skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
There have been impressive advances in Computer Vision; they're just an outgrowth of the work that produced JPEG, rather than of the work that produced Lisp machines and expert systems.

It's often said that we tend to take AI that really works and call it something else, but we also tend to call whatever is current and somewhat succesful (fuzzy logic, etc.) "AI".
Touch screens are a really great idea for voting.

No really.

https://twitter.com/The_UnSilent_/status/1059962688338583554

</sarcasm>
It's essentially a recasting of Bell's Theorem; in that sense it's both interesting and surprising if you thought that local hidden variables might still explain quantum theory. All you need - for both this and Bell's proof - is that directions are chosen with sufficient "randomness" or "freedom" so as to be considered independent of their past light cones. At least, independent enough so that the previously quoted step is possible.
Yes, I agree that is one model, but what I wrestle with ultimately I suppose is whether indeterminism per se is what defines free will, in part or whole. If you have a prior state that is in part systematic, and part random, is the randomness per se free will? Does that encapsulate the notion of free will? Maybe? But both of those are still causally deterministic in a sense, in that even with randomness, there's some point at which the random components of the system causally impinge on the systematic part.

I think at some point notions of intervention or change become critical. So, for example, I think implicit in the idea of free will is the idea that an individual can freely choose to change their decision in some repeatability sense, and this change cannot necessarily happen in any other way, such as from outside influence.

Just to make it clear, let's say there's two choices or choice types, A and B. A is "bad" and B is "good," in whatever sense (utilitarian, moral, whatever).

Key to the notion of free will it seems is that one could change, of their own volition, their choice, from A->B or B->A. In practice we can't rewind time or transport to possible worlds in a counterfactual sense, but we do talk about decisions as interchangeable and repeatable. E.g., someone can choose whether or not to take a drug at one point, and then, at a later point, choose again whether or not to take the drug. In one metaphysical sense, those decisions are not the same because circumstances have changed, but we treat them as the same.

I think the idea of free will is that someone could change their decision, to an extent that another person could not. That is, I cannot make you change your choice, only you can.

This is fine at some level, but what if someone wants to change their mind but cannot? E.g., a drug addict or someone trying to lose weight? What about something simpler, like decision under a lapse in attention? How do we define volition or lack thereof?

Or, maybe more importantly, let's say the external individual in question is omniscient. If an omniscient external individual cannot alter your behavior, why would you hold that individual responsible in a free will sense? That is, let's say someone truly wants to change, but an omniscient being could not even help and change them. Why should the non-omniscient individual seeking change be held responsible?

This is all stream-of-consciousness, but I think at some point the notion of free will starts to lead to counterintuitive problems and/or becomes very poorly definable. At some level I suspect it implies not only autonomy but complete agency, which is suspect.
One in Milan https://www.google.it/maps/@45.480752,9.2227599,3a,75y,111.4...

there are a load there with lights, tram crossing it straight, pedestrian crossing that aren't on a road crossing etc. makes for some fun time crossing one at peak hour, it's not weird at that time to get stuck in one for 10 minutes or more.
Great idea. Details about how it works would be nice.
... spies that western countries don't like.
It is not a solution indeed. It's what happens now. Marijuana legalization, computer games and so on.
The manual for the original Nintendo Entertainment System said "Do not operate continuously for more than 15 minutes."

Sometimes legal departments force them to include those recommendations in order to err on the side of "absurdly overcautious." And sometimes the recommendations are merely prudent! I'm not saying you can wait longer, just that installers may have a motivation to exaggerate.
I agree, but it's important to note that many people don't vote in the US because they simply don't have the time to leave work/school and go to a polling place, or won't get paid for it if they do [1]. More mail-in ballots could potentially alleviate this, but a lot of people prefer to vote in person. Also due to our two-party system, gerrymandering, and the way congress works, many people don't vote because they feel it doesn't make a difference, not because they are poorly informed.

A broad approach of better voter education, a national holiday on election day, and replacing FPTP with something else that actually favors more than two parties (I like STAR myself) is needed in the US.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/06/us/politics/election-day-...
You also can't use a placebo for euthanasia, it doesn't work. You also can't suicide by overdose with a placebo. (plot point in a short story I drafted a while ago).
I believe they're referring to the fact that vim + the OS itself (generally some flavor of *nix) can do whatever an IDE can do. From a terminal, one can call vim, gdb, valgrind, navigate file trees, utilize grep for searching codebases for a string, and so on.
On an optically isolated (phyiscally receive only) server which only receives codes sent from the application servers.

