skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The biggest problem with the 5 whys is that the whole concept is taken out of context. In a manufacturing context every repeatable problem is a problem with your process. So in that context it makes a lot of sense to search for a process change that resolves your problem.

Let's say you make light bulbs, and every fifth bulb comes out misshapen. You would use the 5 whys to trace it back to the molding station, where you discover that bulbs cool at a different rate in one of the machines because the mold uses a better insulator. You could stop there and replace the insulator. But if your job is to increase yield, then you can save the company a lot of future money if you figure out how that mold got there in the first place. You might find that purchasing subbed a cheaper replacement based on an incomplete spec. Or you might find that the supplier recently switched materials.

The point is that when you're trying to establish a controlled, repeatable process, you need to understand where your controls break down.

Once you understand the process problem, then you make a business decision about what to change. It was never meant to be applied to R&D problems. R&D processes are not as concerned with repeatedly doing something correctly. They're concerned with making sure something can be done in the first place. It's a different class of problem.
Wow that article is scary. Even worse would be "remove all my data from all your backups".
Nice. For comparison / inspiration, my own very-mac-centric (Homebrew required) Pandoc makefile / build system:

https://pastebin.com/raw/H43MKTCq

img-ref-to-eps.sed script:

https://pastebin.com/raw/J6quT7Mj
> but I won't be impressed because all of those things are simple

When professionals in the field repeatedly say "X requires general intelligence" and yet time after time we solve them with shockingly simple techniques, the correct response is not to deride the AI for performing under expectations. It's to recognize that professionals have systematically overestimated the intrinsic difficulty of tasks, even really complex ones like photorealistic image synthesis, and propagate this belief through to everything else they say is hard.

I don't know what the next groundbreaking AI achievement is going to be, but I'd be happy to bet that the solution is going to be simpler than people expect. And while this doesn't necessarily generalize to everything, since there's a selection effect (though I suspect it's secondary), it does generalize to a lot of very important things.
Just FYI, I posted this y'day, tho didn't invoke much of a discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17105738
It kinda sounds like, despite his accolades, his experience is limited to a strict set of mathematics. For example, logical implication is what he suggests doesn't exist, but it's over in the "logic" category, not pure mathematics like algebra. Association rule mining [0] is a whole category about finding such asymmetric implications.

Also:

> But I’m asking about the future—what next? Can you have a robot scientist that would plan an experiment and find new answers to pending scientific questions? That’s the next step.

Nearly 10 years ago [1], a robot called Adam both made and tested hypotheses about yeast. Certainly not a general AI, or even an award-winning massive breakthrough, but it's a good step in a direction that he doesn't think exists yet.

---

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_rule_learning

[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009/04/robotic-scientists-ma...
We do still have the Britannica.

* https://www.britannica.com/new-articles
I didn't post this, but am happy to answer questions. It's not quite yet at the point where you want to use it as your daily editor, but we are slowly and steadily getting there.
Is it solved for various accents?

really I think it's more likely that you consider the problems where you understand how one would debug to be simpler ;)

Fair point. But I do have a little experience with natural language processing. My corpus was this at level 1.

https://www.newsinlevels.com
Perhaps it was one of these two?

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2017/09/11/two-phase...

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2015/09/25/rejuvenat...
i've never actually tried this, but i believe you can deposit relatively small amounts of physical cash into a schwab account at an ATM. i am lucky to have a branch near me, where i have only ever received excellent service, but i could imagine that a credit union could have better customer service overall.
How to Setup GRPC Service to Service Communication
Well it has a definite slant against Russia, especially given the lame example in a link about Mueller's indictment against several Russians from an Internet spam outfit, not against Russia the country. Somehow I haven't heard the Cambridge Analytica debacle being presented as a UK's effort "to achieve similar goals".

Israel would indeed be a better example with their hasbara effort which is directed by the government.
Because the disposable SMS are probably being used for illegal activity and it is illegal to support illegal activity?
Μάχες παντού στο τέλος της Serie A
That is not a fair comparison.

Linux patches generally gets accepted based on technical merit, some politics aside;

But it seems like most Wikipedia contributions are subject to the inside political considerations and bureaucracy.
I think it’s the opposite - they come from innate chemical values (procreation, socialization, base metabolic needs) and emotions are created upwards from reaction to stimuli as it pertains to those values. Maybe we’re saying the same thing, but the starting point is important as it pertains to any artificial intelligence being able to be created.
An Anatomy of Melancholy from Goya and Edgar Allan Poe to Bauhaus and Tim Burton
As an end user, I am concerned about the software I use being easily exploitable because of a bug which could have been avoided using the right tools. At the same time, I don’t want my editor to consume all my RAM and CPU. This seems like a step in the right direction to me.

