skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I would understand if the popup appeared once, after 5 articles. But the fact that it's every article I read is just infuriating. I have literally no reason to sign up to Medium.

I've been too lazy to block the popup, but I think I will next time it appears.
> I wonder if zig will ever pursue some sort of memory safety.

That's exactly what Zig is designed for [1].

Andrew Kelley (andrewrk) discusses this in the talk. Zig is similar to Rust, but with memory safety designed into the core, not bolted on as an afterthought. And as the SHA-256 demo tests in the talk show, Zig is as fast or faster than C.

[1] http://ziglang.org

[2] https://github.com/ziglang/zig
I think you're probably right. However, I wonder what sort of retaliation the first institution to do this might face from publishers. The publishing industry will have a mighty incentive to kill it and they tend to play hardball.
Run-up in home prices is 'not sustainable'
> Also, the fact is that Monsanto, which has had trouble with its ethical reputation, is very adamant about GMO.

It's adamant about the safety of its GMO lines and (in the case of Roundup Ready) the pesticide products that are complementary to them.

It's, OTOH, also a big producer of non-GMO seed and actively markets products to the organic food industry.
Well if AutoPilot is statistically saver then a human pilot (I don't know if it is). Then that's a reason to use it.
De beers has been selling synthetic diamonds for decades.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_Six
This stat is widely misunderstood. Tesla rolled out Collision Avoidance Assist and Autopilot around the same time. These variables were not isolated by the NHTSA.[1] It is likely that collision avoidance was the major factor in the crash rate reduction. It is even possible that autopilot increased the accident rate.

No doubt collision avoidance is a fantastic feature though.

Addendum: Looks likes the NHTSA has disavowed Tesla’s interpretation of that study. They did not evaluate whether autosteer (autopilot) was engaged.[1]

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/effectiveness-of-tesla-autop...
All that jewelry industry looks fake to me.
There is absolutely no value in man-made or nonmanmade jewels at all.
I am wondering why people pay even a penny for that.
I would like more description in the main readme. Tell me a little about what kind of skills and knowledge will be gained by going through the exercises.
but that's a problem that's more easily solvable further up the stack with VMs or containers.

Everyone keeps saying this, let containers handle cpu/heap but I keep asking myself, is it really optimal?
I assume this is purely related to this administration as they note in the first paragraph and only if the intent is to do bad things with that data?

Because when I read the first bullet point, that's also the kinda data you'd gather if you were to even do something like positive outreach or assistance programs or something...
a link[0] to the original is helpful in your cause.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo...
People don't read manuals. People don't read instructions in the UI. That is well-established reality. People glance at a web page or ad and see the words "full self-driving" and that's what sets their expectations.
I’m sorry but auditing is only available in the Enterprise Plan
> Eventually, we can drop the first as people adjust.

This doesn't help in any way, shape or form. You have pissed off billions of people who have had to re-learn custom times for things, you have caused the weekday to flip in the middle of the day for billions of people, and you STILL haven't solved the problem of "Can I call Uncle Steve in Melbourne, or is he sleeping right now?"

https://qntm.org/abolish
They definitely can and do stop. There are plenty of videos of accidents avoided because of stopping, and this is a rather common feature on most mid to high-end cars now, commonly called a collision avoidance system and grouped under the umbrella of pre-crash safety systems.

The avoidance feature is designed to stop the car in the event of an unavoidable obstacle directly ahead. It doesn't guarantee a stop but it will still apply the brakes faster and more fully than a human can react and thus shed more speed from the impact. Pre-crash safety will also tighten the seatbelts, move seat positions, close windows, and inflate auxiliary airbags in preparation, and these are all well-tested and proven features.
You’re not wrong. But this is somewhat how the modern era operates. An idea will simply not penetrate as far in an older, long form, printed media as it will in an online compressed format.
Priceonomics is a YC company and I believe that posts by YC companies are highlighted to other YC founders, so that might be what leads to this article being upvoted on HN. I agree that it doesn’t make much sense when this is essentially content marketing that repackages a single, superior, primary source.

Edit/Update: I was incorrect here. Please see children comments
Prices were based upon supply which for the longest time, DeBeers controlled. They controlled the quantity and quality of the stones they offered at their price. When diamonds were found in Russia and Canada, their control of the market went away. Diamonds are not nor ever were rare.
Just don't buy them, that's all.
It's probably not worth upgrading anyways.
Regarding the Ruby (Puma) example: It doesn't say how many threads or how many workers were used. Assuming they used the default, of course it's not going to be great.

The author ends with,

> I hope this would help you to understand that how languages would behave under load.

