skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I think Obama said it best:

The final thing I’ll say is that government will never run the way Silicon Valley runs because, by definition, democracy is messy. This is a big, diverse country with a lot of interests and a lot of disparate points of view. And part of government’s job, by the way, is dealing with problems that nobody else wants to deal with.

So sometimes I talk to CEOs, they come in and they start telling me about leadership, and here’s how we do things. And I say, well, if all I was doing was making a widget or producing an app, and I didn’t have to worry about whether poor people could afford the widget, or I didn’t have to worry about whether the app had some unintended consequences -- setting aside my Syria and Yemen portfolio -- then I think those suggestions are terrific. (Laughter and applause.) That's not, by the way, to say that there aren't huge efficiencies and improvements that have to be made.

But the reason I say this is sometimes we get, I think, in the scientific community, the tech community, the entrepreneurial community, the sense of we just have to blow up the system, or create this parallel society and culture because government is inherently wrecked. No, it's not inherently wrecked; it's just government has to care for, for example, veterans who come home. That's not on your balance sheet, that's on our collective balance sheet, because we have a sacred duty to take care of those veterans. And that's hard and it's messy, and we're building up legacy systems that we can't just blow up.
You can track the movements of the odds for already scheduled games and look for movements in the odds/spread that are unusual.

Off topic, but to make money:

You can open an account with a book in both home countries, and try to bet the home team on the away book and visa versa. Most locals bet on their home team so if you bet in the opposite country, your odds get better.
Sure, but if you work from machine to machine to machine customisation is fairly terrible.
This is an even more likely reason. I'd forgotten that MER had a stereo camera. If you look at a photo of the rover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover), you can see the stereo camera on the end of the arm. I'm changing my theory to this.
I didn't realize they already have past behaviour of violating their own stated AI principles within the day of publishing those principles. /s

Doesn't sound like you're really that willing to give them the benefit of the doubt like you said.
Copyright.

These media companies would be all over a technology that injected content via direct neural stimulation at an authorized retail outlet.

Or a technology that was a permanently sealed container containing the content that must never ever ever be shared. After all, if you can prevent sharing it 1 million times, that translates into pretty low false negative rate on preventing acceptable sharing.

Or a tax collected that covered 100% of estimated revenues "just in case".

Ads, however, are vitally important to our global economy and must be shared widely, as wide as possible.
Very stringent regulation is in the interests of large businesses. They have the resources while smaller businesses do not.

We've seen this in reports after GDPR go live where Google's advertising market share went up: they had the resources to demonstrate compliance as well as a better ability to get consent (google vs random ad exchange asking for your consent.. google vs a restaurant you go to a few times a year..).

People announce good intentions and create laws and regulations embodying these intentions. They don't look at what the second and third order responses are likely to be, just at what they consider bad behavior and what looks to be a first order response to that. It is very, very hard to create laws and regulations that will have the actual effect that you intend but it is very easy to write laws that have good names and have superficial appeal.

Whether the subject is market structure, privacy, or taxation, far too many supposedly intelligent people adopt or accept the superficial response rather than the well thought through one. You wouldn't accept that approach in your code but you're happy to accept it in national and international governance.

People are then shocked that they don't obtain their desired results and argue for new, improved, superficial laws and regulations.
Hydrocarbons are also produced photochemically, Jupiter probably has more methane than anywhere else in the solar system (possibly combined but it can’t do the back of the envelope math for this one) despite it being only a small fraction of a fraction of a percent of its atmosphere.
The tech-specific differences are things like:

- Compared to setting up a coffee stand, it can take years to build really good technical solutions. (Longer, if you actually care and put in “invisible” effort like making it not crash or delete data regularly.) Yet, that app can still be lumped in with all the rest in the begging-for-scraps models of many monetization schemes.

- Unlike a coffee shop, where you can probably assume some amount of traffic and tips on a regular basis, software is often firmly set at ZERO. Or negative, if you consider any other cost. There isn’t a “software neighborhood” where people might walk by and see your project alongside only a couple others in the area.

- Unlike any “natural” recognition in the real world, tech projects are recognized in entirely unnatural ways. No one may know about an app for months; yet if/when knowledge finally spreads, the message is generally LOUD and everywhere. Say, being featured in the App Store: you go from “never heard of it” to “almost everyone in the world with an iPhone who checked top-10 lists this week”. That is far, far beyond the reach of normal ads, and also insane: it pretty much guarantees over-rewarding and under-rewarding developers across the board.
Er, it's Curiosity in the original article, not MER, but the same principle applies.
> we also have strangely intimate relationships to our doctors. we stick with them even when were not sure theyre doing their best for us. we fear an "anonymous" doctor who doesnt know us personally.

