skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
This is more of a quick tour of the basic API for libsodium than a workshop for learning cryptographic engineering. Many of the exercises have no cryptographic component at all; the remainder basically exercise the most basic libsodium sign/verify/secretbox functionality. None of the exercises explain the rationale behind any of the libsodium constructions, and (because libsodium) nonce-based authenticated encryption is used without explaining any of the details of what a nonce is and what the requirements are for generating and handling them. Finally, the service model for the crypto involved doesn't make a whole lot of sense; most of the exercises build a "tamper proof log" from a simple chained hash function, and ultimately encrypts that log using a key exposed to the server anyways.

Respectfully, I don't think this is how you should learn cryptography (certainly: you shouldn't call this kind of work "cryptographic engineering").

I'm talking my own book here a little (but just a little, since it's not like I make a dime from this) when I say that the better way to learn and understand cryptography is stuff like the Matasano Cryptopals challenges:

https://cryptopals.com/

These exercises will try to teach you crypto engineering by breaking cryptography, and without wasting much time structuring a trivial JSON interface. You'll understand what a nonce is by the end of set 3 because you'll have written exploits for otherwise sane cryptosystems that mishandle nonces. By the end of set 8 you'll have implemented invalid curve attacks and built and broken short-tag GCM AEAD encryption and, hopefully, be a little nauseous any time someone asks you to use crypto again --- which is the way it should be.

Even after you've undergone our cryptogaphic Ludovico Process, you still won't be a "cryptographic engineer". I've been testing and building exploits for random cryptosystems for over a decade and I'm nowhere close. The simple, blunt reality of it is that if you're going to build anything close to new with cryptography, you really do have to understand the math, and anyone who claims you can get to "securing a banking interface" without a detour through abstract algebra is, I think, doing you a disservice.

Another good resource for this stuff is LVH's Crypto 101: https://www.crypto101.io/
How does this work if the stream isn't a URL? I often use AirPlay with files on my password-protected SMB share.
But that has the problem of "computer recognizes 'car', asks fleshy meat-bag to point at 'car', sees meat-bag point at 'car'".

It doesn't learn anything about the environment from that, so to me it doesn't change anything.
I don't believe real elites actually use things named elite. That's often something reserved for the more l33t among us.

The Japanese really need to learn how to create better product names.
Has Tesla blamed the driver yet? They might get away with that here. The road was not divided and unsuitable for their lane-keeping system. The pavement markings are unusual.[1]

Of course, as usual, their obstacle detection failed to detect a stationary obstacle that didn't look like the rear end of a car in the same lane. We need a minimum standard for a vehicle which takes automated control of steering and braking. It must reliably stop for obstacles.

[1] https://goo.gl/maps/BjqTZoD5Yws
Do you have a video of this?
As a bonus what reactions it does catalyze are valuable, making platinum of practical value as well!
/shrug people need time to research;

Anyway i also don't get what the issue is with the model from radiology. It is already that good?! This is impressive. One model is close to well trained experts.

Just today i had an small idea for a new product based on what google was showing with the capabilities to distinguis two people talking in parallel.

At the last Google IO i was impressed because in comparision to the previous years, ML created better and more impressive products.

I was listing for years at key nodes about big data and was never impressed. I hear now about ML and im getting impressed more and more.
This is a seriously flawed depiction of CFD.
Everyone is "trying" to be less stupid. But selling my wife's diamond rings and buying cubic zirconia replicas at this point feels like a very stupid move even though I know I will net a bunch of money up front, I hear divorces are very expensive.
There are no javascript Bitcoin miners, people just think they exist. I mean technically it is possible, but it would be very pointless.

People just lump all crypto together because of ignorance. As is the case here. Autopilot is not fully self-driving.
Ask HN: Do government's need to adhere to GDPR
Out of dozens of privacy policy updates which companies have been releasing I haven't seen a single one from my Government or Government services (Centrelink for example) - which got me thinking, does (and or should) GDPR apply to governments? I'm Australian but if I was a dual citizen (with the EU) could I request the Australian Government send me a copy of all the data they've collected on me?

The OIAC says it's complicated[1] and don't suggest individual agencies should seek their own legal advice.

[1] https://www.oaic.gov.au/agencies-and-organisations/faqs-for-agencies-orgs/government-agencies/does-the-eu-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr-apply-to-australian-government-agencies
I really enjoyed the design of the site. Thanks for sharing!
Reading that blog entry makes me more distrustful of Tesla than I was, because I don't think it's appropriate to compare Autopilot miles to generic human driver miles. Autopilot is not suitable for all types of driving. The most readily accessible statistics that would be more comparable would be fatalities on interstates.