But it doesn't. Because no developer, when they see that their stack is under load, will say "oh my language might just not be performant enough, I guess I'll switch" without first looking to tune their stack.
Pay up the nose to be a billionaires guinea pig so he can go can down in history as a pioneer of robot cars while while you go up in flames...HELL NO!!!
Based on the inverse correlation between star size and frequency, this doesn't surprise me at all.

It seems like there is an obvious further inference to make - people have debated whether life originated on earth or not. Given that the vast majority of planets do not have a star, and given that we know there are chemotrophs even on Earth that prove it is possible to live without a sun, it seems overwhelmingly likely that life came from one of these rogue planets that was large enough to retain enough heat underground for the evolution of life over the first few billion years of the universe. That would also neatly explain why evidence of life appeared so soon after the Earth became solid.
I'm still with Feinmann here.

If we somehow got a constructive proof that was useful, in anything less than Polynomia, it would probably have the effects being discussed.

But if the proof is not constructive, and doesn't really shed any light on how to concretely attack real cryptosystems, then it basically doesn't matter because it's still basically dependent on whether anyone can come up with a groundbreaking advance and keep it secret.

I think it also over-estimates the value of unbreakable crypto over unbreakable by your average criminal organization crypto. While we have good crypto, our computing systems are woefully insecure, and you can't have meaningful secrecy if your client is hacked, and yet we're largely doing fine. We have breaches and outbreaks, but they're nowhere near so bad that we're rethinking this whole tech thing. So if we can keep crypto to the level of breakage we have now with security, well, we're no worse off than we are today.

And practically, I think we'd be far better off than compared to today's security where we have tonnes of monthly patches by every vendor.

I think the difficulty of creating cryptosystems is a bit exaggerated in this piece; I think we haven't seen much diversity in the past, because diversity was bad for public cryptanalysis, but there are six different approaches listed on the wiki for post-quantum crypto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography#Algo...

One of which is pure-symmetric crypto infrastructure.

It was certainly interesting reading about the different worlds we could be in, and knowing this would be worthwhile, but I don't really feel like the pure knowledge of what world we live in by itself would have much impact.
TESLA a tool to save the world
Do you know the tesla free energy machines? Tesla is a company that sought the development of free energy, tried to create machines that were functional with a type of energy that was not known, for example: The installation of photovoltaic solar panels. But not much was achieved with this company.

Fernando Martínez Gómez-Tejedor through Fernando Martínez Gómez-Tejedor SL and his company F. Society Mr. Robot SL, are looking for people to develop free energy and produce machines in the best Tesla style. Fernando Martínez Gómez-Tejedor needs people who have knowledge or experience in electromagnetism, mechanics or others related to TESLA or knowledge in energy and electricity. The project is non-profit and the objective is to offer people free energy and free electricity methods, just as TESLA wanted.

People who wish to collaborate should do so for fun or self-improvement, not for profit. What Fernando Martínez Gómez-Tejedor tries to do is a reverse crowfunding of people, he contributes the necessary capital and the means, but people who contribute their knowledge or work are needed. It is an inverse crowdfunding from which experts are required since the money is used to develop the projects.

The objective is to get with the help of everyone interested in developing this project, a replica of Tesla's free energy machines or something better, the whole project will be financed by Fernando Martínez Gómez-Tejedor but people with experience in these issues are needed. If you are interested and want to be part of this project or learn more about this topic, contact: Teslaprojectt@gmail.com
Good stuff, thanks for sharing. I always forget you can do indexing into the packet itself as in tcp[((tcp[12:1] & 0xf0) >> 2):4].

Also sometimes I reach for ngrep if it is installed:

https://github.com/jpr5/ngrep/blob/master/EXAMPLES.md
Demand for them is still inflated. They were not commonly used as gems in the past.
In the same way that a fake Picasso isn't real because Picasso never made it, a lab grown diamond isn't "real" because the earth didn't make it.
Has there been any retaliation against lab grown diamonds? Seems like they're starting to become a popular alternative.
As good as a human at what? It's 100% better at not falling asleep behind the wheel or driving while under the influence which statistically are the most common cause of traffic accidents.
That would make it me, I’m surprised people already start noticing the reducer logic in there. Better get the docs out soon :)
>When you select crops over generations to improve a seed stock you are not making radical changes quickly, and you are not introducing genes from other species.

Non-GMO breeding methods can also mutate rapidly. One example is mutation breeding, where a plant is exposed to high levels of radiation to encourage rapid mutation. This does not require any labelling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

As for genes from other species, this is known as horizontal gene transfer and it actually does happen in nature. It's even occurred in humans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

It's worth bearing in mind that there is no such thing as a "fish gene", or "strawberry gene". They're just genes. All forms of life have considerable overlap between them.
> If I believe in climate change, I have to make expensive life changes (sell the SUV, buy a Tesla, etc).