What does that have to do with the issue? Germany has mandatory healthcare insurance, and I'm still free to choose my GP and specialists.
Yikes, no code signing certificate, no details filled out for details or even a copyright, at least on the exe I examined.
You didn't address the main point of my comment, so I'll ask again more directly: are you suggesting that the government create regulation that compels companies, (and thus individuals) to do work on military technology that it deems relevant to national interests?

If not, what exactly are you suggesting?
> Someone will fill the void.

Especially since Google is publishing their results for every void-filler out there to review. Unless they plan to start hiding results that might have military applications?
Actually I like static typing, I mentioned I rewrote a project in F# in like 1/3 of the code from C# solution.

It's more that C# is static typing done poorly IMO - a relatively limited type system that adds overhead compared to dynamic languages or more expressive static languages.
We blocked ACTA and SOPA in EU couple of years ago.
> risk averse

I'm confused what you mean here - isn't a degree of risk aversion good? I feel like "most people" are incredibly not risk averse, in that they recognize that they have little savings to no savings, emergency funds and etc but still behave like they are not at risk.

I however, keep a 4-6mo fully liquid because I'm terrified at the thought of only having 1mo in liquid. Tbh, I'd love to have 12mo, but anything beyond 4-6 and it starts feeling obscene not investing the extra.
Sure, but that's not quite what I was getting at. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

The sort of copy-paste condos you see all in one place are still a single development project by a single property developer. They're all signed off on as one job-lot, and then the materials are allocated to build all of them, a pool of workers are hired and reused between all the projects (where they might be working on condo #14 one day, and then condo #26 the next), etc. Maybe some more are added a few years later, and maybe those are across town—but this is still the same ongoing "project", by the same architect, the same construction firm, under the umbrella of the same sign-off from the same urban planners and engineers.

Whereas, what doesn't seem to exist, is a sort of approach to architecture that resembles software engineering. One where "a building blueprint" is like "a software library": a reusable thing, sold or shared between different companies, or maybe even open-sourced. A world where your first condo project, as a developer, might involve constructing a building to a blueprint that existed long before your company did, even a blueprint your rival firms are also using.

In such a world, you'd expect the components that go into such "common blueprints" to become standardized. You'd see a separation-of-concerns where these components get prefabricated not by the development company's contractors (as part of a "house in a box" or "condo in a box", the way you see today) but as part of an ecosystem of parts that enable these separate development-companies working off the same plans to work more quickly/efficiently. You'd have the Apples of the construction world buying full kitchen-assemblies or pre-plumbed-and-electrified-and-insulated-walls or whatever from the Samsungs of the construction world.
What did you think your comment was contributing? It's low-effort and isn't really the sort of thing that's welcome in this community.
I agree. It's a great article.

Incidentally, the "passé présomptif" is also much used for writing about Shakespeare: a similar phenomenon. Now I know what to call it.
Wander aimlessly through hundreds of pages of Google results until you find something loosly related to what you're looking for in a forum post from ten years ago by a person who doesn't seem to exist anywhere else on the internet except for this one forum -- and he's been inactive for eight years?
Exactly. Facial recognition already happens, but it's it's "natural", analog form. The border guard will make sure your documents are valid and the face in the document matches that of your face. That's more than adequate. If it's important to visa conditions, the date of entry/exit can be recorded, or for the sake of security, the date can be recorded in an offline log to be opened only by due process.

Photographing and storing data on millions of people without probably cause, sharing them with third parties (like Amazon) and keeping them forever, that's not just unnecessary, but also dangerous.
Maybe for junior devs to get their foot in the door, but not for any higher level positions. You can't tell very much about someone's engineering skills based on some public commits to a side project and very few people (<1%) are writing open source professionally.
Depending on how you measure a lot of prefab construction you don't save time overall (design to finished) or end up with better quality. You also tend to up with buildings that will fail earlier due to having a lot more of the most risky components of any built form, joints.

I have hope that as designers and tools get better at dealing with the connection detailing and with material/assembly tolerances it will lead to better outcomes in the future.