US interstate deaths are about 1 per 183 million miles, so while Autopilot may be safer, it's not as clear depending on the uncertainty of the 320 million mile figure. Also, German drivers on the autobahn have roughly half the fatality rate, which is better than the claim for Autopilot. All in all, I think an honest assessment would be that it's probably as good as an average driver in good conditions who isn't drunk. But rhetoric about saving 900K lives raises my hackles - I do not want to trust the source of this sort of PR with my life.
I totally get that diamonds are about "economic signaling." I also know that newlyweds who are looking at 30+ years of student loans and couldn't dream of a down payment on a mortgage couldn't care less about showing off wealth they don't have to friends who are as destitute as they are.

It's an interesting coincidence that artificial rocks came along at the same time that nobody can afford or even cares about the real thing anymore. What if manmade diamonds had come along during the boomer era when anyone could afford a house? What if newlyweds today had the buying power of their parents (the old rule-of-thumb for a ring was "one months salary"… hahaha)? "economic signaling" isn't going to save their industry and De Beers bloody well knows it. Good on them, btw, most industries deny the obvious and get steamrolled by upstarts.

(note: My father is a retired engineer from the mining industry, we literally have little bags of precious gems lying around for me to inherit; I'd tell them to liquidate, but anyone who's read the Atlantic classic from thirty years ago knows it's already pointless.)
If a loud robot voice goes "PULL UP", airplane pilots still have much more than a couple seconds to do something about it.
Never mind about jewelry and fashion. Cheap synthetic diamonds would open up a host of industrial applications. Bring on "The Diamond Age".
If no one undercut, prices for all goods could remain artificially high. Yet, the incentive for the individual firm (and the individual's loved ones, in this case) is to undercut (or pay). An insurance market provides (a) expert knowledge that keeps the price down, (b) an incentivized group that may be able to affect the likelihood of the insured event, (c) a group to provide financial incentives against risky behaviors, thereby pricing behaviors into the market in the same way motorcycle insurance or certain risky living arrangements get priced into the market via their insurers.
Thanks for taking the time to render the more specific argument! I still don't think this is suggestive in a way that should influence readers. Here are some ways in which a naive "10x resources != 10x improvement" argument can err:

- Improvement is hard to define consistently. Sometimes, improving classification accuracy by 0.5% means reducing error by 20%, and makes economic applications that have 100x the value or frequency of use.

- Resources used in training can be amortized over billions of times the same model is reused (much more cheaply). So even achieving an epsilon improvement in the expected utility of each inference can justify a massive increase in training cost.

- Some other notions of "better results" or "less expensive" include amount of training data required, social fairness of results, memory required or power used during inference, and so on. And there are major advances in current research on each of these better formalized axes!

That last bit is what is so frustrating in reading an article like this. The author is sweeping aside with vague arguments a great deal of work that has been written and justified to a much much higher standard of rigor (not just the VCs we all like to snark about). Readers should beware of trusting a summary like this without engaging directly with the source material.
> The difference between the current AI renaissance and the past pre-winter AI ecosystems is the level of economic gain realized by the technology

I would argue this is well discounted by level of investment made against the future. I don't think the winter depends on the amount that somebody makes today on AI, rather on how much people are expecting to make in the future. If these don't match, there will be a winter. My take is that there is a huge bet against the future. And if DL ends up bringing just as much profit as it does today, interest will die very, very quickly.
“In a tube surrounded by demons”

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AdH2DGSXjss#
Check out your Twitter timeline, 10 years ago today
Los Angeles Times blocked Europe because of GDPR. Here's a link we can read from there https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-autopilot/tesla-hit...
Oh, for goodness sake. Just Google "Tesla accident rate" and you'll find plenty of yammering on both sides of the argument. But read the numbers therein and you'll find that (1) they're noisy, because it's just one car model and (2) they're clearly in line with what you see with other car statistics.

There are plenty of cars that have been detectable death traps. Teslas aren't among them. You're just spooked by the scary computer behind the wheel.
Weed control for future crops and/or desiccation.
You're right (I didn't realize this): https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/faq#why-would-i...
Some people value information and being right less so make a trade off.

If I found an “influencer” who was right on product recommendations 95% of the time it would be a relief and I’d be so happy to get all that research time back.

I think the bar for right enough varies among different people. And for some people it applies to everything from politics to science. These people are also likely to believe the topics too complex to follow in detail. If they choose a good person to follow they may be more right than if they researched themselves.

What you attribute to laziness could perhaps be seen in a different light: economizing time plus intimidation/fear.
Given that K&R insurance actually lowers the ransom amount, wouldn't kidnappers be incentivized to go after people who don't have insurance rather than people who do?
How Apple Dethroned Intel as the World's Most Innovative Chipmaker
Full disclosure: my family is in the diamond business

There are a few points I'd like to address:

> Only by carefully restricting the supply has De Beers kept the price of a diamond high.

