skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
The cost of false positives at freeway speeds is part of the reason:

> When a car is moving at low speeds, slamming on the brakes isn't a big risk. A car traveling at 20mph can afford to wait until an object is quite close before slamming on the brakes, making unnecessary stops unlikely. Short stopping distances also mean that a car slamming on the brakes at 20mph is unlikely to get rear-ended.

But the calculation changes for a car traveling at 70mph. In this case, preventing a crash requires slamming on the brakes while the car is still far away from a potential obstacle. That makes it more likely that the car will misunderstand the situation—for example, wrongly interpreting an object that's merely near the road as being in the road. Sudden braking at high speed can startle the driver, leading to erratic driving behavior. And it also creates a danger that the car behind won't stop in time, leading to a rear-end collision.

When training new human drivers, they're taught to to steer around obstacles at freeway speeds, instead of braking for them. This is partly because it can take too long to brake.

The other half is these are often separate modules calling each other.

> And like adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking is often implemented as a separate system from the lane-keeping module. Most AEB systems lack the kind of sophisticated situational awareness a fully self-driving system would have. That means it may not be able to tell if an object 100 meters ahead is in the current travel lane or the next lane over—and whether it's a temporarily stopped car, a pedestrian, or a bag of garbage.

The auto-braking system could be a basic distance sensor calling the drive-by-wire API with "FULL STOP". This would definitely be non-ideal for freeway situations and speeds.

"If you're at lower speeds, at 30mph, and it detects a stationary object, these systems will generally respond and slow the car down and bring it to a stop," Abuelsamid told us. "When closing speed is above about 50mph, if it sees a stationary car, it's going to ignore that."

Indeed, automated braking that can only apply 100% braking is not ideal at freeway speeds. Collision avoidance at that speed must depend more on steering than stopping, but systems in cars aren't integrated in a way that would allow them to create this level of awareness.
World Models Experiments
> The most impressive thing IMHO is how well Ruby is doing on maximum latency. I can't quite reconcile that considering fasthttp is pretty much zero-allocation and golangs stop the world is in the microseconds.. Pretty impressive.

Fast GC is critical to Ruby performance so a ton work went into it. Ruby 2.2+ has a very short STW phase thanks to generational GC + incremental marking.
Is there a version implementing video connections?
> "Yes, PHP and Node.JS and Ruby all are just as bad or worse than Python. That's the whole point!"

The original comment I was replying to was taking a stab at Python in particular. All I'm saying, is that in the open-source community, in that specific regard, Python doesn't stand out. Many developers care about backwards compatibility, many (dare I say, most) others simply don't.

I've had a large Java repo that broke recently, after we've updated some of our Maven deps to slightly newer versions (that was a very large, well known and used package). So those things happen in the "Java world" too.
No, it really doesn't. Forking is expensive. Running a multithreaded (even if it's green threads rather than OS threads) http server and web application makes far better use of multi-processor capabilities.

Shell scripting is a handy tool but it is also slow so you wouldn't write hot paths in shell scripts. And for the same reasons you wouldn't write busy web servers in CGI. Both are fork() heavy.
One thing I never understood about SpaceX is whether it’s really worth it to build a multi-use rocket. It’s a really simple design, and the materials are not that expensive. When I was studying this stuff, it seemed that we were moving in the direction of things like cheap self-consuming solid fuel engines. It’s just a controlled explosion; seems like trying to create a refillable stick of dynamite. Not only that, but reuse increases weight, which increases size, which increases weight.... We all knew why launches were overpriced, and it had nothing to do with the cost of the fuselage.

It seemed like Elon didn’t understand a lot of fundamentals, and I observed that he had a lot of trouble recruiting Astro engineering experts because of this, so he ended up with mostly young MechE students out of Cornell’s SAE. Retro-propulsive landing is an interesting show piece, but how does it change the economics? Note that SpaceX is still being propped up by NASA COTS, so it’s far too early to call it a commercial success.

Can anybody better-informed help me understand what we’ve learned since about the advantages of reuse?
I feel the same way....after reading that, I feel like I have no idea what was demolished, or how. (Not meant as a criticism btw, just saying.)
Follow me, see profile for details.
Until I read this article, I thought that the all-optical adaptive cruise control system of my BMW i3 was clearly inferior to modern radar-based gear. I now see at least one use case -- stationary objects -- where the i3 setup has an edge. (But the i3 setup suffers mightily in low-contrast and low-sun-angle scenarios.)
Exactly that, proprietary hardware will limit usefulness for anything beyond specially developed Windows functionality.

And, even if the hardware can be hacked for Linux the question becomes, how can it be made functional in a desktop environment independent way?

Been doing R&D for a similar concept for several years, a detached video enabled trackpad. The key functionality which all concepts to date lack, is being OS agnostic and allowing end-user customization of functionality.