I would really recommend watching "The Building Science of Prefabricated Construction". It does a good job of going over the realities of this form of construction.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIeZlCfweMo
Secret Tree Diversity of Cultural National Parks in the Eastern US
Jessica Alba’s Honest Co. Gets $200M Investment
But to get Patreons to fund them, they'd have to make exciting press releases. That's sort of what they're already doing - make Americans excited about it so they vote for politicians who continue to fund them. I'll bet there are already endeavors on Patreon that you're not funding because they haven't been promoted enough to sound very exciting.
They also don't track commits on branches other than the default one.
I put alot of time and effort into unikernels and the technology is very appealing to me.

It has been something of a puzzle as to why they have gotten no traction in any significant way.

My conclusion is that there are other technologies (i.e. containers/Docker) that are not as good as Unikernels, but are good enough to solve the core industry demand for lightweight nested virtualization. And indeed containers solve that problem better than unikernels in two important ways which is boot time (and I'm talking here about booting useful unikernel based applications as opposed to theoretical unikernel OS boot times which can be milliseconds), and also containers are better because they don't need nested hardware virtualization switched on in the CPU - that's important obviously for cloud computing where nested virtualization has now arrived but is not widespread.

And good enough is all that is needed.

It's hard for me to imagine a time when unikernels gain more acceptance than they already have, which is basically little more than none, and the staunch backing of operating systems researchers and a few true believers who really hang on to the theoretical benefits.
> But they've been the best for developers.

Microsoft has screwed developers on their own platforms too, when they didn't fall 100% in lockstep with Microsoft's whimsical decisions and about-turns.

> Best dev tools, most powerful and widely deployed OS

I strongly disagree they built the best dev tools or the "most powerful and widely deployed OS", but I'm going to talk about a more important point here.

There's a difference between making a product that is better that everything else, and preventing others from making a product better than yours. When you let one maker — irrespective of whether they make the best product or not — bully and cheat their way into preventing other makers from competing, you are and shall be left with a sub-par product.

One example: Microsoft single-handedly held back the web for close to a decade, all so it could continue to sell Windows licenses. As a result, the world suffered.

There's a lot of progress that was stifled and/or killed off — some of which we may never get again — by Microsoft, just to protect its OS, by abusing its position on the market.

It wasn't their dev tools or their "most powerful and widely deployed OS" that made them infamous, it was their own actions.
I was actually a bit disappointed on my sole trip on an A380, expecting a noticeably different experience to a 747, but it was more or less the same. That said I think it's a stunning achievement that makes me proud to be European, and a real shame the timing was so off.

I have wondered whether it might serve as a retrofitted space launch platform - though it isn't freight suitable, surely it must have massive lift potential for an underslung rocket.
I'm writing this comment while compiling OpenMP Fortran code that models photoresist behavior in chip lithography.

Could've written the same in C++, but for things like that, Fortran is more natural (its math syntax is Matlab-ish, although, of course, it's more correct to say that Matlab's syntax is Fortran-ish).

Anecdote: I'm starting to learn Rust, and just for fun, wrote a dumb single-loop Riemann sum to compute pi in Rust and Fortran (as the area of the circle) - and Fortran code ran 2x faster. When the computation time is measured in days, this kind of difference matters.
But, presence of methane doesn't necessarily indicate life. I mean, doesn't Titan have oceans of liquid methane with no known indication of life?

I get that detecting previously unseen organic compounds on Mars is a big deal, but it doesn't necessarily indicate that life was once present on Mars. I think it increases the probability that it could have existed, but it falls short of a conclusive "Life once existed on Mars" claim.
Eventually someone will have to settle for Cubic Zirconia.
Why does it always need to be one or the other? You are allowed to have a variety of different powering tech. Just like programming languages, one language does not have to be the only one. Stop thinking singular. Choice are the most successful here.
You can think of a list as being either an empty list or a non-empty list, and think of those two possibilities as having different types. But it's unclear to me why that's any more reasonable than saying that an integer is either zero or a non-zero integer, and those two are different types.

And if you're going to say that zero and non-zero integers are the same type, I have one word for you: division.

And if you're going to say that it is in fact reasonable to divide integers this way, because in fact if you're doing division you do have to care about whether the denominator is zero, then... um... then you may in fact have a bit of a point.

To my thinking, though, tracking this through types at compile time is more work, and possibly also more error-prone, than tracking it by looking at the values at run time - certainly for the integer example, and maybe for the list example as well.
Musk promises manufacturing, self-driving, battery breakthroughs–and profits
> The TACC offered by most (if not all) manufacturers can't differentiate between the surroundings and stopped vehicles.

