skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I don’t think we need decentralization as much as we need curated platforms. Facebook is useless because the village idiot gets more say than the scholar, and that makes the content stupid.

Addictive, sure, but stupid. Ultimately that leads for smart people to leave, making the content dumber by the day. You can argue that the same thing happened to Usenet during eternal September, and you would be correct.

HN is so valuable because it’s curated by its users, and so far, they prefer intelligent content, but just imagine what would happen if HN had its own eternal September and all of reddit decided to visit. I mean, /r/technology wasnt always the political battleground it is now, and /r/programming wasn’t always teenagers arguing about what language will replace what.

When you allow everyone to speak on equal terms, all you get is squabbled noise, and it’s often dominated by the people with the most free time, and those typically are the people with the least to contribute.

Of course the internet hasn’t had a great deal of luck with curated forums either. Especially not if it didn’t want them to be echo chambers. But I suspect the first technology or media house, or perhaps library, that manages to make a curated forum for intelligent content and debate will have a lot of followers. Because all those platforms we no longer use, like Usenet, were actually really good, until they were ruined by the noise.
> This outlook, along with "well if I don't do it someone else will anyway", is why tech workers are quickly becoming the new bankers in the view of the public.

Which really annoys me, because while moral indifference of some tech workers is wrong, there are still the business guys actually giving the immoral orders. Those are conveniently forgotten in the new narrative.
Property rights including intellectual property rights don't attach to the tools used to create them. This is why your drawings aren't copyright bic and bram moolenaar isn't a billionaire.

What property rights do attach do is clearly peoples physical property with precedent going back thousands of years before we dreamed of copyright. By extension the files on said property ought to be secure against vandalism courtesy of more recent rules.

Believing that a running application on another persons computer transforms their physical property into your property requires magical thinking. The IP right is an orthogonal issue that has no bearing on their right to their own machine and their own files.

Its as if you stole my pen and went on to write a manuscript and I broke into your house and burned it.

Both acts are orthogonal and the ethics don't intersect in the wholly magical way you imagine. I would owe you one pen or the money to buy one and I would owe you for your manuscript plus owe the country for the crime of breaking and entry or in this case inappropriate access to a computer.
The TRUTH Behind the Highest Valued Private Company in the World: UBER
But using OP's idea, they could be reflected back at the earth, such that 2018 - 1942 = 2 x numLightYears away from the scattering object. I agree, you wouldn't be able to go "in front of the waves" but you might be able to go to a point in space where they'd eventually arrive through scattering. I think it's very unlikely anyways since the solid angle for them to be reflected right back at a certain point is super small.
To be fair, it is described as "Expires in 6 months" on the purchase page which makes it very unclear if the binary you downloaded is going to stop working. If it does stop working then it's not unlike subscription software.

I was actually vaguely contemplating purchasing it until that uncertainty made me think paying them might give me something worse than free (ie: something that would break at an inopportune moment in 6 months).
Based on an article, making all these speculations is not right. It could be very well for Azure/Cloud machines where there providing feasibility of temporary license or subscription model.
A (distributed?) search that crawls the federated network and indexes toots could be the killer feature that grows adoption. The search API could be seemlessly integrated into any mastodon client. Or does such a thing already exist? My short experience with it made it seem hard to find anything.
It's ugly and dated but I still love SquirrelSQL. (It's not PGSQL specific, but that's part of why I love it ...)
The problem with this advice and answer is that we are back to square one: pretty much anything can be explained away as a business requirement.
That's not ethical if it's a time&materials statement work agreement (because it's an estimate; if the actual work takes 10% over you bill that).

If it was a fixed-bid, then yeah it's completely fine. Though usually I'd say there should be a bit more time spent delivering some additional (canned) documentation and the like.
Uhhh, just because it's against the terms of service doesn't mean it's unethical.
Quickerhackgmail.com  i sell cvv fresh, paypal account with large balances,
quickesthacker@gmail.com is a professional hacking Service.
* Hack and UPGRADE UNIVERSITY GRADES
* Hack into FACEBOOK and EMAIL ACCOUNTS GMAIL, YAHOO, AND OTHERS
* I sell fresh Credit Card (CVV) Format is: |Card Number|Exp. Date|CVV|First Name|Last Name|Street|City|State|Zip Code|Country|Phone|Type Of Card|Bank Name| with high balance.
* LOAD BANK ACCOUNTS ANY AMOUNTS $$$$$$$$$$$ BANK LOGIN & ACCOUNT PAYPAL GOOD AND SAFE
* I DO Western Union transfer for you
* GET ATM CARD THAT GIVES YOU UNLIMITED Withdraw money from an ATM
* ERASE CRIMINAL RECORDS
* LOAD PAYPAL ACCOUNT WITH LARGE BALANCES.
* i sell cvv fresh, paypal account with large balances, bank transfer, dumps, dumps track 1/2 pin, wu transfer
contact us at: quickesthacker@gmail.com
The article's author David Gal claims that 'loss aversion' is a fallacy. But in the book Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman says that the following experiment demonstrates loss aversion.