It's a good effort, but is likely only the beginning...
I find this useful for older paradigms where you want an error as well as pass in something to fill in as the output. Instead of doing bool foo(OutFoo* out_foo) or overloading Id getId(); // returns -1 if not present. You could use base::Optional<OutFoo> / base::Optional<Id> in each case respectively.
This is an odd claim to make, since the article doesn't say anything at all about self-driving cars. Moreover, I don't think it's trying to shame anyone. It's making the point that there is a difference between crashing due to an error in the driver assistance systems and crashing due to encountering a situation that the system is incapable of handling. The tail end of the article states unambiguously that this is not an acceptable state of affairs, and that the next generation of driver assistance systems needs to take a different approach.

As to whether this article is really a stealth advertisement for GM's Super Cruise technology, well... yeah, it probably is. But I still found it informative as to the current state of driver assistance systems. I was not aware that the cruise control, lane keeping, and automatic braking systems were generally completely independent of each other.
Oracle is as we all know, but at least they kept improving Java and sponsored the work being done at Sun Labs, turning it into Graal and Substrate.

If tomorrow they really completely loose interest in Java and let everyone go, are the same Java companies that let Sun fall now going to rescue Java and keep developing OpenJDK?
Without being too reductive, Stallman and others apply extreme cynicism (assume the worst case scenario will happen), and they are "always right" because the naysayers seem to apply undeserved optimism. Companies like Slack initially try to appeal to the freedom crowd (IRC gateway), until they decide it impedes their business model. Stallman can see it coming from a mile away because he correctly views people and entities from a cynical perspective that many others aren't used to doing.
I wonder what percentage of these immigrants are ethnically east/southeast Asian, or even ethnically Japanese. I imagine a large portion of the Peruvian and Brazilian immigrants shown in the chart have Japanese ancestry (I believe Japanese ancestry makes immigration from those countries easier -- to the extent that one point there was a black market in being adopted as an adult by Japanese people -- and there is a large, old Japanese emigrant community in both countries).

It's a somewhat crass question. But ethnicity, not just nationality, seems to matter a lot in Japan.
It's weird to put their Darpa funding together with this decision and then lump the whole thing as Google being confused or hypocritical.

Darpa funds fundamental research. They try to look ahead to what the military could use in 15 years, but it funds open and fundamental projects. They funded Google when it was 2 graduate students trying to search web pages. It was part of the "Digital Libraries" project to make libraries more usable. They funded research that led to the internet and self driving cars (Darpa Grand Challenge). Right now they are funding exoskeletons and implantable health sensors.

This project was to deploy tech to the military that could search drone footage for targets to bomb. It is a purely offensive technology that leads directly to killing people.

They chose to draw a line at not using artificial intelligence for weapons that target human beings or for surveillance that violates human rights.

Amazon is drawing a different line, something like it's ok to use our AI to target human beings as long as it's legal.

It all seems pretty straightforward, they hadn't drawn that line before or needed to and now they did.
Does the Nexus5 baseband have DMA?
"At Google" is such a broad category that no single answer suffices. For anyone working on the hot-path of search/ads/knowledge graph back-end, sure, they need to know their algorithms. Same for the language teams like Nystrom is on. For a front-end engineer, which is what I was at Google (exclusively in Dart fwiw)? Probably not. I implemented a graph traversal exactly once.

However, Google uses the same interview process for all software engineers, and mostly decides what job they will do after deciding whether to hire them. So they really can't tailor their questions without changing their entire process. I think they should change it, but I understand why they haven't.
God rolling the dice would seem to be a rather confined manipulation since the rules of the dice are bound to be consistent over time. If God is a random number generator, that seems like a pretty pointless thing to be preoccupied by.
No, that's a purely semantic argument, with no moral or practical meat. RMS is quite clear about what he means by "freedom", there are whole essays on the subject. You guys don't have to view that kind of "freedom" as a valuable goal, but you don't get to dismiss the notion out of hand just because you don't like the word he used.

This is exactly the same flawed logic that leads people to cry "But free speech!" every time they get yelled at in public for a offering an unpopular opinion. They're substituting the idea of "freedom from criticism" for "freedom to express" and claiming victory by linguistic trickery instead of moral philosophy.
Nvidia's Jensen Huang at Computex 2018 [video]
> If he had his way, there would be no restaurants unless they all provided recipes

I'd suggest you read more of his work -- The Right To Read springs to mind -- as that's a misrepresentation of his ideology.

His fight is for the right to open the hood of your car and decide yourself if you've got the right carburettor and maybe swap out a lug nut or two using standard dimensions, conventions, and tools.

To match your example: he wouldn't eat at a restaurant that somehow made it impossible to open up your burger and see if the onions are caramelised, and required you only use McRestaurant brand utensils to eat the food. Do you own the food? Is it yours? Are you free to take parts out and add parts if you want? Or do you not have "the right" to decide that the pickles look sketchy?

