skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I suspect that it's too difficult for the systems to accurately determine whether an upcoming object is actually in the lane. It's not uncommon to pass stationary vehicles parked on the side of the road. If you're approaching those vehicles along a curve, they might seem like they're in the road to a radar sensor even when they're not. I can see why it's a hard problem: attempting to detect these probably leads to too many false positives.

Still, you would think that there would be some threshold where the car decides, "Hey, this stationary obstacle is right in front of me. I should slow down"

You could imagine a next generation self-driving system that uses the combination of data from multiple sensors as well as maps to detect plausible obstacles. The mapping data could tell the vehicle when it should expect to turn. Maybe the vehicle could integrate imaging information from both radar and stereo cameras, to detect where the lane is, and which obstacles are in the lane.

Are there good existing techniques in the computer vision community for synthesizing data from multiple imaging sensors, like radar and stereo cameras and LIDAR? I'm imagining dumping all this data into an algorithm, getting back a 3D reconstruction of probable objects around me, along with metadata describing their velocity, confidence of the assessment, and all that.
> It turns out that if you use 80 columns as a heuristic, the vast majority of the code will look fine.

I'm not sure what corpus was used to determine that heuristic (nor what tab size). But it would trash a lot the projects I work on.
True.

However, it does seem the latter at least leaves room for "oh, crap, I was wrong" and generally less certainty simply because most reasonable people realize that they cannot know another's mind. Hopefully.
I suspect it might have something to do with your mechanical aptitude - the mechanism is suggested by the shapes of the parts. The diagram is reminiscent of those tests we did in school to help choose a career.
Even with a more open system for legally accepting immigrants, Japan has an extraordinarily closed system for culturally accepting immigrants. An immigrant to Japan is considered an outsider to much more of an extent than other countries.
Why would it upset you? This is how RMS always talks. Software freedom and the licenses that support it are what he most cares about. This is basically a religious discussion to him.
> Neurotransmitters probably do use some quantum effects because of their nature

What does that even mean? Ice "uses" quantum effects when melting, but that does not mean that we cannot accurately explain the behavior of melting ice without taking these quantum effects into account.
>Every single race has a right to want to preserve itself and it's culture.

"Japanese" isn't a race, and culture isn't a function of racial identity.

If these things were true, then American culture would belong only to one race, and it clearly doesn't.
Wondering if you might offer some advice:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17274812
They plan to sort out that problem when value types are finally part of the JVM.
Automating Applying for Jobs on Indeed via Python, Selenium, Pyautogui
Daniel Dennett [philosopher] Presents Seven Tools For Critical Thinking
> Still, you would think that there would be some threshold where the car decides, "Hey, this stationary obstacle is right in front of me. I should slow down"

From the article:

> 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.
Haha, nice. I immediately thought of OpenTransport when I saw the headline. I wonder how many developers actually wrote code directly against that API.
It's simple, really.

Git, the protocol is distributed. You can have a copy, I can have a copy; anyone can have a copy. And they're all equal.

Github is Git with a bunch of stuff that's not copyable. If you want to move your data elsewhere, you lose access to a host of stuff. Wiki, issues, PRs, branches, fixes.. All sorts of things.

There's people who've developed bandaids to triage that data lockin, but they only stem the bleeding. They don't solve the problem, and that problem is your data is in a roach motel.

What RMS keeps going on about much of the time is a high level engineer-y view of the problem. He forgets to bring it back down to earth, to explain that "Yes, these things I talk about affect us all!"

For me, I'm setting up a new server right now, and I'm putting Fossil SCM on it for my repo instead. It does handle all those data assets that makes github useful. And its license compatible with Free Software.

https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/index.wi...

edit: I'm also a card carrying member of the FSF. I've lived through enough computer "revolutions" to identify bad stuff when I see it. I'd rather my knowledge be portable, with usage and configuration of free software, than lock it up in proprietary blobs that change underneath me.
Show IH: IdeaZap – Instant Idea Feedback
Ask HN: Is cryptocurrency-mining-specific hardware useful for Deep Learning?
I am seeing a lot more components touted specifically for cryptocurrency mining, and in particular I am intrigued by motherboards that support many GPUs[0].

Does anyone have experience building "Deep Learning rigs" using these (or similar) components? Are there any pitfalls to be aware of?

[0] eg. https://www.techradar.com/news/best-mining-motherboards
This is definitely it. I've got kids and I was also unprepared for the amount of time that they will take. Usually as a developer one has a lot of time to explore wider area of topics (playful exploration). That keeps the mind energized.