Software should not be driving a car into any of them. I think that LIDAR would see the obstacle, but as I understand, the crashed Tesla car didn't have it.
Microsoft was not always this cozy with open source and with regards to their acquisition policy.
The challenge of OTA software updates to IoT devices [2 minute video]
Considering how much scientific code I write in python, I probably should drop a month or so on rewriting the slow bits in fortran to learn the language.
https://www.tesla.com/autopilot

and best of all, guess what Tesla shows on that landing page. A driver with their hands in their lap
> It's not super expensive or time-consuming to throw together a standard software project. Once you have your dev environment set up, you can get your wireframe demo compiling in a week with a handful of people. Then you just need to do all the fiddly stuff inside...
At least they are starting the conversation. I'd be much more comfortable with principles of design and implementation in addition to outcomes. For example, transparency is essential. Also:

5. Incorporate privacy design principles.

We will incorporate our privacy principles in the development and use of our AI technologies. We will give opportunity for notice and consent, encourage architectures with privacy safeguards, and provide appropriate transparency and control over the use of data.

Why not "give people control over their privacy and over their information"? That's a commitment to an outcome. "Incorporate ... principles", "give opportunity", "encourage", and "appropriate transparency and control" are not commitments. Google seems to be hedging on privacy.
Big Tobacco’s Bet on a Smokeless Cigarette Cools
I guess my point is (and it looks like we agree): good luck getting all billion+ people on the planet with a credit card to agree that building a kill bot is a bad idea. All it takes is for one of those people to disagree, build them, and then we all must have them.
From my experience, 11 is not a myth. I'm trying to change industry and so I have no previous relevant experience. So the only times when I've actually got interviews was because I sent out ~100 CVs. Understanding the company has never got me an interview.
He did!
Insert that one black mirror episode.
Well, that depends; like most loans, if you don’t pay it back in a timely fashion, bad things happen... and we don’t really have a bankruptcy procedure.
I like #3. It increases alignment of investors with the fonuders.

I do wonder what the top line valuation was for the round, aka what ownership stake does this $1.3M represent. I think that's a key clause esp when the company might pursure a lower growth but more sustainable option. If they have models it'd be interesting to discuss them for sure.
This is good news, esp. given the context from this spectrum article why we need some technologies like these..

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-re...
they're only starting it because of the backlash from employees internally and more importantly the external backlash.
Does hermitcore work on non x86 systems (aarch64 or riscv)?
I feel like I fall in that camp. I received no formal money training, and frankly saved terribly when I was younger. However, I don't believe education was the problem, I believe maturity was.

I still don't know what I'm doing, but I've got a nice nest egg, I seek knowledge on how best to handle my excess money, and my wife and I are executing her higher interest school loans.

I really don't feel I have that much more knowledge than I did. I simply have the will to plan for my future life. In my early 20s I just didn't care (for various reasons).

Kids learn all sorts of things that they ignore. As a race, we seem to be really good at shooting ourselves in the foot.

Related to education though, I feel that these patterns of ignoring what is good for you is what is really at fault here. This has wide reaching implications in my mind, and is the cause of anti-intellectualism in America that is quite concerning. We just don't.. care, as a society. Until we do, I don't foresee education on finances drastically improving quality of life.

Note that I of course will always back education, I'm definitely not advocating against it. I just see this as part of a really large problem, and I've got no idea how to solve it.
I credit their sense of discipline in using the more accurate term. They know they can only stand to lose down the road if they over-hype notions if "artificial intelligence" now when it really is a misnomer. And they're probably betting that's what will happen to their competition who more enthusiastically use the phrase for marketing.
I pray this is the case. I dream of a world where energy is so cheap we could bury our roads in tunnels underground, freeing the surface from their blight.
Antitrust isn't about committing a crime so much as competing so well that the the company sucks the oxygen from the room. Becoming a monopoly isn't evil. It's an excess of success.

It's the responsibility of government antitrust law, not Google, to 'un-distort' the playing field and resurrect competition / opportunity. No one expects a corporation to voluntarily give away marketshare to ensure it doesn't run afoul of antitrust law, just because the company also vowed not to be evil. A negotiated settlement with regulators is exactly where this kind of matter should lead; no crime done.
I feel like the PIA guy is providing a lot of sources for his position. I feel like the counter arguments aren't providing anything, but words.
These are the slides to Ryan Dahl's presentation at JSConf EU 2018.

A video of the presentation is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3BM9TB-8yA
Can E2E encryption not help? It works with WhatsApp or Signal groups, no?
H...hey. :(