As far as I can tell, this editor is aimed at tech savvy people like developers, sys-admins etc. They may not care about the exact language or framework, but I can assure you, they do care about things like security and performance.

Rust is one of the most discussed topics in the developer community these days. I can’t fault the OP to use it to highlight the post. Had they said something else, I’d likely have ignored it as Yet Another Text Editor like Visual Studio Code, Sublime Text, Atom etc. IMO, they did a good job highlighting how it is different.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-bandwidth_Digital_Conte...

The standard is called HDCP
In most cases the consequences of depression are all too easily measured in lost productivity, less activity, kleenex consumed, duration in weeks of mood changes (say irritability) etc. Are you referring to "working depression" in which people fill time (usually working) because they are depressed but don't realize they are depressed and don't seek a diagnosis? Good diagnostitians are unlikely to miss this either, IF the patient seeks help (which they usually don't.)

Agreeing on a standard red line for treatment - when mood changes merit intervention, is a different topic, and a long one, weighing risks, the profound corruption of modern medical studies, etc.
>I’ve never shot porn in any Airbnbs in my name

Why the qualification about "in my name"? Does this mean that she shot porn at an AirBnb but it was under someone else's name? If that is the case, then AirnBnb would have a good argument that she was violating the terms of service.
The coverage of GDPR I've seen (and in my view, the regulation itself) has been pretty clear that data becomes covered "personal data" only to the extent that the data, in aggregate, can be used to identify a real person.

So an IP address on its own is almost never personal data, because of wifi, NAT, dynamic IPs, shared devices, etc. Then again, a name is almost never personal data on its own either, "John Smith" could refer to any one hundreds of thousands or people or it could be a pseudonym and refer to literally billions of people.

But if someone registers on your site, and you log the IP address and their name, you're a lot closer to persona data. Add a timestamp, and you probably can identify a real person.

So if you're trying to be careful about GDPR, you should probably be careful about storing IP addresses (or IP addresses that can be linked to other bits of potentially personal data). The focus of GDPR compliance can't be on "oh this field is fine, but this field is personal data", it should be on what you're collecting in aggregate. That makes IP addresses dangerous, because they provide a lot of information that could be used to identify someone.
When you restrain things to a specific domain, yes. Essentially if you know that the conversation will be about restaurant booking, and you only hear

S_____r___zed th___ay, you can reconstruct sorry we are closed Thursday with a decent level of confidence. So short of being entirely gibberish, yes.
> I wonder why each scene is not just shot twice, once with the German dialog and once with English.

Because this would require an exclusively bilingual cast, dialog that works equally well in both languages, and would drastically increase the production cost.
> 1) I'm absolutely certain "free" and "taxpayer funded" would result in two very different impressions.

Maybe, but that's a false dichotomy, anyway. It's "taxpayer funded" either way. You'd have to say "fully tapayer funded" to be accurate, and then the difference in impression may have nothing to do with the content of the message but the tedious verbosity of the form. It certainly would for me, and I'd smell an agenda on the part of the person using those words in, say, a headline.

> As subtle as it is, the use of "free" is vague, lacks transparency, and in most cases misleading.

Again, maybe you're right, but, without even basic psychology research showing that's the case with that word, by intuition says it's not misleading for most cases.

> Why don't we get better language? Better communication?

A combination of there being no incentive (or incentives to the contrary), or we just don't want it. Headlines are especially notorious for having something like the opposite of "better language".

Ultimately, who are you to say what's better?

Language is usage is language.
IANAL, but it's also just possible they whitelisted voice mail systems in the law.
The EU is a civil law system, and that's not what regulators are saying now, so that does nothing for us.
Discussed in 2016: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11735393
Not much at all. Thanks. I was about to ask since the article didn't mention.
I came to say roughly this but you’ve said it with more style.

Who is to say that in 15 years we won’t make difference-of-kind advancements in, say, natural language sythesis by virtue of a broad patchwork, piecewise sort of landscape made up of advancements in restaurant reservations, calendar items, customer service chatbots, etc.

Each solution region would be driven by incremental research and profitability constraints, and it’s fine to point at any one solution region and say, well that probably won’t generalize to something “AI complete” in natural language.

But as each bespoke arm of research gets more advanced, we could learn metaheuristics about selecting between them, or distilling common solution architectures.

People, even an informed academic in this article, still seem to appeal to some vague idea that “real” human level skill at a generic sythetic task like natural language has some mystical greater theoretical structure to it.

But time and again we see that the steady accumulation of a frankensteined patchwork of many approaches and many bespoke, situation-specific architectures can end up with uncanny, competitive results on tasks of import.