This was the case a long time ago but not anymore. De beers seems to only have a 37% market share - not enough to control the market. [O]

> Diamonds, however, are not an investment. The market for them is neither liquid nor are they fungible.

Not entirely true. Diamond prices fluctuate and have appreciated in value over time, you just have to be savvy about it like any other investment. It's unfortunate that the markup on lower quality diamonds is so high but its largely due to a lack of knowledge on the consumer side. AKA do your homework and buy/sell from a wholesaler like abemor.com (wink, wink)

> You might want one because it looks pretty or its status symbol to have a “massive rock”, but not because it will store value or appreciate in value.

You can say the same thing about art. Diamonds are collectors items.

To be continued...

[0] = https://www.google.com/search?q=debeers+marketshare&ie=UTF-8...
California’s new digital license plates are now hitting the streets
"Mum"'s the word.
If it's any solace, I understand the secondhand market for diamonds to be quite weak.
>If I believe in climate change, I have to make expensive life changes (sell the SUV, buy a Tesla, etc).

I think "have to" is a bit strong. I absolutely believe in climate change. But I have no intention of selling (or stop driving) my 2004 Chevrolet Suburban.
GMO should be safer than natural breeding. Natural breeding you get random gene mutations where GMO, its all controlled. Good example is the Lenape potato which they accidentally reactivated the solanine trait in potatoes and made a potato that was toxic to humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape_potato
Filtering out the noise, you’re not willing or able to cite, and I don’t blame you, since you’d probably try to start with the discredited Tesla numbers. Then I’d post the reasons why they’re crap, and you’d grope for some more apples and oranges numbers. I like how you’ve just skipped past all of that and gone straight to the personal attacks, it saves a lot of time. Since you’ve made your claim without a hint of support, here’s my equally unsupported counter-claim: Tesla autopilot is much less safe than a human who wouldn’t accelerate into a cop car, fire truck, or gaurd rail unless dead, or drunk.
I'll happily read your next post where you will include all of those. In fact amount of VC money spent in that field would only support my claim. And the number of papers is irrelevant. There were thousands of papers about Hopfield network in the 90's and where are all of them now? You see, all the things you point out is the surface. What really matters is that self driving cars crash and kill people, and no one has any idea how to fix it.
I've worked in organizations where management had a technical background (previously worked as programmers or some related technical role earlier in their career) or a non-technical background (degree in business or "MIS", tell people they're technical but all they did is write some basic like 20 years ago in one class or wrote HTML in some class one time).

The technical management makes better hiring decisions, in my experience.

Among the technical management, at two of the FAANGs I've worked at, hiring decisions are made based on algorithmic/coding interviews, which can be decent for evaluating fresh grads but not so great with more experienced hires.

I agree with your principles you bulleted. However, I've also worked at organizations where those were part of our hiring requirements, yet, management was hyper focused on just filling heads because "deadlines".

This is a pattern I've gotten used to at this point. I don't have a solution for it other than to push back, at least when you're directly being pressured to hire some candidate just to meet a deadline.
I believe many people have found issues with the data used and how they were prevented. Also it's worth comparing the common case of accidents - bumper to bumper, etc on a freeway which I'd except all self driving systems to instantly reduce the rate of just by increasing the distance to the next car - to the number of serious crashes - e.g. driving into parked vehicles, concrete pillars - those have entirely different failure modes.

That said, the reality is that the types of self driving systems currently deployed - Tesla or whomever - are all fundamentally flawed because they do two things:

* Require attention from the human driver at all times
* Cause driver inattention

The first is fairly clear, literally every one of these products is prefaced with "the driver is still in control of the vehicle and must remain attentive", and the latter is clearly demonstrated because of all of the different mechanisms that the manufacturers are deploying to try and deal with the fact that if you tell a human to pay attention to a specific task, but they aren't doing that specific task, they will not pay attention. Every system tried just increases the time required for a human driver to adapt to unconsciously managing the various "pay attention" alarms.

