysfunction everywhere, and WP is no exception).
The reason that we need a right to be forgotten is encoded in this 'UI-forced' remembering. Forgetting the awkward moments is one thing, but it is natural to be born, grow, and change. In those earlier centuries, it was only the remembrances encoded in our cultural practices and personal intent that governed what remained. Even the organic, compostable material of everyday life (like wood and leather) would decay to nothing. Liberation by time and forgetting can be a lonely thing, especially considering the ultimate ends of all our endeavors. By comparison, the memoria we maintain today is akin to plastic floating in the ocean, we don't need it, it will outlive us, and periodically it collides perfectly to bear the fruit of a poignant nostalgia.

In the previous ages, we buried our ancestors and in turn were buried.
It varies by state: http://www.vocativ.com/412398/juvenile-criminal-records-myth...
Hippos crap so much that sometimes all the fish die
I read Lockhart's Lament, I had the opposite reaction, maths is one of the few arts that is actually taught in school. If it had as little practical application as painting or music it would be nonexistent as a school subject.

He is wrong in that painters and musicians tend to get rigorous instruction in the basics before they become independently creative. Picasso's realism phase. Musical theory etc.
Whatever the distortion is, I at least year "yanny" on Twitter and "laurel" on vocabulary.com (and haven't been able to make either one switch however I focus)
Copy of the article that works with JS disabled:

https://gist.github.com/jwilk/b9f9142f204dfa634d3ec338af9172...
I think that people outside the field have the wrong understanding of what physicists do. I think you make a good point about models and assertions. However, I would like to add an important point: we are data driven. Hard evidence is the most important part of validating and guiding our models. In my anecdotal experience, most of us get frustrated with superfluous time consuming discussions. Often these frustrations are a result of the non-scientifically trained trying to project what they perceive to be a scientific discussion.

Source: I’m a theoretical physicist by profession. I work in the field of condensed matter physics, specialising in geometry optimisation & DFT.
I've never taken the 5 Whys literally. It's obvious to me that all root causes are not '5 Deep', therefore, this can't be a literal objective. I see it as a metaphor for being an effective problem solver, as a reminder to second guess the cause I've identified and ask myself or my team, "Is there a deeper, underlying cause?".
Egberts, what he's trying to say is that you can't use a rainbow table to break elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman or AES-256-CBC.
I use the same technology for my personal projects (AWS, Rails, C#) that my company does for it's enterprise projects.

My social worker friend already uses a SaaS for his billing and patient management.

I think technology will massively enable solo practitioners.
This appears to be a bit longer running: https://sputniknews.com/amp/analysis/201805161064505256-cros...

(note: Sputnik news seems to be associated with the Russian government).
But what if it turns out the market has the judgement of a drunk teenager?
Fair enough. As an implementer at a company, I can understand that sentiment. But the GDPR isn't for companies, it's for users.

Laws and regulations tend to stick around for longer than expected, and they're static. Technology and "cyber criminals" are dynamic. For better or worse, the GDPR acknowledges this. I think that's a testament to the Article 29 Working Party, in a world where most politicians are clueless about technology.
Needless to say, they will find a reason for what they want to do. I'd guess they can find an historical reason because they are not the first Chinese regime to desire to control the territories around them.

No doubt, nearly every piece of real estate in the world has been controlled by multiple governmental parties at some point in history, and can thus be contested. Perhaps Mexico will want Texas back? But what about the Native Americans in the area? Maybe the French will contest that the Louisiana Purchase was illegitimate on a technicality? How about identifying all the potential claimants to the land in Israel - we can add religious claims to the standard legal and geopolitical claims. Claims are noise, omnipresent for everything, not signal of much significance.

On the other hand, we want the debate to stay in the legal realm. I was just reading that rule of law for international disputes dates back only to the early to mid-twentieth century (depending on how you date it). Before then, war was the 'legal' way to resolve it; it wasn't outlawed effectively until the UN was formed right after WWII.
<rant type="off-topic">

In case the author happens to be reading the comments here:

Whatever you have done that messes with the scrolling and the ability to open a link in a new tab is not an "enhancement" at all (on Safari on iPad, at least) and caused me to "bounce" from your web site much quicker than I would have otherwise.

I wouldn't normally complain about this here on HN (apologies to my fellow HN'ers) and would instead leave a comment directly on the site, but I wasn't even able to do that because of the UI hijacking that is taking place.

Great job making the web even more unusable!

</rant>
google frightens me most. Your kids share their assignments to it, your company uses it for all comms, you use it for private messages, you tell it your secret desires via searches, it knows who you're with at any point of time with android location ... Google Home? My home?

SkyNet must be destroyed now.
For all practical purposes: no. Less than 0.1% attends privately funded schools inside or outside of The Netherlands.