I’m not saying there’s anything about current fashionable methods that gives any guarantees, and of course there is always overblown hype, especially in corners of industry that try to use that hype for credential signalling and rent-seeking opportunities.

But it just seems short-sighted to come across as so certain that ugly patchworks of different siloed solutions could never be glued together or agglomerated to make difference-of-kind improvements. In fact, applied machine learning seems to a historical trail of exactly this type of patchwork.

Are there going to be cases when a whole new theoretical paradigm is needed to reach some performance goal? Yes, of course. And any sensible current practitioner would admit as much.

But this is a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Damn. Just when I was interested - a GPL patent-grab license. (Google "implied patent grant") Billions have already been spent redoing GPL software under BSD and MIT licenses that aren't patent-phobic. Do we really have to do this again?
I am a journalist for a major news organization and would like to know specifics about hedge funds and the like and how they use this data. Reach me at sfrancisbjr@gmail.com
> I'd rather China invited other nations to discuss creating a law of the sea that's more reasonable than "small island theory" that comes down to us from colonial times.

How about "Set aside dispute and pursue joint development"[0]?

I think one thing you are right about is besides "joint development", we do need a regional LAW (rather than just an agreement) to completely settle the whole South China Sea thing.

http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/ziliao_665539/3602_665543/36...
Why try to break the protocol, when you can just SSH into the endpoint and read the keys and plaintext directly?
I liked the books, I like the series because it's mostly true to the books.
Thats a matter of quantity though. Have enough of it and the content and normal users get drowned out and leave.

In the end, good faithed users contribute in thier spare time. Once certain interests are involved, you are faced with bad faithed actors who make their livelihood sabotaging this.

Catch enough controversy and this will ruin almost any project where people cooperate in their spare time to inform about something.
> 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.

It seems to me that the correct response to this is to mark the content as needing citations (or to look up the citations oneself), not to knee-jerk delete it every time. Well-cited material is best, but at least for uncontroversial technical subjects, poorly-cited but nonetheless accurate material is a lot better than nothing.

There's another problem I've seen, particularly in non-technical subjects, with information that is so broadly accepted that nobody ever bothers to formally define it, so it's not allowed on Wikipedia. For example, in the fantasy genre, "high fantasy" broadly meant epic, heroic, good-vs-evil stuff (Lord of the Rings) and "low fantasy" broadly meant gritty shades-of-grey stuff (Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Thieves' World, Song of Ice and Fire). The terms were used this way for decades throughout the genre, and were so intuitive that no one needed to explicitly define them.

In 1971, Lloyd Alexander wrote an essay that used "high fantasy" to, roughly, describe fantasy that takes place in an imaginary world, rather than in our own. This usage was never common or influential...until someone wrote a Wikipedia article about it, and used that one source to block any attempts to mention the original definition for many years. Now the "high fantasy" and "low fantasy" articles are conflicting muddles of the two different definitions, and the confusion has inevitably leaked into off-Wikipedia discussion.
Interesting. But it also feels like this helps to return the body to a more natural state. The question then becomes: What in modern living is knocking the body off its center? How could the need for this "cure" be prevented?

Any thoughts?
I just found this statement from Microsoft:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/vcblog/2017/09/11/two-phase...

"MSVC previously recorded the body of the template as a stream of tokens and stored that stream away to be replayed at instantiation time. The behavior of MSVC’s template substitution from a recorded token stream somewhat resembled the behavior of macro substitution in that limited analysis was done of a template’s body."
This is old news to anyone living here and paying attention. I've been tracking suspicious cell sites for the past three years in my DC metro neighborhood with an old Android phone and some prosumer software.

Some of the sites are mobile, but most of the ones I found were stationarity, and could be easily identified once you know what to look for. I'm pretty sure some of them are seriously degrading cell data/vocie quality.

I stopped once I realized there was nothing you could do once you found them. there are only a couple of options for who is deploying them none of which I want to screw with.
I might be interested, esp. since it claims Python bindings, but documentation appears to be nil. Seriously, nonexistent. A GUI lib surely has an API complex enough to require _some_ kind of reference docs, at least. But the contents of the doc folder[1] are just a joke, most of the files contain single lines, and the .md files are fragments with many "TODO" notes.

So OK maybe I can get some insight reading the code. The "common" folder seems a good place to start[2]. Um, no. Short, generic uninformative filenames ("matrix.c", "control.c") and very few introductory comments. The opposite of "literate programming".

[1] https://github.com/andlabs/libui/blob/master/doc/main

[2] https://github.com/andlabs/libui/tree/master/common
Yes, airstrikes typically happen in what US calls war zones. Typically weak countries without allies that are willing to do anything in response. Anyway, what were you tryin to say?
This description suggests a plausible synergy with all the sensors designed for self-driving cars.

