skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
So I filed and was (after nearly 5 years) granted a patent late last year. It cost me around fifty thousand dollars. I have mixed feelings about whether it was worth it.

> Yet some lawyers actually recommend against it, since if you do find prior art, you're now willfully infringing on it, and should cease and desist.

I am not a lawyer.

The advice I have seen from actual lawyers is that this is essentially an urban legend based on a bloke-in-a-bar-told-me level of legal understanding. If you are going to file, why piss away tens of thousands of dollars on filing expenses when you can spend a few days (or pay a professional searcher $1500-2500) to see if it's worth bothering?

The "never search, it triples your death-mo-trons!!1!" comes from an easy legal defence for megacorps. Being able to stand up in court and say "we didn't know about patent X because it is against company policy to search" is much easier than a protracted, expensive and chancy legal discovery process to try and determine who read what, when, and what they may or may not have understood.

> Don't expect a patent lawyer to honestly tell you he doesn't know your domain.

Actually, do expect a patent lawyer to honestly tell you their expertise. They have a fiduciary duty to clients. Turns out you can't charge $300 or $600 or $900 an hour if you've been disbarred. But do ask about their credentials and experience and do choose according to that expertise.

The key is that, having told you their expertise, lawyers will still act on your instructions. I can ask my lawyer to do my laundry if I want. I will be advised that this is not their specialty and that it would be a poor use of my money. But I could insist and my lawyer will shrug and make the arrangements, for several hundred dollars per hour.

I did a lot of the legwork on my patent myself -- I drafted a lot of it, carefully studied cited art and wrote my objections etc etc. I am, after all, the person in world who knows it best. But my lawyer could have done it too, it would've just taken longer and cost a lot more.

One last piece of advice I got about law firms. The $800-$1000/hr places are big city firms. When you hire one, the USPTO examiners will assume you are a GigantoMegaGloboInc and examine accordingly. Sometimes they dislike the booming sound of heavy-gauge letterhead being fired across their bow. A smaller firm can typically give you closer attention and is less likely to seem as impersonal.
Let’s keep it simple. Whoever takes the money is the vendor. Amazon lists it, amazon fulfills it, and they get paid for it. Sounds like the vendor to me.
- many companies shouldn't be on blockchain

- killer user case 1: magic the gathering

- killer use case 2: magic the gathering

- everything will be on blockchain in the future.

It's painfully obvious that in 10 years no one has come up with a use case for blockchains [1]

[1] https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...
If instead of the seller's name the only thing eBay told you was "sold on eBay market", I bet they would be liable too.
Showing low quality ads is not solving the problem. Google is the modern day double click, crappy and overzealous ads everywhere. With extra tracking.
Are you scared yet? Meet Norman, the psychopathic AI
If it's against the guidelines, why was it removed?
If it's no longer in the guidelines, it's probably an obsolete "rule" and your disagreements are insubstantial and invalid. As a new user, I only have to read and follow the current guidelines and not with the old ones that no longer applies. In other words, have it put back in Guidelines first before restricting people for historical sentiments of the old Guidelines.

~ Khayri R.R. Woulfe
Well, one reason is that, unlike in Reason, you don't need a magnifying glass to use it on a higher-res display. Honestly. We are at Reason 10 and there is still no interface scaling or retina support.

A better question is: Why can't I have it in a VST? ReWire is a PITA.
But once the smart people are in, which person eventually winds up on top is determined by party politics.
They are not classical particles, the uncertainty principle, for example, still spreads out the location. I don't really know how particle interactions work exactly, but I am pretty sure it is not perfect point particles having to hit each other exactly. I guess there is something like a interaction probability depending on the distance between the particles. I include a bit from an older comment I once made here with links to a lecture where this issue is pretty clearly addressed.

Here is Nima Arkani-Hamed giving the Salam lectures 2012, a five day series on the state of fundamental physics. I marked [1] about 30 seconds where he is very clear about this. You can also start here [2] and watch about 10 minutes of this lecture where he quickly redevelops the ideas of quantum field theory.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnA7bh7dTqY&t=1669

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnA7bh7dTqY&t=370
Why not praise DL and strive for practical applications, both present and future, instead of having the goal and evaluating success based on some nebulous "artificial general intelligence"?
No people with one copy of the haemoglobin mutation that causes sickle cell are just less to die of Malaria. They still get infected.

Anyway this is totally irrelevant to the question of if we should continue to let people die while we sit around pontificating about unintended consequences. When the house is burning down it is not the time to talk about the unintended consequences of getting the carpet wet.
What Xi is doing is not Confucianism. Confucianism had an elaborate set of rules that everyone, from the top down, was required to follow. Xi is basically making up the rules as he goes along.
After Evergreen One Year Later, Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying Look Back
Hey do you have any entry level openings?
The first link has almost 11 thousand reviews and currently 34 sellers. 44% of those reviews are 5 star. 34% are 1 star.

