skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
A couple of years ago, I needed to find a limo service for an old family friend, for a memorial service. It'd been some years, but I knew of and used to use one of the top two limo services in my metropolitan area. (In my area, in a perverse historical twist, a shared limo ride to the airport was substantially cheaper than a cab ride, as well as pretty much guaranteed timely as well as more comfortable.)

I'd heard that this was one business area where fly by night companies, and outright scammers, had been stuffing and, where possible, gaming search engine results -- meaning, given their market dominance, Google results.

I searched for the company -- mind you, a relatively large livery service with a diverse and well-heeled customer base, sure to still be in existence -- and sure enough, the search results were full of hits purporting to be them or part of them, or just playing on minor variations of their name. If nothing else, the phone numbers didn't look right to me as compared to my vague memory, formed back when people still dialed numbers.

Anyway, eventually I pulled out an old, physical yellow pages I'd been hoarding, looked them up in that, and called. They had changed that particular number, although not to something looking like one of the scam results. They had numbers from back when people faced in-state toll charges on phone calls, and since they covered an entire large metropolitan area, they had at that time registered numbers in several local exchanges, to make customer calls to them a local call (just pick the number having a local or non-toll exchange).

They still had the number from the yellow pages, though, assigned to an internal extension, and the person who answered took time out of their day to provide first rate customer service for the family friend.

The first rate service was still there. However, finding it through a Google search was a risky venture.

I'm not at all surprised that Maps contents is being exploited and gamed. I guess I'll hold on to that old yellow pages book a bit longer.
No, because I don't have a tablet. But even if I did, still probably not because sometimes it's easier to flip through notebook pages than scroll through a digital list of notes. But perhaps to a greater extent, the tactile response of writing on a screen is strangely just not satisfying to my brain like writing on paper, and that's something I can't explain rationally.
This 999999999 times over. Straight up Communism has been responsible for more deaths than Nazism. Both are bad ideologies for different reasons. The fact that many give communism and countries that still espouse its values (IE: China) a pass, while condemning Nazism are showing a very big double standard. Of course it becomes utter hypocrisy when a large group of (progressives) condemn Nazi's while wearing their communist logos, idealizing communist leaders etc.. Often many of them have never lived in or set foot in a communist country.

With the recent trend of banning speech you don't like/agree with under the guise of hate speech the west has opened up pandora's box for a similar thing. Sure what some people may say can be utterly repugnant, but what is happening today is similar in many ways to what happened with communist regimes. A few powerful individuals set the tone (replace the government with big tech and the media), they get the masses to do their bidding via propaganda, eliminating dissenting opinions (IE: Bans for things such as stating scientific facts on Twitter etc..) and crushing anybody who dissents from the narrative. The power goes to a few, and human nature in the form or greed, desire for power, ego etc. takes over in the leadership class.

It hasn't gotten to the point of murder in the west (yet), but looking at the progression it has already ratcheted up to violence.
If you need documentation for architecture, your architecture is complicated. Improve the architecture instead.
Personally, I'm not at all surprised something like this can exist. We know object-recognizing neural networks have issues like this, why shouldn't fingerprint readers? It seems obvious that advanced, semi-opaque maths like what's in a fingerprint reader will have strange and unpredictable failure modes.
You could try https://archbee.io
Using MAP and MRP to Manage Online Retail Prices
Doesn't sound like he's saying that. Sounds like he is saying the $35 model will work just fine. And it is already proven and produced on a mass scale.
I'm waiting for Apple to come out with a small version of the X, then I will switch for sure. I am really annoyed about this trend towards huge phones. I definitely regret getting the 8+.
Maybe "less sophisticated" is overreaction but I thought that because there is no dedicated hardware setup that can contribute to better accurarcy/security.
There was a 60 minutes from several years ago with her and a handful of others with this ability.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-gift-of-endless-memory/
What’s the connection to SRS?
What's almost equally amazing is the article actually includes the image it is discussing, rather than just some "artist's impression."
You might be right... the successful models seem to revolve around:

1. Open Source projects that are used by big companies that can't live without them.

https://opencollective.com/webpack

Webpack is a good example and received $500k per year in donations.

2. Open Source projects that are sponsored by big companies from the start (Kubernettes is an example).

3. OSS projects that are successful and receive contributions from bit companies like Amazon and other companies develop around the ecosystem.
There is most certainly a way to do 'incremental reading' in Anki, though it must be done manually. You can do virtually any type of reviewing in Anki with its high degree of customization.
That argument falls flat in two ways, first we are dealing with 12-13 digits so taking about infinity is silly.