> Also, you think this system is sufficiently secure to secure access to trillions of dollars? Because that is what elections are about.

More secure than Diebold machines to be certain.
There's also a number of projects that it's super easy to do like 83% of.

A couple of ambitious college students could make a basic web crawler and search engine using 2018 technology and not even that many cloud resources and get like 80% of Google's quality. But that doesn't mean they're only another long weekend from being the next Google: closing the gap really does require millions of manhours and billions of dollars of compute.

(And their web crawler would be causing chaos and destruction across the web, but let he who has not accidentally deleted someone's will by crawling all the "delete this article" links cast the first stone.)
Both of your comments are arguing against strawmen. You're the only one calling them evil. You're also the only one talking about the boys-only aspect of it when it's clear that the problems the other commenters have with it are that it discriminates against atheists and homosexuals. Do better.
You’re still just focused on specific examples of influence. What about TV (kids shows, adverts, etc) or stories? What about what kids see when out and about (eg these kids will notice other people in shops). And I very much doubt the only children they ever play with are those who’s parents are lesbians. What about other forms of day care, soft play centres etc. Or other friends who aren’t lesbians? Or other family? There's going to be a thousand places that kids will take their cues from.

Kids notice so much detail that we often miss. And the absorb it all. Before my kids went to school they would still continually surprise me with little bits of information on topics that I have no idea how he learned it. Yet they did.

However I’m not in anyway implying that a child’s behaviour is 100% down to nurture. Clearly there is going to be a biological element as well. My point was what a child likes isn’t so Boolean as people often assume.
So basically homeopathy?
Thank you so much for doing this.
There might not be an actual list, it's a common idiom. A way to say "I won't spend the effort to classify it precisely, but it definitely wouldn't be below 10th place."
Seriously.

It's universally established and accepted that placebo is a legitimate medical effect. That's one of the major purposes of control groups and double blind studies: many medicines don't make it to market because they have a positive effect LESS than placebo.

Clickbait more and more out of NYT. What a world.
Writing Network Drivers in Go [pdf]
Could the Monero system be modified to create a voting system that maintains the secret ballot? From an engineering perspective, It seems like the currency and monetization aspects be pulled out/minimized and the untraceable transactions aspect used to record votes.
> "The $34 billion success has nothing to do with me. I will take some credit for spotting the initial opportunity. The actual execution of that opportunity, the credit goes to much smarter guys than me."

I respect Young for such an honest attribution.
Thank you for this. I bought a lot of old electric devices in an auction and finally figured out what the last one was a few weeks ago. It was a potentionmeter. What confused me was the wood case it came in. The only example I could find was in the radio museum's website. Reddit's what is this thing subreddit identified it for me, but I was looking to learn more about it.

It is a gorgeous piece from the early 1900s and shows the craftsmanship that went into these earlier devices.

I appreciate you sharing this information.
Almost ... but I use Notepad++ instead of Vim. And I had to implement the search for the first and the last character in a line according to the layout. It took me about 10 minutes :)
It depends if your discuss the issue purely on philosophical terms or based on physics.

In classical physics a closed system is purely determined by its initial state. So considering the universe as such a system, everything that is happening, including me typing this, is a deterministic and predictable function of the state of the universe at the big bang, and thus free will is an illusion.

In that sense, actual free will requires unpredictability in the physical world because free will is unpredictable behaviour. That's where quantum physics becomes crucial.
Smartphone voting is no more bad than absentee voting is for people who are actually in their voting area. We have/had people voting with absentee ballots who just didn't want to do early voting and stand in lines
so do it with the common cold or something equally untreatable/fairly harmless.

not that I was proposing such a study - I was asking if we have already done them and what the data says if we have.
this is great, thanks!
...and it doesn't address one of the key issues with votes being cast in places other than a booth in a polling station where you are alone: Coercion.

What's to stop a family member (OK, not much of an issue for overseas military personnel, one would think) or another person from hovering just outside the camera's capture area with a blunt object, ready to -ahem- influence your vote?

Granted, this would only affect individual votes; there are bigger potential issues with electronically tallying votes, but I'll leave those be...
1. All citizens aren't experts at auditing software, and won't be.

2. In order to achieve anything close to the same transparency as existing voting systems, you would have to open the operating systems of all chips on the devices, the firmware, and the chip design, and then enable any citizen to verify that the device they have in their hand actually was built from those sources.
> And all the "just use this thing that does exactly the same thing with a different name because I want indexing/length but also want to insist people don't call them that" is frankly pointless.