In part this is true, but none of those are necessary, but what is neceaary for most deniers if they
flip is “abandon my political tribe, whose leaders have defined the belief in climate change as outside the bounds of the tribe.”

That's really very nearly the only factor that matters.
Good question. The list of people who were targeted before were peoples who existed before any electronic computing existed. Beside, while this effort may retard some data collection, the data exists in distributed form in addition to voluntarily given by most mobile users --and it only addresses misuse of data in the US --which is a fraction of the world population.

India, China, Saudi, Russia already collect more information and do fewer nice things with the data and cover many more people --tho I suspect any effort there will die on the vine.

Beside, if you ignore ethnic data, ala France, then you don't have a good gauge on how people are doing beside a theoretical "average" person.
AssassinGo: An Extensible and Concurrency Pentest Framework
I think a lot of GOFAI approaches ought to be revisited to see whether they benefit from the new perceptual and decision capabilities of Deep Learning systems. Alex Graves's papers are particularly good at this.

Things like this reinforcement learner for theorem proving are pretty exciting possibilities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1805.07563v1.pdf
It's not even necessarily a matter of inattention. Imagine that the autopilot was driving along just fine, and when it was just a few feet away from the parked cruiser suddenly veered towards it for whatever reason. It might be physically impossible for any human, no matter how well they are paying attention, to intervene and avoid a collision.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it's certainly possible. The mere fact that it's possible to me casts doubt on this entire design philosophy.
No, we shouldn't.

But a company that advertises software against JavaScript-Bitcoin-miners knows exactly that people will think their software helps against JavaScript-Monero-miners.

If it's a reasonable company, they'll try to deal with this public misunderstanding and point out that their software can't help with Monero-miners.

If it's an asshole company, they'll cash in on people mistakenly buying their software. And even worse, those people will then think they're safe when they're not.

Such an asshole company deserves all of the negative PR, so that they're hopefully at some point forced to change their business practices.
My guess there are doped with detectable elements as to ensure they are never confused with real diamonds.
This doesn't mean that retail prices would drop.
Yeah. Well I see FB and Google names there. You be the first to remove religious, political, and racial data you've collected. Thought so.
When you read this kind of text from old magazines is that you see that humanity is really getting better: "What it does. This is not easy to explain to women and the mechanically innocent. Not that the gadget is particularly complex;"
I can respect your view there.

I only briefly touched on the re-prioritization (I usually describe it as triage) with the brief scenario of a production issue or cross-team communication once a commitment has been made in scrum. Maybe in another post.
No, it is always autopilot, you must pay attention and it never is or has been fully self driving.
Gold is an element and cannot be manufactured. Diamonds are a crystal of pure carbon. They can be manufactured, and by objective metric, the manufactured ones are higher quality for less money.
To be honest, as the other child comment said, I too have noticed they have gotten way better in the last 5 years. Also, the words of which it isn't 100% sure are in a slightly more transparent gray than the other words, which kind of helps.
Cold Fusion was outright scientific misconduct. I'm not optimistic about QC working as intended, but I think the hope around it is honest.
> Now Cox's solution might indeed be better (though I think it's an overkill ...

vgo is actually much, much simpler than dep. The sheer number of words in Russ Cox's series of blog posts belies its simplicity. vgo doesn't need a SAT solver. If you look at many of the issues dep is struggling with, they're related to solving N libraries with transitive dependencies up the wazoo.

Cox's long treatise reflects the complexity of the problem space. Developers tend to brush off package management as being simple. But once you include range-based version constraints and transitive dependencies, it gets a bit messier. Look at NPM and Yarn; they're still struggling to get all the details right. On the other hand, there's Ruby's Bundler. It came out in 2009, RubyGems in 2004, and I've never had a single issue with the toolchain (other than messing up my own constraints). I don't know what kind of magic elixir they were drinking, but somehow those guys managed to nail it from day one.
Same here. I highly prefer what-you-type-is-what-you-get paired with manual autocorrect than autocorrect.
There's a world of difference between a proper conspiracy and thinking GMOs and powerful pesticides might not be a good idea. I don't avoid them but I don't think it's all that unlikely they'll turn out to have negative effects.
> Cadillac has an eye-tracking system that deactivates the self-driving features if you aren't watching the road, and their system is limited to specific highways they have mapped.

I don't even get the point of that. Why even take one's hands off the wheel(or if knee-steering, one's foot off the pedal) if they can't even take their eyes off the road? I haven't driven one of these vehicles so maybe I'm missing something. It seems intuitive that automation would free us to do other tasks, but I'm not seeing that in these early "self-driving" implementations. It's more like these car companies are actually selling these cars as experiments, at the expense of people's wallets and possibly their lives.
More things, more state = bloat. Don't you agree that if you can do something without holding state it's invariably simpler? That's what MVS does.