-----

People are randomly given one of two problems:

Probem A: In addition to whatever you own, you have been given $1,000. You are now asked to choose one of these options: 50% chance to win $1,000 OR get $500 for sure

Problem B: In addition to whatever you own, you have been given $2,000. You are now asked to choose one of these options: 50% chance to lose $1,000 OR lose $500 for sure.

-----

According to Kahneman, many more people will take the gamble when it is framed as potential win (Problem A) rather than as a potential loss (Problem B).

So is Gal saying this experiment is not reproducible or that it doesn't demonstrate loss aversion?
I was just starting out in my career and was more pre-occupied with the task at hand to have enough mental headspace to contemplate the full picture of what was happening. The system itself was designed by traditional software means: trial and error, trying to see what worked and didn’t, usually trying to maximize some KPI at the company. There was also the thought that punishment and reward should be applied fairly and be “data driven”; take the bias and human factor out of decisions and implement performance management in a predicable, deterministic and transparent way.

The problems arose when people realized that the same controls and abilities to instill this equity and “fairness” provided the platform to enable wide scale exploitation in the other direction. Want more profit? Change a variable that was a single number whose action would cause great stress for many people, but would produce a desired result. The goals and metrics would always start out resonable but eventually would cross a certain point, and once they did, there was no going back to the way things were.

Draw your own conclusions to the similarities in this system to our modern day technical web triumphs.
Yes, that‘s the reason - plus abusive admins enforcing their own ideological agenda in local groups wherever they could.

I don‘t really see a solution to the problem of decentralization being effectively anarchy with people having the means to do so abusing their power.
First i thought that this is scary but I've had many friends who told me that they they play games all day at their office and once boss called them in their cabin and they expected to be laid off but were given a small raise instead.

"I take lots of cigarette and bathroom breaks to fix my makeup/hair and Snapchat my friends. I can't see myself working hard. I am not a sheep". Those are the exact words.

This is a scene from a government organization in Romania.

Now, i am in the US and I've not witnessed it here but here i am in executive role so i hangout with different people.

I asked them why not do your job properly? They answered, if they are going to do their job then they'll most likely receive a promotion, raise and more responsibilities come with it. For them more money = more problem.

They told me that for them money does not matter and all they want is experiencing different cultures, traveling etc... and work has no place in it.

This is something I had never heard before!

They somehow managed to rationalize not performing their jobs.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17286770

Has a bunch of comments by the author.
Nice catch. That dot is surprisingly small to have caused so much hoopla, but I guess it makes sense when you think about it.
The main thing you're missing is that the official story of the "justice system" is a fairytale. Once you're in its sights, their literal day job is to make your life hell. They get paid to do this and go home at 5, while you pay for and live it.

Presently its damages are externalities paid for by a fucked-up reverse lottery that we're all playing, most blissfully unaware. A significant fix would be to make the state responsible for the entire cost of all defense, days spent in a cage or court, any bail fees, and emotional distress. Having to pay compensation for their "mistakes" would obviously further increase the scumbags' perverse incentive to obtain convictions/pleas. But you'd hope after they had paid out enough for persecuting frivolous cases, budgetary constraints would necessitate a bit of downsizing.
The relevant question is surely how much of the game is strategy, and how much is reaction time and twitch motor skills.

I mean, "human vs AI" matchups are ostensibly about strategy - machines already win at timing and twitch, there's nothing to test. But esports games aren't pure strategy, they all involve various amounts of timing, twitch skills, the ability to monitor lots of details at once, etc. Those are all things that AI opponents can (trivially) do perfectly, which gives the AI a huge advantage. It then follows that an AI player should be able to win even with an inferior strategy (which makes you wonder if these games are really suited to AI research in the first place?).
Indeed, I rented a high-CPU DigitalOcean VPS to do it.
Last week I was in the field digging dinosaurs in Montana, when one of the dig leaders mentioned there was no grass back then, just lots of ferns, because grass hadn't evolved yet.

It kind of blew my mind that for most of dinosaurs, there was just a lot of leafs and ferns.

Here's some pictures for context (https://imgur.com/a/rE5wwc4), when you're out where most dino bones are found, you forget that it may have been a lush landscape of riverbeds approaching the ocean coastline, or that it may have been a dry arid desert landscape like in the land before time movies. Regardless, it's odd to imagine all of it, with no grass.
The setup effort was no more than setting up WhatsApp today. You downloaded a client and chose a few groups to participate in. Some browsers even had clients built in.
The creator himself had posted this earlier at HN.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17286770
How about compared to red? That might suggest whether exikyut's experience (red-seeing eye more light-sensitive than blue-seeing eye) is coincidence or related.
> The MAC is just an example. You need some way to block someone abusing your connection.