So: get plenty of sleep (a golden rule is when the child sleeps the parent should also sleep), then invest in some topic that's not in your comfort zone (e.g. working on CRUDs? Learn embedded programming with Rust).
This confusion is rampant in the business world. Some people prefer to bamboozle and be bamboozled by case studies, some people prefer to bamboozle and be bamboozled by pie charts. Powerpoint is a common medium for both. However, despite their differences, they share their audience - people who can't do a good analysis and have no idea what one would look like. Inevitably, if this realization ever sinks in it will have to be worded in a way that doesn't make it sound like there's anything wrong with the people who don't know what they're doing. Now that journalists have started to phrase it in a way that makes it sound like the "facts," are at fault, I think it has a good chance of becoming accepted.
> Github is evil because the license picker doesn't push his license strong enough, with just the wording he'd be happy with: "You've put your finger on the problem. The site leads people not to specify explicitly whether it is [GPLv3] "only" or "or-later"." - Maro

> Recommends and encourages GPL 3-or-later licensing at least as much as any other kind of licensing. (C5) - https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria.html

Do those two look like identical statements?
If your model of your mother is aware of her own existence as a model in your brain, wouldn't she beg you to continue modelling her, or mention the fact at least?

> I assume that I know my mother so well that her behavior will be indistinguishable for all intents and purposes from my simulation of her in my head.

Then you are running perfect simulation of your mother and some parts of her environment (such that she'll not freak out finding herself in nothingness) in your brain, so yes, she'll be conscious.
This was brilliantly parodied in Terry Pratchett's Making Money.
Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Seeks Investors for New Company
> I feel like I'm in the minority; that people my age and younger who give a shit about things like this, prefer BSD/MIT/Apache style licenses.

I am of older age but I too prefer MIT over GPL. The logic is like this: time is precious and if I devote it to developing an open-source library, I want it to be used by as many people as possible. I see no reason whatsoever why I would exclude closed-source software from adopting it.
their video starts off with a critique of sketch-like apps, even showing what may be sketch itself. really poor naming given they obviously know what sketch is.
And it is a lifelong stigmatization as well. You will never be one of them, no matter how hard you try.
A possible std::optional footgun is that an optional object can implicitly be converted to bool, returning optional has_value(). For optional objects that may hold value types that themselves can be used in a boolean context (like bool or a pointer value), then a programmer may confuse the implicit has_value() check with returning the real value().

std::optional<bool> opt(false);
assert(opt); // true even though *opt is false!

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/optional
The Clinton campaign had to so many sins that i suspect being data driven was the least of its problems.
Richard Stalman hates _anything_ that isn't GPL. His restrictions is very dogmatic.

Don't get me wrong, I think he is important to create the far extreme end of the open source movement so we can gauge ourselves. But his stuff is dogmatic in nature _NOT_ logical in nature. He would rather software be crippled than be useful but non-free. He wants everyone to magically develop on their spare time for free with copyleft licenses. This is craaaaaaazy. People gotta eat.

With his model you fall into the musician trap. If you are a world-renown musician you get people coming to your recitals and don't gotta worry about anything else. If you are not, nobody attends and thus you work as a teacher or waiter.

There are some open-source developers who make a full living on donations. But they are few and far between.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17269230
> "... this data-driven approach never worked and campaigns that relied on it, like Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in 2016, have usually ended in failure."

It's also, of course, a question of having the 'right' data, and therein (also, of course), lies the rub.
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.

Well, that point is most likely lost on someone who dies in a crash of these cars. IE, the difference is big from some viewpoints but irrelevant from others.

I think we can see the point where objections to self-driving cars start to become strong. It's not some cooked-up version of the "trolley car problem" but a situation where a self-driving car does something a human observer naturally interprets as "wrong" and "dumb", does it in a way that kills someone and the designers give the answer "sorry, not a mistake, just a necessary design compromise. This is still, on-average safer than a human". I think this would produce a strong emotional effect regardless of any "generally safer" assertion.
I agree with you that Barclay was far more entertaining to watch then Wesley. The only entertaining thing about Wesley was how much he annoyed captain Picard.

As for utopias, I've spent a lot of time thinking about them recently. I just finished taking a philosophy course on utopian and dystopian societies. The overall impression I got was that utopias are predicated on assumptions about human nature and they tend to marginalize or outright exclude anyone who doesn't fit in. This made for an interesting comparison with the dystopias.