Array index syntax over variable width data is problematic: either deceptively expensive -- O(n) for what looks like an O(1) operation -- or wrong. I suspect in that we agree.

As for the alternative, I'm talking about Tom Christiansen's argument here: https://bugs.python.org/msg142041

To paraphrase Tom's examples, this usage of array indexes is more idiomatic...

s = "for finding the biggest of all the strings"
x_at = s.index("big")
y_at = s.index("the", x_at)
some = s[x_at:y_at]
print("GOT", some)

... than this, which the Python community would never adopt:

import re
s = "for finding the biggest of all the strings"
some = re.search("(big.*?)the", s).group(1)
print("GOT", some)

The first involves more logical actions indexing into the string. If those operations are both O(1) and correct, then that's not a serious problem, which is what justifies the Python 3.3+ design.

However, in terms of language design for handling Unicode strings, I prefer the tradeoffs of the second idiom: a single O(n) operation which is relatively easy to anticipate and plan for, rather than unpredictable memory blowups.
While I agree with your overall argument regarding the overflow of issues and ignorance of their particulars, I have to disagree with your view on abstinence from voting being some sort of error prevention. By that measure, there is a right and wrong, then inherently, whether you vote or not, allowing the “wrong” choice to be made is an “error”.
Photopea exists for five years, and it was only in the last year, when Google started to place Photopea in front of flash-based editors.
>I really think this, along with much philosophical musing about free will, is entirely missing the point. Pre-determination is essential to free will.

Causal chains are required for free will to make sense, but causal chains do not require robust pre-determination. We regularly simulate causal chains that make a narrative sense and are predictive, but only within complexity limited bounds, without the infinite precision needed for robust pre-determination.
> On an optically isolated (phyiscally receive only) server which only receives codes sent from the application servers and produces results.

And how does it count votes per candidate then?

> Yes. More secure than Diebold machines to be certain.

That seems very questionable.
> Python 3 internally uses ASCII, UCS2 or UCS4 for its strings depending on which is most space efficient but still capable of representing the string.

UTF8 is as efficient as ASCII in the ASCII range, and more than or as efficient as UCS4 beyond the BMP.

The only iffy point is the U+0800 ~ U+FFFF range: Samaritan script to the end of the BMP, which mostly affects extremely contents-dense (mostly text, little to no markup) asian, and native scripts, as well as a few african ones.
I think because the US only just started adding them, and various other intersection experiments, it will take us some time to become fully comfortable with them.

My wife's family comes from a small town outside of a small town in Louisiana and I remember when they opened the traffic circle there [1], the entire town hated it because they had never in their lives had such bad traffic, because no one knew how to use a yield sign -- stop meant stop, no sign meant yield, but now there is a new triangular stop sign, what the hell man.

Now days though, it flows amazingly, but it took close to a decade. I'm sure it will still improve over time, but now that the entire population has used it, they get it.

1: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1609199,-93.267374,121m/data...
like needing to explicitly write a wrapper for the backwards calculation for custom layers, which you don’t need to do in Keras for example

Not sure I understand - you will need to write a backwards pass regardless if you use Keras, PyTorch, or anything else. With Keras, you would need to modify the underlying backend code (e.g. with tf.RegisterGradient or tf.custom_gradient). With Pytorch you write the backward() function, which is about the same amount of effort.
The old-world charm of India's photo studios
Many politicians the world around would characterize government handouts the same way, government enabling morbid obesity. And yet, is there some fundamental objection you have to educating women or providing mosquito nets? Dying to malaria does not seem a good rock-bottom to let people hit, if we can provide them cheap nets.
Suppose you're told that somebody has halved an apple and put the two pieces in separate boxes. You are given a box, and the other is sent to a friend on the other side of the planet, who phones you when it arrives.

You both open the boxes and describe what you see. "Oh my half has the stalk", "oh, mine doesn't". "I see 5 pips", "so do I". There are a bunch correlated (and anti-correlated) observations about the two halves.

Nothing surprising about this.

The quantum equivalent seems to work the same way at first glance. However on closer inspection there are some weird correlations that suggest that:

* The apple wasn't cut in advance, but the two halves were created and put in the box just before they were opened.

* Or maybe the apple was cut in advance, but somehow the person cutting knew what observations I would make ('I have the stalk').

* Or maybe the boxes were never separated but remained paired in 5-d space and only on opening did the apple split.

* Or maybe I messaged the apple-cutter back-in-time to say what I would do.