You're thinking like a sysadmin. Think like an organization.

Compare the situation where you have a public space where everyone is welcome except Bob, because when Bob was there in the past he caused trouble and was asked never to come back.

You don't have to post guards checking ID because Bob knows he's not invited and the laws against trespassing deter him from showing up.

> The context we started with is wifi open to the public. You've never met your users and you may never see them (directional antenna from a distance), so the legal name is not useful either.

Seeing isn't required for telling. If you have the legal name, why can't you send a certified letter telling them they're not allowed to use your network anymore, then if they continue you call the police?
Not my area of expertise, but based on what I've read, you general try to get as close as possible through pure mappings, and then use rejection sampling to throw out the samples that don't fall under the desired distribution. This can work even if the distribution is dynamically changing.
> shibboleth to identify

Exactly. And it sickens me. I'd like the resumes to be scrubbed, zero knowledge of the school someone went to. I see dynamic programming problems used for the same, either you have had them in an academic setting or you probably going in blind.

A more humane and useful questions starts off easy, if they get that, add in extra conditions to make it more difficult and extract more signal. Almost any easy questions can from duh to omg in a handful of criteria.
Watching YouTube from the New Horizon space craft would really suck. It’s 11.5hr round trip latency and the bandwidth is way worse than dialup!
I think you're looking at things with a sort of hindsight bias. Victory at chess was at one time considered to be the indicator of the emergence of true 'intelligence' in computing. The reason is that it's an extremely open, creative, and strategic game spattered with a minefield of tactical nuance. Nobody, human or computer, is getting even remotely close to scratching the depth of the game from a numeric point of view. There are some specifics on the numeric complexity of the game here [1].

The reason I point out the unfathomable numeric complexity is that it makes the games, from the perspective of an AI, effectively infinite. AIs are calculating, but to an extremely superficial degree relative to the depth of the game. E.g. - when a chess program says it's calculated to 30 ply (15 moves for both sides) what it really says is that it's seen up to 15 moves deep after intentionally ignoring or pruning 99.9999999999% of moves which it thinks probably aren't good -- something it still often gets wrong, but its 'understanding' of what is 'not wrong' is strong enough that it still results in a phenomenally strong level of play, compared to humans. There's no doubt that perfect play in chess would still go 1 billion - 0 against something like AlphaZero.

So what matters is not the number of decisions to be made but the individual complexity of the decisions to be made. And in most games we consider complex the individual decisions are not really that complex, and complex systems can often be broken down into very simple games. For instance a great example of this is a 4x game. Taken as a whole they seem complex, but they're really just a large number of relatively simple components that are mostly independent. E.g. - Given this state, where do you explore next? Given this state, what do you research next? Etc. Another benefit for AIs in that in games we consider more complex, the value of any given mistake often becomes diminished. If you make a single bad move in chess, it's enough to lose the game. In a 4x game the weight of individual decisions is not so high, it's all about the big picture. But as perhaps computer success in Go shows most clearly, actually seeing the big picture is not really necessary to produce play like you do.

This, I think, is why research has moved more onto real time competitive games. Crushing humans at chess, go, and now poker as well is a pretty solid proof of concept for computers beating humans at any turn based game. When you start adding bunches of different layers to games I think it's more likely to handicap the human than the computer. Imagine playing some sort of 100x100 chess. We can only speculate, but I imagine the distance between the top AIs and humans would be far greater than it is in 8x8 chess.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number
Very unlikely indeed. I wish I was smart enough to do the math but I'm sure it's more difficult than resolving a planet 50k light years away. Probably more like resolving a planet in another galaxy.
Why do the articles on the site require sign up to read? prime example of friction stopping the web from being decentralized.
I want to second the other response seeking elaboration. Will I need to read Newton? That sounds so fascinating.

And to your reasoning for it’s importance, it’s quite optimistic to think it would have made a.difference but nonetheless every bit would have been worth the effort. What a nightmare!
Ask HN: Where do save your source code on desk?
Under which directory do you keep your source code? And any benefits of keeping it under that path?
Show HN: Non-deterministic turing machine in Python
Lots of mosses though? I imagine more primitive vegetation filled that role.
You can see what forests might have looked like 100mm years ago by going to New Zealand, which split off from the Australian landmass about that long ago.

The native flora consists of a lot of ferns, and almost entirely evergreen plants. Flowers are uncommon and primitive, most plants are pollinated and spread by birds. The only native grasses are tussocks.
> There isn’t any such thing as a “value type instance”

Hmm..