Recipes, in your analogy, would represent academic knowledge. I'm pretty sure he's for sharing that, too, but the GPL has no requirements that people understand how you're creating the tasty algorithms you're serving on those floppy disks... That doesn't get commoditised, as such, but instead gains new value propositions as the demand for it raises through developing an economic ecosystem surrounding it.

That is to say: RedHat is more valuable because I can "commoditise" their drivers and then pay them money to scratch my itch, not less. Most businesses are in the "make money" business elsewhere, not in the Linux business. Sharing is profit.
> social disaster

At worst, such disaster will end with police - in accordance with doing their damn jobs - forcefully putting down some dangerously violent below-average rioters ... no?
Sorry for being pedantic, I just think mixing JVM with Hotspot is a bit like thinking GCC dictates what C is all about.

Both are actually quite common misconceptions.
Another reason that the right side mirror is higher is to prevent hitting passengers as the bus pulls up to a stop. Passengers tend to step up to the curb where the front door opens up as the bus approaches.
Best open source implementation of Wavenet/Tacotron
Then you should use nginx or haproxy ;)
I work as a developer now. Over the past couple years, I helped launch a few different really cool products, which you may have used or heard about. These two years have been a constant high with insanely busy work weeks but I loved every minute of it.

I'm currently in a phase where I still get satisfaction from design and coding but the things I have to work on right now just aren't that interesting.

I'm not feeling a high from my current work. It seems trivial, boring, reducing tech debt that I just don't find interesting at this point in my career.

The dopamine release isn't there and my previous work was giving that to me daily in large quantities.

I'm considering changing teams.

At some level though, I am in the same boat as you. I don't want to just write lines of code. I want a bit more.

Since this started happening, I've enrolled in courses on Coursera and Khan Academy. I'm leaning about deep neural networks and machine learning. The amount of information is staggering.

I have one stream on just relearning or newly learning some of the math. I have another stream just watching ML and neural net tutorials and articles to become as familiar as I can. Then, there's a third stream of actually coding through some exercises.

Motivation comes and goes. Stay disciplined and find something that really excites you.

If you're just done with development, maybe consider a step into management.
I would recommend giving mu4e a try. It is pretty fast and you can also use mu too.

If you need help initially getting things setup:
http://cachestocaches.com/2017/3/complete-guide-email-emacs-...
https://emacs.stackexchange.com/questions/12927/reading-and-...

A good benefit to using these terminal based type apps is you are able to see more information up front so you are not so susceptible to web based phishing exploits as you can see all the links, can fully automate what your doing and integrate it into other custom apps your building.

If you are more of a vim user you could get used to using Mutt https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mutt#Mutt_and_Vim
Another connection:

No ILM means no Lucasfilm Computer Graphics group, later renamed Pixar.

No Pixar, no involvement by Steve Jobs and the confidence to return to Apple after Pixar’s successful IPO.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/01/technology/pixar-steve-jobs/...

Would we have the iPhone without Star Wars?
Hmm I don't have any emacs experience yet but maybe I will give that a shot. I am concerned that I might need to be able to read/send html emails in the near future though.
Why Canadian Milk Infuriates Donald Trump
FTFY:

> whoever has the most resources to file the most applications soonest wins.
My concern with most research is that it often attempts to generalize/control for "type of programming language" with "a specific implementation of that type of programming language".

At least in my experience, the implementation matters. And then the number of papers that generalize results about "an object oriented language" when they mean "Java" is sickening. See also research on productivity w/ "static typing" vs. "dynamic typing".

One of the worst things about learning to program at school in the oughts was that Java was the language of choice. I have no problems (more than any other language) with Java as a professional tool, but Java as a first language is a disaster with its conceptual overload.
Your Intel based CPU’s Management Engine does so it can run that NSA spyware the Internet tells me [1].

Also embedded java, (kind of the JVM without floats, or GC) is common on base band processors for cellphones and satellites.

The full modern JVM10 spec has way to much magic to do in hardware. Some of the opcodes do things hardware can’t easily emulate.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11913379
To expand on this:

In C++ a useful heuristic could be to think of values like Java primitives.

A C++ integer takes up some amount of space. Maybe it's four bytes on your platform. Integers on your platform take up four bytes. Not "four bytes plus a pointer", but four bytes and that's it.

In those four bytes you can store 2^32 values. There's nowhere else to store whether the integer is null -- if you wanted to signal to someone that the value was "missing", you would either have to,

- Come up with your own "in-band" signal, like "-(2^31) means 'missing'", or

- Have an out-of-band signal, like a separate boolean variable, or keep a pointer to "integer or null". (Pointers being nullable is arguably kinda weird still.)