* Or something else.

My box is so remote from the other relativity (and practicality) surely means I'm causally independent of the other box. And I got to chose my observations freely, nothing influenced me. And yet we know one - or both - of these can't be true.

The mention of free-will in the paper is a bit cheeky, really.

IIRC in the literature 'parameter-independence' and 'outcome-independence'have been to used to name the sort of factors that feel bad to violate (did I have a free choice about what to observe?) verses supposedly more innocuous quantum magic.
Is this person planning on releasing their findings soon?
I'm in favor of ditching Columbus day and replacing it with November 6th as a national holiday for that reason.
A "local government dictator" could smuggle in bad actors just as easily as a party ticket. Either way, you're outsourcing the decision to someone other than yourself, and hoping that the checks on them (you could oust the local dictator, and the republicans want to keep you happy enough to not vote for the democrats) will be enough to keep them honest.
Got it, seems like you plan to keep misrepresenting my words instead of explaining your own. Nobody deplatformed 800k Gab users and I didn't call them jerks (I'm sure there are all kinds). They deplatformed Gab's jerk founder/operators who specifically marketed to dangerous crazies, including by bragging about profiting from a tragedy. Anyone who has a problem with that has every right to sever ties. Gab's users have alternative homes on 4chan and Reddit, or the next platform which prioritizes diverse expression without marketing to hate so actively that upstream providers stop doing business with them.

As for the article, I obviously disagree that it was well reasoned, but I regret implying that the author is foolish. The point of the ocean metaphor is that you can't and shouldn't try to stop people from making their own choices about whom to associate with - which is what you are doing when you say all views are entitled to an audience. I've dug in with you on this thread because I think that "free speech = free audience" is a potentially attractive fallacy that risks degrading both individual rights and tractable notions of free speech.

But at this point it looks like we're done talking to each other, and nobody else cares about this thread. Nuff said.
An Ode to the Traffic Circle
Elf Commerce, an Open Source Ecommerce Dashboard. ReactJS and ExpressJS
> And how does it count votes per candidate then?

Codes can be simply be computed as HMAC(secret key, SIN + candidate) or something similar, the user and any attacker without the secret key just has a random string of bits.

You do realize votes are tallied by computer currently, right? Most of these just rely on phone-based systems that often expose interfaces to news orgs and such. The sort of interface I'm talking about would actually lead to less exposure in many ways from a security standpoint.
I agree this is far from the primary thing Americans should be focusing on, even forgetting about all the horrific and completely impossible to fix security issues that this will bring.

What the US needs to be focusing on is changing the voting system. It's absolutely insane and undemocratic for this to keep happening almost every election:

https://preview.redd.it/lyvqks420vw11.jpg?width=949&auto=web...

If this isn't a broken system, I don't know what is. This is not the "voice of the people" being heard. Oh, and what do you think happens when people see how broken this system is? Do you think they'll still "go out and vote"? Many will be turned-off by it and stay home, whether we like it or not.

And if you're looking for an alternative solution, the multi-winner ranked-choice voting system (for Congress/state legislatures) looks pretty good to me, and it would eliminate gerrymandering, too (as a simple side effect of allowing candidates from multiple parties to win in the same district, thus removing district monopolization by a single party):

https://www.fairvote.org/fair_representation
You're supposing good faith on the part of charity. Maybe their purpose is to enslave africa while supporting corruption in their home country
But note that the full ownership model is not exposed in Swift. It is only present in the Swift Intermediate Language (1) - an intermediate language used by the Swift compiler to perform diagnostics and Swift-semantic aware optimisations before emitting LLVM IR bit code.

It is likely that more ownership features will be added to the Swift language, but it is out of scope for the next major version as you can see on this dashboard: https://swift.org/abi-stability/

(1) https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/master/docs/SIL.rst
Sadly this is an honest question - what if you're still running Struts 1?
No conversation needed. If people can't seem to figure it out, they're the sort that won't want to talk about it. See the aforementioned western taboo around discussing such things.

If they do figure it out, folks are generally eager to ask about where they can get one.
I love these types of tools and used to be a grammarly subscriber. Unfortunately my current employer has strict rules on using saas apps for work documents. Any chance this tool could be embedded as a chrome extension? Most of the writing I do is on Self hosted editors such as quip, jira, wikis. For most of my other writing such as email, readmes, and code comments I'd be willing to hop back and forth to the extension

As writing is a core component of my job as a software engineer - but not a core competency. there is a direct value proposition in tools that enhance my writing ability.