Second, the standard model is simply the most ifnomation dense way of describing ~all known observations. Nobody thinks it’s truth just accurate. So, saying it overfits the data is fine, that’s how it’s constructed. Supplanting it needs to reduce the amount of information required to describe the model or similar amounts while being more elegant to call it progress.
they could just be saying LinkedIn because it's easier than saying they bought the number from some shady middlemen

What's the difference?
Nope, that has not been established.
>It then gets saved as PDF and shelved as an artefact that is disconnected from all the other architectures

Sounds like architecture to me. You're doing it right already!
> Also, objects are best when used to represent actual objects (i.e. collections of data rather than collections of functions).

This reminds me of a certain blog post about Java flavored OOP[1]

[1] https://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdo...
>Getting between 1% and 84% with differently phrased questions with different people doesn't mean that we can mash the results together and get some number in between.

First stating the range within the existing literature is useful and common practice, at least within academic article writing.

It also doesn't generally mean that any numbers mentioned in the article thereafter are derived by the author mashing the results together and getting some number in between, they are picked from the papers that are referenced at the bottom of the piece.

So here, the wider range is being pulled from one paper that is a wide historical review, the narrower range and estimates for amount of people who hear voices without a recognized mental illness, are pulled from another paper, also a review of existing literature, but one that narrows the scope to more recent research. And then the numbers in the article for the amount of people who link their voices to their God, is the subject of another paper.
I do a lot of Google Maps moderation and there’s a ton of bad changes being attempted every day. Honestly I’m amazed Google doesn’t bother to vet anyone really. Becoming a local guide is easy and not that difficult for a spam group to create enough fake accounts to get things pushed through. Just last night I caught the local Target that was reclassified as a “prison”.

What Google needs to do is lock information for verified businesses or businesses they’re directly scraping from the Corp location pages.
Send me your resume and github (i care about this more). tehlike @ gmail
Nice, just two dependencies!
If the code is generated from the diagrams, why check the code in at all? Feels akin to checking in the bytecode with your the java that generated it.
Good communication skills, eagerness to learn (engineering is a career not a job), some relevant experience with the stack we use. When I pick a specific candidate, I give them a personal assignment. The key is only one candidate gets this assignment. I think it’s incredibly rude of employers to give assignmennts that take 10+ hours to complete only to reject a candidate even though they did the assignment successfully. That’s why only one candidate gets the assignment: pass it and you’re hired, fail and we reject you
JavaScript – Loop of console.log causes out of memory
It’s still using UIWebView?!
For anyone trying to generalize Mr. Jayne's theory from an article or set of comments - I suggest that you definitely do not. Really, don't do that with anyone's theories, but instead READ THE BOOK.

The way that Jaynes "carves up consciousness" as Daniel Dennet puts it in one review, is very different than the way that a reflexive intellectual instinct would choose to. The taxonomy that Jaynes decides upon is distinctive from our mental reflexes, and not at all the same as what nearly everyone begins with.

I feel that this "Bicameral" consciousness discussion keeps reappearing on Hacker News in part because it is crucial for us to create a proper distinction between these terms - AI is rapidly going to become conscious in exactly the way Julian Jaynes suggests we became "conscious" and that consciousness is very much different than what we think it is (or must be) for AI to become generally aware of itself.

I suggest that anyone who is working towards AGI MUST discover the distinctions that Julian Jaynes made. That does not mean that his theory regarding our consciousness is correct, but merely that his ways of describing "self-awareness" or whatever other term could be applied is crucial to getting a grip on what the true mechanism of "the self" is in the truest engineering sense. That is to say, that if the "self" is the licensed self-aware driver of a vehicle and the engine and transmission is the remainder of cognition, than the order of development was actually from "self-driving car" into human driven vehicles - metaphorically speaking.

Basically, up until recently, we just DID, and in attempting to describe WHY we were forced to invent metaphor until collectively we were able to create the language necessary to actually BE self aware. Without the language, we actually were NOT self aware. We were self-driving cars with no human drivers. The human driver only arrived after there were ways of describing "him."
Yes this CPU gen falls right into the golden age of the great capacitor plague.
> For concurrency and multi-threading, I typically glue different logical components via message passing

There's a word for the programming paradigm where you glue logical components together via message passing...
Cause it’s socially acceptable to read bews multiple times a day in my browser tab as a form of mental rest from programming rather than getting up and walking around the office building every 45 minutes
Dupe: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/24/mps-seize...
> Well if the theory is bullshit then surely it does not actually help anyone understand religion?