The solution is fully self driving cars. We don't have that yet. I fully expect them to be safer once we get there.
It moves your mind from micro to macro. Instead of focusing on balancing the car within the lane I can look 500m in front and plan further ahead. I can also spend 2 seconds with eyes off road adjusting the navigation compared to without where you can only spend maybe max 0.5sec. I also feel much fresher after a long trip, constant minor adjustments sounds minor but once you've driven with a good lane keeping aid(not the ping-pong versions) it feels so much more comfortable when the steering wheel is magnetically trying to snap to the center of the lane. It still feels like you are driving but the path of least resistance is always pulling you towards the center of the lane. This would still be considered level 2 self driving, the danger comes when you go to level 3 and really take your mind off the road, those I think should never be allowed on the road.
Okay, thanks for your polite explanation.
This seems to be a result of GDPR being enforced.
By definition and design, Autopilot is used in the safest, most predictable driving situations, only. So it really makes no sense when you start comparing it with statistics on human drivers in general. My first reaction was that it is better to compare with interstate driving, but even that is still an unfair comparison, because humans are going to have a disproportionate number of fatalities in precisely the situations that most drivers with Autopilot turn it off.
Or, believing in X empowers the opposition and weakens the party who cares about the people I care about.
Since you bring up crypto as a source of scarcity in storing transactional value, I guess my crankiness compels me to note that there isn't a final say on computational resource asymmetry yet either, and is just as valid of a hope as the Star Trek replicator eliminating physical scarcity or more mundanely as the lessening grip of a diamond cartel.

Right now there's currently a (publicly) huge 'security' margin on the time complexity of hash preimage attacks that allows the mining lottery of generating zero-prefixed hash collisions to proceed orderly for Bitcoin as an example. And while you might be tempted to say that because of the relative stability of BTC as a store of value for the past ~8 years is indicative of just how bulletproof that security really is, you might also realize that a market capitalization of only several billion USD is a drop in the ocean of _positive_ human monetary incentives to exploit, nevermind the alignment of negative incentives that work against anyone actually trying to make use of cryptographic breakthroughs in today's society whether as direct profit within the system as it exists today, revolution, or some other grand long-game.

In the P versus NP debate, our universe _could_ potentially be 'Algorithmica' although I know the majority of research mindshare is heavily assumptive of that being a trivially small possibility.

But there's also research lines on other forms of computational resource asymmmetry that we still assume exists but haven't really come up with proof for yet. For example, besides just deterministic versus nondeterministic polytime and the unproven assumption of one-way functions existing, there's also the open question of NC versus P, which roughly translates to the supposed asymmetry of parallel speedups versus sequential processing -- yet another potential source of scarcity if the current incarnation of crypto puzzles doesn't pan out. Computational space is another potentially unproven source of scarcity: PSPACE versus P.

Even really mundanely there potentially exists inversion 'crypto' puzzles of linear versus quadratic time, while not giving the exponentially wide safety margin every everyone expects for practically, could afford enough clearance to transfer and establish value at least between some highly centralized/colluding resource base against some very poor fraudster if that's the only threat model.

Humanities fascination with ascribing, denominating, and transferring 'value' between each other will be the most enduring and profound research avenues while our species last. And while to me that seems vapid to think that figuring out 'what exactly is money?' is the greatest question in the universe, maybe it really is.
That site believes organic farming is a hoax. It also also seems to be mixing up data about US regulation and UK opinion (and thus EU regulation). An intro to EU regulation for organic plant farming is https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-rules-...
In that scenario, you're going to get a merge conflict anyway in your manifest (e.g. in go.mod).
A fascinating account of a feature we'd now recognize as 'cruise control'. Despite the technical details being different than modern systems, many of its behaviors are familiar -- like the surreal rollercoaster-tow hillclimbing -- while some have been rectified in more modern systems, like better engine braking to regain the target speed.

I believe the UX of vanilla cruise control is a good fit for what it does: it's a fire-and-forget, opt-in mode that's disengaged with a tap of the brake or its own button. It's simple to reason about: do I want the car to gun it at a constant 70 mph, or no? You can run a quick mental judgement call and decide whether to engage it or leave it off.

This is completely unlike any other 'assist' feature that came later: ABS, automatic emergency braking, and especially adaptive cruise control. And, in my opinion [1] this vast difference between adaptive and classic cruise control is a safety risk -- features that override driver behavior in case of a condition the car identifies need to have no false negatives, need to be on by default and opt-out instead of opt-in, and need to not be disengaged by trivial inputs like lightly tapping the brakes.

In Tesla's particular case, the opt-in UX was even worse, because its automatic emergency braking wouldn't engage if autopilot was off [3] -- a decision contrary to sane user expectation, and completely unlike cars of other premium automakers. And the fact that their emergency braking still can't detect all stationary hazards in a travel lane is tragic.

I'm not convinced that classic cruise control is a good case study (or anecdote) to compare emerging driver assist, autodriving, and safety features with. It simply has the exact opposite semantics than every other feature that we have since put in our cars.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16772748#16774258 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12097671#12097911 [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12011584
No, counting to 12 using the sections between your knuckles of your 4 fingers using your thumb on same hand will give you 3x4 and then 5 of those is 60. If you were doing fingers as a single digit, you'd get 25, though.
The end is neigh and it is the death of javascript.
Tell that to Boom!

But seriously, at the price point for this machine, name, branding is not that relevant. They could call it flying basket and if it delivers on TCO, people who use these things will buy them.