There's also cases where your lock file and manifest are not in agreement. e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/4100
hah, missed the #1 link...https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17183603
Yes, DeBeers built expensive machines to tell the difference and preserve their market. Oddly, the differences are that the synthetic ones are more pure. They also mark registration at the GIA and hide the records.
Napkin math (aka pure speculation) suggests that unless the rogue planet hit the star directly and at an angle that could send ejecta our way, the results would be more observational than catastrophic.

The Earth is roughly 333,000 times less massive than the Sun. Think of it this way, If an asteroid hit the Earth that was, in relative terms, the size of the earth relative to the sun, it would be about 1/3 the size of Ceres. Everything on Earth would die but the other planets would probably not notice.

Given that the surface of the Sun can be treated, to a first approximation, as a fluid, an impact that was perpendicular to the surface would likely have the same characteristics of a milk drop. Which is to say a large wave would race away from the impact point and the collapsing of that wave in would eject a bit of coronal mass roughly equal to 1% of the mass of the impactor (note this makes a big, and unsupported, assumption about the viscosity of the solar corona.)

The only scary bit comes if the rogue planet enters the solar system slightly off the plane of the ecliptic and hits the Sun in a glancing blow. In such a scenario it could transfer a huge amount of momentum into the coronal mass which would then immediately begin to head away from the Sun. If the Earth were in the path of that mass it would probably wipe everything out after blowing off our atmosphere.

This wouldn't be good for the rogue planet either, which would probably enter a hyperbolic orbit and shoot away from the solar system on a new trajectory. In the unfortunate circumstance that this "coronal braking maneuver" was sufficient to slow the planet enough to be captured by the Sun, the remaining planets would get to witness periodic brushes with the Sun by the rogue planet until it had lost enough energy to fall into the Sun.

That would be mitigated if the orbit it fell into pulled it by Jupiter or another large planet which, by virtue of its gravity circularize the orbit sufficiently that it would not come near the corona on future orbits.
>"Organic" is a marketing term, not a descriptor of the production process.

I generally agree with this, but with the caveat that tomatoes are an exception as I understand it.

It's nothing to do with being GMO or pesticides used, but rather the fact that conventionally grown tomatoes are generally harvested significantly pre-ripening, and then gassed with ethylene to promote them turning red.

My understanding -- and if I'm wrong about this someone please do chime in -- is that ethylene gassing isn't acceptable for tomatoes that are labeled organic (but is for some "organic" fruits like bananas). It's possible it's all placebo, but tomatoes are the one fruit/vegetable I tend toward actually using organic as result.
"Move fast and break things" was Facebook's idea, not Tesla's.
The Curious Case of Bryan Colangelo and the Secret Twitter Account
I don't understand. Rust has memory safety as a core design principle. Zig has manual memory allocation like C.
I suspect parent's comment was actually sarcastic, rather than arrogant.

Nuclear is a term burdened with ambiguity - most people mean nuclear fission, some people mean nuclear fusion. As far as filters for scientific understanding, it's probably better than 'GMO is bad'.
Well, there are a couple ways it could happen.

1. The governmemt could require you to publish all your research in an open way, if it ever funded anything to do with your research. No open access, no government money.

2. Universities could band together and do something about it.

This could happen both on the demand side, AND on the supply sude. For example, they could either collectively refuse to pay for journals, OR collectively refuse to hire professors who don't publish open access.

Want to get Tenure? Well you are forced to publish open access. Don't like it? Then go find a different University to work for. But that might be difficult if those OTHER universies collude against you with the same rules.
That differential can be accounted for in the premium, either on an individually underwritten basis or averaged across the risk pool.
Remember when that comet crashed into Jupiter? Not much happened, even on Jupiter's surface.
FYI This post is about deep learning. It could be the case that neural networks stop getting so much hype soon, but the biggest driver of the current "AI" (ugh I hate the term) boom is the fact that everything happens on computers now, and that isn't changing any time soon.

We log everything and are even starting to automate decisions. Statistics, machine learning, and econometrics are booming fields. To talk about two topics dear to my heart, we're getting way better at modeling uncertainty (bayesianism is cool now, and resampling-esque procedures aged really well with a few decades of cheaper compute) and we're better at not only talking about what causes what (causal inference), but what causes what when (heterogeneous treatment effect estimation, e.g. giving you aspirin right now does something different from giving me aspirin now). We're learning to learn those things super efficiently (contextual bandits and active learning). The current data science boom goes far far far far beyond deep learning, and most of the field is doing great. Maybe those bits will even get better faster if deep learning stops hogging the glory. More likely, we'll learn to combine these things in cool ways (as is happening now).