It is certainly the case that some of those sellers are selling fakes. It is also likely that some are selling authentic products.
I assume they would claim "You now owe us R188000." (about $15,000)
Your fundamental argument seems to be "this will only affect bad actors" but I don't think the history of law in any part of the world justifies such optimism.

Or how about: I'm sure the advocates for civil asset forfeiture made similar arguments.

If you want to argue that prosecutors on your side of the pond are impervious to corruption, well, consider that you're including Spain, Italy, and Greece in that body politic (at least for now).
If you made that bet you would have absolutely no evidence for making it. The only data set we have is still playing out.

And once again, if we create AGI and artificial life that is truly more intelligent than us and can exist without a traditional biome, then our danger of going extinct may be irrelevant.

For instance, when cyanobacteria first appeared on Earth, its metabolites were so toxic that it turned the atmosphere poisonous and caused one of the greatest mass extinctions in the history of our planet. What it created was molecular oxygen. The survivors of this extinction were able to use a fundamentally changed biome to harness much more energy in their biologies, leading to more sophisticated and diverse life in the long run. Nature is not benign, malignant, fragile, or judgmental. Nature is persistent.

Creating AGI may very well be an event like that. A mass extinction that nonetheless increases the survivability and diversity of life. It sucks for us, but who are we to dictate the destiny of evolution and the nature of life? Where would we be if the cyanobacteria could decide not to start producing oxygen?
Unless I'm missing something they are selling Europa as a VST/AU and I guess the web version is more of an interactive demo
To use an old meme: "One does not simply learn C". Instead, one learns:

1. Everyday C syntax. It's not strictly required to learn every esoteric and historical thing about the language; if you go down that rabbit hole, you'll be down there for years.

2. How to properly structure and organize code and header files. It takes a little while to understand exactly what goes into a header file (and why), how to anticipate and avoid problems like cyclical include dependencies, etc.

3. Data structures and algorithms. While not a feature of the language itself, most projects are going to need non-trivial data structures (one example: hash map/table or alternative). Surprisingly, there are very few freely available implementations one can just import and use. By and large, every developer custom builds their own implementations. It should not be underestimated how much of a time sink this truly is. This aspect is trivialized by veterans, who have spent a decade or longer accumulating and tuning their own personal collection of reusable/tweakable snippets.

4. Compilers, linkers, and build tools. Thankfully the standard compiler options are good enough for nearly everyone, because the options are so numerous and complex that I'd bet even the developers of the compilers themselves get lost in that forest.

5. Finally, you're not doing much with C itself; rather, you're interfacing with everything your operating system provides. Most of your time is spent learning every aspect of POSIX (or equivalent) for your target architecture. This is quite straightforward (just time consuming) if you're targeting one architecture - say, Linux. The moment you want to support anything even remotely cross-platform (Linux, *BSD, macOS, Windows), you're essentially opening Pandora's box.

Note that none of the above is really a criticism of C. There is simply more to using C than its syntax - and those other moving parts are where nearly all of one's time will be spent.
Very cool read and a lot of your happy discoveries are similar to reasons why I like coding in Go, especially your "Less Language Feature ‘Anxiety’" section. No guessing about how to do something, there's generally only one way to do something.
"tens of millions of dollars in cash"

You're replying to someone who wrote "40 years ago." Real estate in New York was cheap, back in the 1970s and early 1980s. I have friends who bought their brownstone in Brooklyn for $200,000, which is now worth $2 million. If you were lucky enough to buy real estate in New York in the early 1980s, it was among the best investments possible.

For awhile I lived in a 4 story building in Brooklyn, just across from the Navy Yard. It had 14 apartments in it. It was owned by a Hasidic Jew, who I got to know pretty well. He told me he bought it in 1982 for $300,000. I'd guess it is now worth $3 or $4 million.

I realize that the national story is different from the New York story, but those bookstores could have bought their buildings, when real estate values crashed, back at the end of the 1960s.
>Your only enemy is the enemies you create in your codebase

I'd say your primary enemy are those using your codebase, who can and may exploit any hole. And ofc, its not just your codebase, as it sits on top of libraries, maybe a runtime, an OS, and hardware; you're not safe just because your onw program is fine, within the context of its internal machinations
This is probably the best article I have seen on this particular subject. I expect that many HN readers would also like to read it, but because the subject is extremely contentious, I think it will be impossible to discuss it here without the submission getting flagged.
All of them should presumably be expected to have some idea of what entity they're doing business with.
This is soved by knowing the destination size and using functions that respect that and never assume the size of an input will not be larger. (unless proximity of something that would assure the size of input is close enough to where you're making the assumption about it in code, but still you'd be taking risks, especially if it's not your code, but some foreign library call)

It's the same with web programming. You always escape on the output, or just avoid escaping by using proper API (el.textContent = 'something').
For me it's been a lifetime of better and more appropriate NI.
The totally stupid thalidomide argument can be used to oppose anything new.