"An instance of a class is traditionally known as an object. However, Swift structures and classes are much closer in functionality than in other languages, and much of this chapter describes functionality that applies to instances of either a class or a structure type. Because of this, the more general term instance is used."

and

"Structure and Class Instances"

..

"Structures and Enumerations Are Value Types

A value type is a type whose value is copied when it’s assigned to a variable or constant, or when it’s passed to a function.

You’ve actually been using value types extensively throughout the previous chapters. In fact, all of the basic types in Swift—integers, floating-point numbers, Booleans, strings, arrays and dictionaries—are value types, and are implemented as structures behind the scenes."

https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/LanguageGuide/ClassesAndSt...

> “references shouldn’t be different depending on their type.”

You are confusing the type of the variable with the type of the object/value contained in the variable. A static type system is there to ensure that the type of the variable matches the type its contents.
I wonder what bumping into someone through time feels like.
You tell the cop there's a problem with the simulator. He sits down. You point out that other driver just ran a red light. He gives chase on the simulator. You walk away. Sorted.
Briar seems interesting (https://briarproject.org)
"It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life."
Free air-con and free water. In HK, some subdividing landlords charge tenants for electricity for ~10x the price of the power company, which really should be made an illegal practice.
Hm, I don't quite understand. Caching, for example, seems like it's pretty hard to construe as business logic, at least under my definition above.

Suppose you have an HTTP server that caches the past N documents it's seen in memory and otherwise uses the OS to retrieve the file. But a consumer doesn't care about how the document was found, it just cares about the document.

In this example you might say that the caching mechanism needs to be tested also. I'd agree that you should test the mechanism, but this does not necessarily mean that you need to test its functions: you could construct a variety of tests using just the `get(...)` function or whatever faces the consumer, and test sequences that you think might produce a bad response, which was in turn produced by a bad cache. The internal mechanism is probed by the tests, but in a way that assumes no knowledge of its guts and would therefore still work if this caching mechanism were removed or replaced.
Fiction with Primer-style travel solves for this -- you travel to where-when the machine was when it was started.
Dunno! I think most larger dinosaurs then needed larger sources of energy. Look at the teeth of an ankylosaur or most ceratopsians - they're designed to chomp and scissor through large leafy kale.
I think this is the part people forget too often about the "two system" theory written about in "Thinking Fast and Slow".

You can improve your System 1 responses, and there's a decent amount of the book that talks about all the ways System 2 post-hoc justifies the System 1 response, so it's not like System 2 is always going to be better.

Having a good System 1 response is a much clearer way to arrive at a solid decision than only hoping your System 2 is going to catch all of your biases.

Not trying to train your System 1 is, in my opinion, lazy. There are no "fast" or "slow" thinkers (we're all both), just people who have trained their System 1 and people who don't take the time (people with disorders notwithstanding).
I recall this series as well (in a dark green plastic case?), and the closest experience I’ve come across as an adult has continuously been the Smithsonian Natural History museum. Every era is captured in a different exhibit.
AWS CodeBuild Custom Notification Messages
> One McRefugee renting a subdivided flat in To Kwa Wan, Hung said, told volunteers that her landlord charged her HK$16 for a unit of electricity, compared to about HK$1.10 charged by the city’s two main power suppliers.

Sounds like they're trying to peg the HKD to the USD Silver Unit[1][2][3].

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coinage_Act_of_1792#Authorizat...
[2]https://silverprice.org/silver-price-per-ounce.html
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Silver_Eagle

edit: I can't help but notice that 2.5g is the weight in silver of the old Liberty Disme that I pick up for about $1 (paper) when I feel like putting some silver into the local economy (used as 10c). A 'spot' of silver perhaps.
It is illegal, the government is just not very good at enforcing laws which protect the poor.
"Today nobody learning biology or medicine begins with Darwin, Galen, or Hippocrates. But economics and philosophy still expect their neophytes to read with care the scrolls of ancient dead white men as if their words had been written on clay tablets by the gods."

Philosophy is more of a dialogue with great minds of the past and present, rather than some kind of "advance" or "progress" of the kind idealized in some views of science.

If you want to engage in a dialogue, it would be a good idea to try to figure out what the other people in the dialogue thought and said.

If you're trying to make better predictions, create more accurate models of the world, or build better bridges, you might not care what anyone else thought or said except in so far as they help you with your project. But that's usually not what philosophers are after.

Also, if you are ignorant of philosophers of the past, you are likely to reinvent the wheel or get bogged down in issues already covered at length by minds far greater than your own.

Finally, reading, analyzing, and discussing the philosophers of the past is great training in philosophy. It is in some respects analogous to doing exercises in mathematics, or maybe participating in a programming contest.