Just because something might be "wrong" in its final conclusion, does not mean that it can't offer unique insights on its way of getting there.
An injury and the result of subsequent surgery left me with severe, chronic congestion. Actually, the injury just made the airflow uncomfortably asymmetric. It was the surgery that really stuffed things up.

I lost my ability to achieve "hyper-focus". I remember more than fondly how my body would gradually settle down and into it. I'd feel a "oneness" in my body and purpose, including and especially the air flowing in and out, through my nose.

It turns out, surgery of the nose and area is known for this. (And I sought out one of the top surgeons in my area.) Don't use it unless you really need to. And then, make sure you achieve truly informed consent, with your surgeon.

I would never choose elective surgery, i.e. a "nose job".
Is this technique supposed to be uncomfortable to do? I've come across this and tried it multiple times now and holding my breath is not particularly pleasant. I've seen this suggested to help one fall asleep but it's never helped me and my response is usually mild discomfort. Not sure if this is intended.
- Research software (e.g. scientific)
“Literature” is definitely not the opposite of “concise.”
First, converting light-years to a human-scale unit helps and impresses nobody.

Second, if you went to the trouble of looking up the number of miles in a light-year, at least commit to the task of impressing the reader with huge numbers and perform the multiplication: 1.06 quadrillion miles.

Third... Miles? Really?
This article seems to fit the template: Here are some abstract reasons why paradigm X is bad, and here is a class of problems that have a more straightforward solution in paradigm Y, therefore paradigm Y is better than X.

The real message here is that if you have a problem that nicely maps onto a relational database then use the database-like approach instead of OOP.

In my domain, I work on algorithms for a very specialized class of graphs whose structure and manipulation must obey a diverse set of constraints. I have tried implementing the core ideas using multiple popular paradigms but so far I did not find anything better than OOP.
Which is why I absolutely never let the words "free market" pass through my lips; instead I say I believe in "competitive marketplaces." (I actually read Adam Smith.) A market free to be dominated by thugs, doesn't freely admit new competitors, as he knew.
Ford say they want to do a lot of things. I'm sure some shareholders get excited from that. But how about execution ?

They acquired chariot 2 years ago. Why i don't hear massive PR about chariot's great success, great results ? How is it doing against it's competitors , let's say ridewithvia.com ?
The Unabomber carried out his bombing campaign because people were riding snowmobiles on his property
IMO China's success is quite belated. Much of the world was recovering from WWII with booming economies, and Asian economies especially saw rapid growth, hence the four Asian tigers as well. To the CCP's credit, they have managed to hold China together and given it stability when many have tried and failed for a century, and this I think is the greatest reason for China's success.

It's not possible to identify a unifying thread among countries that try to follow the WTO playbook that fail. Some fail because a totalitarian minority control a valuable natural resource. Some fail because of irreconcilable differences between nations (races) sharing the same political state. Still there are many other reasons.
There’s a long history of fingerprint identification in law enforcement. That’s a far bigger sample size than any academic study could hope for.

On the other hand, the issue here seems to be less about how unique fingerprints are, and more about how unique the machine’s reading of a fingerprint is. That has more to do with the machine than the biology.
I'm really skeptical of these sorts of memorization systems, not because I think they don't work (I think they do), but because I see it as a brain "hack" that goes against the grain.

What do I mean by this? I think of our memories as a kind of most-frequently-used (MFU) cache. We remember best when we use the information all the time. So when we use this sort of spaced repetition we're trying to artificially "warm up" the cache in our brains. We're not trusting our brains to remember the things that are most important in our lives.

If you're trying to learn a language, you should learn the way children learn their first language: by speaking. Talk to people in that language constantly. If you don't know anyone who speaks the language, what are you learning it for? If you really need to learn the language (for work?) then find somebody who speaks it and arrange to meet them for coffee on a regular basis.

If you're trying to memorize something else, such as theorems in math or standard library functions in a programming language, I'd advise against it. Learn the theorems by applying them and trying to prove stuff. Learn the library functions by doing actual programming.

In the long run, if your knowledge is situated within a context and connected to other things you know (because you learned by doing) then I believe you'll understand it much better. Memorizing by rote, out of context, will help you to recall facts which often don't have any meaning to you.
You don't necessarily have to do 4x4 to make this work. For example, I sometimes do 8x4 (I guess I count double-time) breath-hold. Or sometimes I do 4x1, where there's just a slight pause at the hold.