It is even a more stupid argument as thalidomide wasn't stopped in the USA because of any concern about "unintended consequences", it was stopped because of the incompetence and sloth of the FDA. The FDA would have approved thalidomide with no issues, the USA just got lucky that thalidomide was used elsewhere first and so the effects were noticed before it was released in the USA.
It makes sense for Amazon to not be liable for damages caused by the manufacturer (should eBay be liable for everything sold on its platform?).

But doesn't it also make sense for Amazon to be liable for allowing 3rd parties to sell counterfeit or not-as-advertised items?

Also, how far does this go? Where is the line crossed?
It's not "torture", it's learning and efficiency. We could expand every single acronym and abbreviation every time, but that would quickly get in the way of understanding since it would just become needlessly verbose.

I also find a host of improper terminology usage as well as "instructional" information that is simply incorrect.

That's a different issue... and one that's pretty much unavoidable if you want freedom of speech.
It would matter if they contained unlisted ingredients that were allergens or worse, toxic. It would also matter to someone like me - I take vitamins because of measured vitamin deficiency that I wasn't able to correct with diet alone. If my vitamins did not contain vitamins I would start to have deficiency symptoms again.
A diary written on castle floorboards
Or play the Javascript version in your browser. http://epicport.com/en/dune2
tl;dr: why people who value stable employment are leaving the game industry.
I would assume you can run WebEx because ReactOS says they have 100% binary compatibility with Windows.

What you’d need to run any Windows program is a way to parse the PE executable format, load it into memory, and emulate or simulate W32 api calls. I’m sure there are other steps but I can’t think of many more off the top of my head.
I think you are talking about the dev experience using Expo.
> You might be able to make a solid case that wage theft results in greater nominal amounts of theft than violent theft, but that doesn't mean it's a bigger problem as the title assumes.

It's a bigger economic problem by at least an order of magnitude according to an article published on a website focusing on economic issues.
Where is the satellite? Is there a framework that holds it above the fuel rod, or what?
SEEKING WORK | Agency specialized in building and growing products | San Francisco and Pune, India
We can help you with:

- Rapid prototype development

- Iterate product to grow

- Build SAAS with all necessary features to serve users and grow the product

Skills: iOS/Android, NodeJS, PostgreSQL, MongoDB, AWS, Bootstrap, React, PHP, Crawling at scale, Browser Extensions, Stripe, SAAS

contact: hello@vshsolutions.com

website: http://www.vshsolutions.com/
بيان إستنكار ودعوة مستعجلة – شبكة الاعلام في الدنمارك
People are allowed to work on what they want, nobody cares that you think it is useless.
Whale dies from eating more than 80 plastic bags
Knowing more detail about anxiety circuits in mice is very very far from helping people living with anxiety disorders.. More research on improving existing human treatments that are known to work well for many people seems to be more justifiable..
Sadly, most of the video game industry is a crappy place to work. I speak from experience here, having been the lead game engine developer in a studio owned by one of the largest publishers. I don't want to out them, so I'm being vague on purpose.

There is little work life balance. No matter what happens, no matter how many people you destroy, you will do whatever it takes to ship in time for the Christmas season. If you miss Christmas, your ROI plummets. Huge franchise games are an exception, but those of us not writing FIFA Soccer, Madden NFL, or HALO really care about Christmas. Why do people accept this kind of employer abuse? It's because there is this attitude of having your name in the credits of a game being some huge honor, for which you will sacrifice life, pay, and health. People who work on games are passionate about gaming, they love to play them, work on them, and the rewarding feeling of shipping your game is intoxicating. When you sacrifice everything to make Christmas, you sacrifice code quality, maintainability, even reproducibility, leading to a very slow start on your next iteration, and the cycle of crunch/crash repeats itself.

If you are into games, you put up with this for a while, but over time, you see your friends and colleagues get jobs in other industries, and they make more and are happier working on non-game stuff you consider boring. You celebrate with them as they buy their first home, or a nice car, and start to think that maybe the fun work (when it is fun), isn't worth being paid a lot less. It's not like game companies give stock options, and whatever profits are made don't trickle down.

Eventually, you get older, you start a family, and you want to spend time with them, and a game company isn't going to be friendly to that. The benefits aren't as good, the crunches are still there, the pay isn't great, so you decide to move on.

You hire some young developer, who is gushing with excitement about working on games, as you were once upon a time, and you do your best to train them without letting your disappointment in the industry show, and you move one, the cycle repeats.

I honestly have no idea why it is this way. Naturally, not all studios are like this, and there are exceptions, but the majority of the less successful studios are stuck in this seemingly unbreakable cycle.