Functions that return an integer in C++ on your platform will put four bytes "in the right place" on the stack. (Or in a register? I don't really know what calling conventions look like...)

Again, there's nowhere to signal that the value is missing -- if you don't fill in that memory location or that register, well, there will just be some other (undefined) value sitting in its place that the caller will read. Ditto functions that expect integer arguments etc.

Now, this has some interesting consequences: for stack-allocated values in C++, "object identity" tends to be preserved less often than in Java. When you put an object into a `vector`, you'll probably put a copy there. When you mutate that copy or call some function on it, you're not mutating the original. You can get back to "Java semantics" of object identity and nullability etc by using pointers and explicit heap storage.
5 Steps to Turn Your Small Business Idea into a Reality
Again an example of how agendas are pushed using the selective publication of truth.

Of course massive amounts of propaganda is spread by the Palestinians but BuzzFeed would never call them out on it. In this way, they can report the truth while still pushing an agenda.
So it seems not even a nuke can kill Japanese fascism.
I'm quite familiar with the music theory behind all of the scales, having played instruments for over 30 years, but I'm not finding the information display or interface to be very intuitive.
Oddly, it would be interesting why evolution would select for a tendency toward having beliefs. If dogs and cats had "it," but were simply unburdened by needing to reconcile it with their facility to act through others (language), it could be seen to exist in them.

Fish returning to spawning grounds could be an expression of belief, just as ritual fighting among deer during the rut, bees doing mating dances, etc. There is an underlying urge to continue life, and rituals for efficient, relatively non-destructive sorting for collective survival emerge across species.

That our sorting uses our unique facility (language) kind of makes sense.
I use Mailspring (https://github.com/Foundry376/Mailspring). Neat features, sleek UI and also pretty fast.
So a dog is not self-aware because it's not pondering its own existence? (For all we know.)
Small nit: swift is built in llvm, much like clang is, but it's not based on it.
Connected business models
Zig doesn't have any web frameworks yet, though.
I'm slightly younger than you and feel the same way. We can be in the minority together!
Then the challenge, as the grandparent stated, is to engineer a belief-target such that religious-like belief in it produces optimal consequences for society, and where the previous clause includes not impairing technical personnel with an antiscientific worldview.

Of course, "optimal consequences for society" is a debate attractor. e.g. I for one will do my damnedest to remain agnostic, if for no other reason than the principle that convincing me to act against-my-own-purposes should have a higher pricetag than "the feelies".
It’s not the cost of the fuselage itself, but the infrastructure to build it and the throughput with which they can build them.

If you want to increase the number of rocket launches, you need to increase the number of rockets. We will always launch them as fast as we can build them, and it’s probably cheaper to develop reusable rocket tech than it is to build a single additional rocket production facility. It makes every production facility afterwards that much more efficient.

It was a great economic move if your goal is to increase the number of launches as quickly as possible and make spaceflighy routine.
Bret Weinstein talked about his direct experience with that in a recent appearance in Vancouver. How left-leaning and right-leaning publications reported his story differently and to varying degrees of accuracy. He suggests it's exactly because of the underlying narrative of each side.

https://youtu.be/bz0oxIZ3xIg?t=311
The transition names aren't scoped.

Typing breaks the diagram until you've correctly typed the line. It should ignore the line if it's not syntacticly correct, or you could have the diagram show an error.

It needs functions, or at least function names, that lead to different states.

Interesting though.
Thanks a lot for your very nice feedback :-)
On the same topic: https://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/20140801213202.GA2729%40...

> Current state makes it very hard to mange/search/fork/open-issues etc
> especially for newcomers,
> please move the project to github so we can have nice disussions
> forks/prs etc goodness.

No. Never. Github is proprietary communications tool which requires
users to accept a terms of service and login. That gives power and
influence to a single entity (and a for-profit organization at that).

Contributing to unicorn is *socially* as easy as contributing to git or
the Linux kernel. There is no need to signup for anything, no need to
ever touch a bloated web browser.

The reason I contribute to Free Software is because I am against any
sort of lock-in or proprietary features. It absolutely sickens me to
encounter users who seem to be incapable of using git without a
proprietary communications tool.
Churchill was said to be unhappy with the sudden end of the war, saying: "If it wasn't for those damn Yanks, we could have kept the war going another 10 years!"

This made me laugh. His story is a really good read.
Michael Faraday gave a great series of lectures on how candles work that also illustrates the difference between cursory knowledge and explanatory depth. Most people think they know how candles work, but when you dive into the details there are all sorts of interesting things going on.

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

(you can also buy the lectures in book form on Amazon.)
This is mostly because payment systems in Germany are not there yet. Supermarkets often still require a minimum amount before they accept bank cards. There are tons of shops which don't accept credit cards at all. Also, often payment with cash turns out to be executed faster than going through the motions with a card (the waiting times between steps are unusually long).