I think a big piece of breathwork is changing the focus of the conscious mind. When you're focused on your breathing and counting, you're not focused on whatever else is out there.

Play with it, find something that works for you.
I like to link our source code to enterprise architect so the sources you pull in a view are automatically populated based upon the source code. The eap can be checked in with the source to have an additional trigger to keep it updated. Also EA. can work with relative source code paths so others can use the same file. There is also a versioning system build in which works quite well. Some things I still dislike:

- Enterprise Architect is a great tool but produces diagrams that look dated. This means I sometimes copy in another tool for certain types of meetings that require fancy powerpoints (pitch like presentations, customers, ex. Management etc.

- if the source isn't there I create from scratch. I have to link post-source creation to update and link my diagrams to source code. I do not generate source code from enterprise architect because we do not work model based and usually my diagrams that I create in advance are not detailed enough to generate the source. (Nor should they be)

- Sometimes the right diagram type is just not there in EA. I created my own templates for our department with all AWS logos and services, Azure, docker, and many others. That's a pain..

* I work in a global enterprise. Size of source about 6 million LOC. EA does handle that without hickups.
Security researchers have busted the encryption in several Samsung SSDs
What about Ally?
I'm pretty sure you and GP are saying the exact same thing.
Funny because on their home landing page, there is a gallery of people. The one at top, second from left, is a dead ringer for Blake Lively. I wonder if that spawned the question.
Show HN: “Cousin Recognizer” app for Thanksgiving family reunion
Just for another piece of anecdata: mine used not to work if my finger was too dry... I resorted to everything up to and including licking the finger and retrying. Which, oddly, usually worked.
As a scientist I hate to find such mistakes in publications: "The test set is used for scoring the candidate DeepMasterPrints during optimization. The attack should be successful against these fingerprints as it is directly optimized for them." Even if that's a typo..

Disclaimer. My team at Neurotechnology develops fingerprint recognition algorithm VeriFinger which was used in this publication to look for vulnerabilities of small area fingerprint sensors.
> The parts that actually do something

This comes up a lot, and I think there's a broken assumption here. The core business logic of a product "actually does something", to be sure. But that doesn't mean that all the other code is somehow less important or pointless. Code that allows multiple people to work on the same abstractions in slightly different ways "actually does something" too--it facilitates cooperation and interoperation. Test code "actually does something" too--it helps prevent issues and ensure quality.

All of those things can be done wrong (core algorithms can have bugs, abstractions/interfaces can confuse people, tests can lie/test the wrong things), but they're all equally necessary in many cases. I think the misconception about non-core-procedure code being "cruft" automatically comes about because very early on in small projects, you don't need much more than the core. But when projects grow (to more people or just more code), other goals, like standardization/maintainability/extensibility/testability, become just as important as the goals of the core: if your added engineering staff can't add value to the company, or if your software is fatally buggy, it doesn't matter how good the shape of the original core-ideas code is, you'll lose money.
Generate Fake Credit Card Numbers with Safety Details
@dang

I know "Scammers are changing the contact details for banks on Google Maps to defraud people" is 4 characters too long but maybe "Scammers changing the contact details for banks on Google Maps to defraud people" is better than what it currently is? "changing the contact" alone doesn't make a lot of sense.
In turn, I'm amazed that people put effort into databases that are owned by companies. Wouldn't it be much more fulfilling to do the same work for an open database, such as open street maps?
I pretty much believe that all we have are bad solutions. OOP is a bad solution that is acceptable at a set of problems. Data oriented designs is an also bad solution that is acceptable at a set of problems. Anyone who has ever used any paradigm for big projects can do a write-up about how bad that paradigm is.

The problem of OOP is not OOP, but actually knowing only OOP. That creates a lot of hammer and nail problems. The same would be true if data-oriented had the same popularity, and everything was data oriented.

So, unless you ARE going to give me a __good__ solution, a silver bullet, it is silly to state that a whole paradigm is an absolute inferior. Especially when all you can give me is examples of bad paradigm-tech-problem matches or snippets of incompetent usage.
Exactly. Not only did I not know the terminology, in this case I didn’t know either product/software/service either.

I had to find the “in case you missed my earlier post on” then in that the “my initial review” post then still had to figure out what he was talking about. OH.... it’s learning by repetition, updated flash cards, got it in three words.

This was written by an engineer for sure! A short statement and purpose for people who don’t magically have all the information the writer has would have gone a long way.