I have since worked in many software companies, some of the making exciting things, others doing dull enterprise things, and I've been a far happier person in all of them. The passion for games is still there, ever since I bought my Atari 2600 with paper route money, but as an engineer, I'm done, never again.
If SendGrid and Twilio could IPO, then surely GitHub can. Keep incentives aligned and do that instead, please. If Microsoft acquired GH it would a non-neutral platform, and I would be off to Gitlab immediately.
What was your patent?
IMNAL, My guess is that they can establish records of transactions they do with sellers and adhere to all transaction laws... but once they take possession of the good, they comingle it and can no longer tell where it came from.
Sorry, you probably caught my post before I added the "not" I managed to miss the first time around. I meant to say that I see why Amazon should not be liable, but they should at least be able to get you to the right people.
I don't want to sound like a jerk or anything but you'd think that if a high schooler could write an entire paper like this about quantum computing of all things they'd be able to spell a few more things correctly, get basic punctuation right, grammar, etc.?
Interesting. Were you able to get it refunded?
In practice, it's more like "if you get caught if it's illegal" --- and depending on what you're doing, getting caught can be very easy (e.g. broadcasting in an active band at enough power that your neighbours notice), or pretty much impossible (e.g. if you transmit inside a Faraday cage or at powers so low it doesn't reach the other side of the room).

Or as the old saying goes, "If no one else can hear you, they won't know you're saying anything."
A friend in HR told me once that HR people very rarely give bad reviews, especially to people they don't know. Badmouthing an employee, without the legal case to explain it, is often seen as giving a bad rep to the organization. You should expect something more like a bland, generic 'that guy was alright'.
archive.is’ DNS returns incorrect addresses to CF’s 1.1.1.1 DNS.

https://community.cloudflare.com/t/archive-is-error-1001/182...
Its the product of a thousand flamewars, nobody is interested in seeing a big fight about it for the 999th time.
> If you made that bet you would have absolutely no evidence for making it.

I don't have evidence in terms of AGI, but there is evidence that ants have survived a myriad of changes and disasters in the past (Goggle tells me they evolved 92 mya). So AGI and/or humans would have to do something radically different to the biome for organisms like ants to go extinct. Something not seen since the rise of multi-cellular life. Seems much more likely human civilization bites the dust first.

> Where would we be if the cyanobacteria could decide not to start producing oxygen?

But they didn't have a choice. We do. Why would I care about the possibility for some more sophisticated life form in the far future if it means my species goes extinct?
The Taxidermy Bird That Scientists Turned into a Robot [video]
Out of curiosity, does anyone know what the sample_rate query parameter in this URL is for?
This seems to me kind of like saying if you pick an arbitrary number k, and an infinite sum from 1..n, there must be a point at which the sum is greater than k. But if the sum is finite, it may be less than k for any n. And if you're talking about real life, the total benefit is uncertain too. So I am not at all convinced that this kind of utilitarianism easily leads to decisions that we don't see in real life.

I kind of think that society does use something like the measure of utility I described - we just don't talk about it a lot. For instance, doctors will refuse to do an operation on someone who is sufficiently old and frail. Courts will award less to an elderly victim of medical error. And so on.

Edit/post script: Also, I think you implicitly are assuming that utility is one dimensional, and that you can add up quality of life changes and balance them against lives ended. That does not necessarily seem valid or essential to some form of utilitarianism.
A better title for the article might have been,

“Why current deep learning is not general enough for AGI or some other families of structured problems.”

Viewed this way, it’s not a criticism of pragmatically using deep learning or experimenting with deep learning for some narrow tasks.

Rather, it expresses what aspects of current deep learning make it unsuitable for general transfer learning, hierarchical or causal inference, or many Bayesian techniques requiring greater use of priors.

Other comments have pointed out that there are plausible rebuttals in deep reinforcement learning and metalearning.

But the bigger thing to me is to be clear that the article is not a criticism of deep learning engineering — applying deep learning to satisfy an explicit requirement, where the success criteria possibly has nothing at all to do with general intelligence nor with whether a certain approach can span some sufficiently large class of general models.

However, even if you just constrain your view to look just at so-called “pragmatic” deep learning — deep learning for concrete tasks — there are still a lot of unanswered questions about why things work, and whether or not an approach is learning semantic aspects of some true underlying structure (some latent variable space that captures the true data generating process) or if deep learning merely allows overfitting to particular populations of observation-space statistics.

This paper gives an example of exactly this issue for CNN models for image processing [0]. I’d argue that this is more of the kind of criticism relevant for task-oriented practitioners, whereas the OP link is some criticism more relevant for AGI or philosophy of statistics research at large.

[0]: < https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.11561.pdf >
Couldn't say for sure, so looked on YouTube. It's Warcraft. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_A1GNx0M9M