I think Gene Roddenberry's argument is that we can develop a culture of excellence that overcomes the need for any sort of radical biological engineering to make people more agreeable. I don't know it's at all feasible but I find it interesting to imagine.
Or indeed over 30,000 people a year given that non Americans are, technically speaking people too.
I'm game. I'll have to figure out how to help.

RMS has strong principles. We need more of that.
The asteroid rush sending 21st-century prospectors into space
You need to find the shortest number that’s closer to your target float than any other float. Then to go the other direction you just find the nearest float.
Doesn't seem to be a working emergency braking system, as those poor souls who plowed into stationary obstacles found out.
No one here is suggesting a soul. At best, it may be a new physics; at worst, it may be nothing at all.

You are implying that I said that somebody here is suggesting a soul, aren't you? If you are, you're wrong. I suggested that historical reasons (people believing in a soul time ago) caused the debate.

Now please explain to me how you think new physics can alter the approach to this debate.

My tone is just assertive: that's what I believe and I make no apologies for it. If you dislike what I say, please be more specifical about what exactly troubles you instead of making a vague criticism in my general direction.

Edit: oh, and one more thing. Your last comment qualifies my argumentation but you don't answer a single point of what I wrote.
One of my favorite games as well. Pleasantly surprised when there was a Swedish iOS app for kids with similar concepts, Pettson och Findus uppfinningar, that my five year old nephew showed me.
I think anyone that has waited for hot water to get to the tap understands this. Pressure (voltage) transmits at the speed of sound (light). The speed of the particles through the medium, on the other hand, depends on many factors.
This is the correct way. In the water analogy, the circuit is a closed system and components are completely filled with water at all times. For example, the capacitor is a filled sphere with a rubber divider. The total amount of charge/water is constant, but you can change how it is divided between the two plates by an applied voltage/pressure.
> What's amazing is that, prior to that article, I had no idea that collision avoiding system at high speed would ignore any stationary object, even if it's right in front of you... This changes dramatically how I'll perceive such assisted technology from now on.

Yeah, they all put it in the manual, but who reads those?
> What is 'consciousness'?

It could be just experience, and different synonyms for that word (sensing, feeling, measuring, knowing etc.).
if we analyze things, we tend to categorize, but reality seems to be fluid like analog signals, you can't really tell were the boundaries are, maybe because they don't really exist. our minds are similar to digital aliasing, or steps (categories).

> Why isn't it acceptable to define consciousness as the operating instructions of the mind?

Maybe because consciousness isn't the right word, because in reality it would include "unconsciousness", or non awareness too. Your brain is an interpreter of "reality", and this might include stuff that isn't considered real. It might be just an extrapolation of reality, an intuition.

> This quickly leads to another linguistic quagmire called 'free will'. If we agree that everything in our heads is governed by the laws of nature, we can agree that there are one of two possible reasons for any 'decision' we make: it was facilitated by a direct cause or it was random. There can be no other actor.

I'd say experience and expectation based on experience. Experience is another of those words that can mean many related things. It could be something you have heard or seen, something like famliarity, or something that isn't based on your immediate interaction with the world. You could call it inputs.

> Assuming a direct cause following our operating instructions, does this mean that there is no free will? To answer that we have to open up the word 'choice'.

>Choice: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

You can relate this to experience (and it's synonyms). You can't choose something you're not aware of, or what you haven't sensed or measured in a way. If you jump straight ahead and make a choice quickly, or take your time to analyze is also based on "experience".

> You define 'decide' or 'choose' any way you want to. Tell me free will is real or fake. I don't care. All I know it there are no external actors in my head and things are either 100% predictable or random. Everything else here is a very roundabout argument about the way we use English. Boring.

It's all relative, free will is reducible based on experience and situation, position, options etc.

You act or choose based on what you think is best, and this could just mean what's best for you based on your experience, or just what feels comfortable and easy and is the nearest thing you can grab.
> There is no-one more religious than the militant atheist. It's funny how they never look in the mirror.

Could you be more specific? Of course a serious atheist and a serious believer are going to have something in common; for example the ability to be serious about stuff. What else?

> Consider that broadly-similar religions tend to emerge spontaneously among cultures that have no contact with each other.

Yes, "broadly". Some things seem to be common among humans, for example propensity for magical thinking. Some things seem to be necessary for a functioning society, for example a rule that an average person is not allowed to kill random people on a random day. Taken together, many cultures will have rules like "if you kill random people, you will be magically punished".