With them, the suspension could "see" where exactly a bump or a pothole is ahead, and adjust accordingly.
I'm super curious how shooting porn would make a place any more unsanitary than a normal couple staying somewhere and having sex. If anything, porn stars ought to be safer and cleaner - they are regularly tested and porn shoots won't be anywhere near as messy as regular sex between two normal people.

The only angle I can understand is having your apartment in a porn movie, which is unacceptable because you rent it out for people to stay in, not draw commercial profit from it through film production. But calling a porn shoot a "hazmat site"? Nope, don't agree here at all.
The readme specifically says it has no docs and asks users to look at the main header file.
try the examples folder.
Penrose is a smart guy, but he's advocating for stuff that's not seen in experiments. Your CNS is decidedly 'classical' and is not doing quantum thingys (any more so than all things are quantum-y). The synapse, though still a bit murky and under study, is not doing quantum-only stuff.
Avalonia has no accessibility support, so it's unusable for blind people via screen readers, among others.
Yes, although I suppose it would be possible to build in some kind of exception to require it not to respond to them? Maybe you could even have “smart bumps” that would just be some location data pushed to the cloud that tells the suspension to “rumble” without the need for a real bump. Of course that would only work with very widespread adoption of the suspension.
More importantly, it's about not starting to fix things until you understand the context. The fix might be at any of the levels, but it's pointless to speculate where the fix goes if you don't understand the whole system/network/causality chain to an adequate degree. An "adequate degree" might be shallow overview, a deep dive, or anywhere in between, but it's still necessary.
Sure, but "Hell" could equally apply to underground on Earth or the surface of basically any of the planets of the solar system. The conditions on most of them would kill anybody within seconds in pretty gruesome ways. Swapping that one word makes the headline much more accurate, interesting, and information rich.

I really did not expect this to trigger the HN crowd so much. Changing this word would objectively make the headline more accurate.
This reminds me of what we've been doing for a while, the "blameless postmortem." The technique is championed by Etsy, and you can read more about it in an article that introduces their debriefing guide:

https://codeascraft.com/2016/11/17/debriefing-facilitation-g...

From the linked PDF from the article:

> “Adaptability and learning. We learn through honest, blameless reflection on lessons and surprises. We believe that traditional root cause analysis makes learning from mistakes difficult. Our blameless post-mortem process is a widely-cited technique that we believe is becoming best practice among organizations that value innovation. Blameless postmortems drive a significant percentage of our development as we analyze what about our production environment was less than optimal and rapidly make corresponding adjustments.”
(Etsy, Inc., 2015)

The idea, boiled down, is to inspect timelines, procedures, and actions and develop a narrative of how an incident came to be. The goal is for everyone to walk away with a (better) understanding of everything. With this, people are better armed to put into place solutions.

One example from the text is where an engineer pushes out a change because they thought the build system had zero failures. The push breaks the system and causes a regression that should have been caught in the tests. During the postmortem, the engineer says, "I thought the tests had zero failures. I guess I need to be more diligent in the future." Upon further timeline investigation, it is noted that the tests actually had eight failures, but the font had eights and zeros looking very similar. The fix was not "be more diligent;" the fix is maybe to have a better font or use colors for pass/fail.

Overall, I like the ideas proposed in this blameless postmorem style. It runs counter to the natural tendency to "find a problem and fix it" because it feels like we are talking less about the problem and the fix and talking more about the narrative of the failure. But what I've seen is folks gaining better understanding of how everyone else works, learning about tools and tricks, and about assumptions. And knowing more about the narrative leads to better solutions.
Some of these Wikipedia 'editors' can go sodomize themselves.

Pages deleted/redirected for something being 'non-notable' or having 'no historical significance'. And then when you try to kindly disagree, you're presented with some politically colored Wikimedia rules and such according to which editor has performed their censorship.

How do you even determine what is notable? It may be notable to me. Why some punk editor needs to go remove content just because they feel otherwise with very little to do to appeal. Like why would someone remove entry for an emulator (http://atariage.com/forums/topic/278839-non-notable-say-what... )? Or why do they do that for entries for companies that went bankrupt or got acquired? Or
to many of these articles about topics such as WW2 where e.g. this editor ( https://www.wikipediasucks.co/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=216 ) has been waging his own holy war.

I stopped donating Wikipedia 2-3 years a go among these reasons. I guess next xmas when Jimmy or whatever from Wikipedia emails me to beg for contributions, I should reply to him pointer to this thread.

Throwaway account.

edit: engrish
Differential equations say nothing about causality they just describe what happens. Please remember that Pearl literally wrote the book on this topic before assuming he missed an elementary counter example.