But still a lot of freedom remains. There are religions that forbid you from killing anyone ever, even in self-defense. There are religions that say killing is okay only when your boss says so (e.g. war, death penalty). And there are religions that require regular human sacrifice. There are also other differences, such as whether you have to cut away body parts of your children, etc. Or more subtle theological topics, such as whether it is okay to explore the laws of nature, because the laws of nature were created by god(s), and understanding the work of god(s) better is desirable; or whether the idea of a "law of nature" is itself a blasphemy, because it limits the sovereignty of god(s).

> a belief system is an inherent psychological need in humans.

People have a need for certainty; some of them greater, some of them smaller. I agree that those with the strong need can easily switch from traditional religions to... almost anything.

I don't know. Maybe this need can be overcome by upbringing and education; maybe some fraction of population (maybe even majority) will necessarily always be "believers" in some sense. But in a sufficiently civilized society, perhaps there could be some kind of "secular organized stuff" that would fulfill this desire. This just suggests that religion cannot be removed blindly, without leaving a proper substitute for people who psychologically need one.

I mean, what exactly is the content of that psychological need? A certainty of opinion; a message of hope; a goal that transcends an individual life? For certainty of opinion, provide a simplified explanation of all known science (high-quality popular science with good rhetoric available freely for everyone); for message of hope, provide existing good news (reduction of poverty during the last century, technological progress) and detailed information of people and groups who try doing good things (kinda like TED Talks); for a transcending goal, eradication of poverty or diseases etc. The idea is that you can fulfill this need without having to resort to lies or supernatural explanations. Someone just has to actually do it; otherwise it will not exist.
Japanese is a race.
Then why the expression of freedom-as-defined-by-RMS is that I shouldn't use Github? I think Lubos is right.
The price leveled out, the last few years of employee options expired out of the money. New employees got stock grants instead and the stock was stagnant in a narrow range for a decade.
https://www.failory.com/ collects startup founders' failure stories. For me personally it was luckily only domain and some hosting costs. The biggest investment was and will be time spent (opportunity cost to work or freelance on other projects).
Which makes the point just fine, when you compare the U.S's 326 million to the EU's 508 million.
Engineer Guy (a fantastic YouTube channel for learning how things work) has an audiovisual curriculum for this book.

http://www.engineerguy.com/faraday/
Replace the word freedom with liberty, and suddenly it doesn't sound as strange. Why is that?

And it happened to be that RMS wanted to use liberty rather than freedom, but US politics already associate the word liberty with a specific political platform and RMS wanted people from all side of the political spectrum to join the movement. Thus he used the non-identical-but-similar word "freedom" over "liberty".

If he had just called it the libre software movement from the beginning then maybe we would see less discussion about the true definition of freedom.
> Still, you would think that there would be some threshold where the car decides, "Hey, this stationary obstacle is right in front of me. I should slow down"

I think there is, it's just that by the time it reaches that threshold, the distance to obstacle is less than the stopping distance for the car at 60+ mph. A human making that judgment might steer around the obstacle, but AEB systems don't have that option.
C++ also has references, which are like pointers in some ways, except that references cannot be null:

Object& obj = other_obj;

For this reason, when passing objects by reference, references should be preferred to pointers where possible. Consequently, I would translate Java code like:

void f(Object obj) { ... }
Object obj = ...
f(obj);

Into C++ code like:

void f(Object& obj) { ... }
Object& obj = ...
f(obj);

(Setting aside various other concerns like move semantics and const-correctness.)
I have one bit of constructive criticism for you. Every single Major/Minor scale should have exactly one each of ABCDEFG, so that written music makes sense — each line/space corresponds to a "letter", and the key signature tells you how sharp/flat that "letter" is. The tool gets this wrong for example in C# major, where you should have the 3rd step be E# instead of F, and the 7th step to be B# instead of C. A particularly pathological case is D# major, where almost all notes are misnamed — You should have D# E#, F##, G# A# B# C##.
Ideological and nationalistic flamewar aren't allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and don't do it again.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17274714 and marked it off-topic.
Quite a non-sequitor
Supposedly automated braking is only in effect when the "driving assustance package"* is enabled in Teslas.

*autopilot
In Italy as well

But for all the wrong reasons
This would be a lot more accessible if you could 'strum' the strings with the mouse cursor while you had different chords selected.