skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Can you please explain more clearly what constitutes a political flamewar? The only definitions of flamewar I can find suggest it means insulting people. I have not done anything of the sort. And I can not find anything in the guidelines that I have not followed. Do you mean just don't ever post anything that may be controversial? You don't ban the people who actually bring up the controversial issues with a left wing bias, often openly insulting to anyone who disagrees. You only ban the people who respond (politely and without insults) with the wrong opinion. If the actual rules include "far-left opinions only" then put that in the written rules so I know and will leave. But if you are going to maintain the pretense that this site is politically neutral and is for "hackers" rather than "hackers whose opinions I agree with", then I will continue to post within the written rules just as I always have.
It's (the idea to manage on prem K8S from the cloud) a reaction to

1) Hyperscalers doing hybrid cloud

2) VMware's growingly independent approach to K8S (which I believe will ultimately result in VMware offering "generic" Kubernetes)

3) IBM Redhat becoming more aggressive with their on-prem approach (let's not forget SoftLayer and Redhat OCP can do hybrid K8S on bare metal, without VMware)

4) On-prem-focused vendors like NetApp having announced similar service (NetApp Kubernetes Service, which already works in all hyperscalers and on-Prem NetApp HCI is next) in recent months.

Pivotal's on-prem problem (compared to IBM Redhat, NetApp) is problem is they have little on-prem presence, sell no hardware or storage, and need to rely on DellEMC and VMware (which have been great for Pivotal but that was when Pivotal played nice and wasn't helping VMware (and Dell) customers escape to non-VMware based clouds.)
How does this affect the AWS Sydney region? Will KMS and CloudHSM be under threat of a backdoor and this propagate to all systems that base themselves off these products?
The employees have a term for that: "Frupid."
After Getting FOSTA Turned into Law, FB Tells Users to Stop Using Naughty Words
By PR speak really what I mean is "an answer for people who don't have enough context for a deep answer". Or iow, an answer which abstracts something away.

I have the context to peel back the abstraction. Someone external doesn't. That's not going to change. So PR answers have to exist. It's not that the truth hurts (there's lots of stuff that isn't bad but that is easy to misunderstand, or that people have missing context on: see the chrome login controversy which was from a team who I personally deeply trust to make good decisions for privacy and security, but who many people took to be an anti-privacy measure).

The context for a nuanced answer often relies on understanding organizational structure or history that often can't or shouldn't be public and even if it could be, most people won't care. You won't care. You say you will, but you're not going to spend the days or weeks to really understand all the context.

So no, the truth doesn't always hurt, pr speak is still sometimes necessary, but giving the pr answers to people who have the context to understand everything is really annoying to those people.

And yes this is me not so subtly saying that there's often context to decisions that you don't have. There are often perfectly valid reasons for not making that context public (Insofar as making things public will cause harm to end users). The classic example of this is making the exact algorithms for search quality evaluation public.

Never answering these questions makes Google look bad: conspiracies about favoring or disfavoring certain results develop. But the actual answer can be highly complex, and the only people who are going to care about more than a minute portion of the system ("why my site went down two spots") are those who want to find a avenues for abuse (dark seo).

(Probably worth stressing that these are my personal opinions and I have no real insider knowledge of search or anything I mention here).

So I think your disappointment is misplaced, ironically because you lack the context to understand some of these decisions.
The article mentions that this push to collect biometric information is happening at the same time as biometric information is being used more frequently in device security.

While I don't know if it's reasonable to think DHS is sufficiently organized and competent to actually put these two parts together w/r/t their "going dark problem", this is probably as good time as any to reiterate that as a best practice biometrics should only be used as username information, not password information.
One of the first games I played as a kid was the DOS port of infocoms Deadline (1982) — a police/detective mystery. Easily one of my favorite adventure games of all time. It had a branching story line, multiple endings, a real-time-ish clock. Combine that with the “feelies” that infocom was known for in the early 80s and it was a unique experience that I’m not sure anyone will be able to reproduce.
This is essentially what I do. I don’t pull my phone out unless there is some intent behind why I am pulling it out. If I pull it out to check the time, I don’t then unlock it to mindlessly browse the web.

If I pull it out to read a book, I’ll treat my phone as if I’m reading a book and won’t care so much about how much “screen time” I have. Or if I’m using something like Instapaper. If I’m using Reddit, I’m looking for news on a specific thing or I’m looking for information on a topic, and Reddit is just one stop I make along the way, that doesn’t change whether I’m on my phone or laptop.

If I’m watching a movie or something in bed, then it is time I would have spent on a television screen anyway. If I’m taking notes, I’m taking notes. If I’m journaling, I’m journaling.

I’m not interested in how much time I spend on my phone specifically, I’m interested in knowing if I waste time. So far, I don’t feel like I waste time. My recreation time is well accounted for, and some of it is spent on my phone too, but I’m not against spending some of it on my phone.

At the end of the week when iOS 12 sends me a report on how I spent my time, I’m generally not surprise. If I am surprised, I try to be more conscientious going into the next week.
Ehh, hacking the system to get straight A’s is a bad sign. The equivalent ‘hacking annual reviews’ makes you more expensive employe without a creating more value for the company.
Greens, acs.org.au, possibly some of the business/legal councils
How Does setState Know What to Do?
Yes that attack was viable for less than 1 hour. On flight 93 the passenger revolt began at 9:57AM, and the the first plane hit the World Trade Center at 9:01AM

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

> After the hijackers took control of the plane, several passengers and flight attendants learned from phone calls that suicide attacks had already been made by hijacked airliners on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Many of the passengers then attempted to regain control of the aircraft from the hijackers. During the struggle, the plane crashed into a field near a reclaimed strip mine in Stonycreek Township

And if that hadn’t worked, before the crash the military was already authorized to shoot down that flight. So the system adapted quickly.
3D Movie Maker by Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_Movie_Maker

I had a blast making cartoons as a kid with this program.
So what explains the rote implementation of this logic on single founders too?

I expect to be heavily downvoted for even suggesting these things on this board (as my original comment was) but this logic reeks of VC bullshit and I suspect you won't refute that despite your assertion that this is totally only about co-founder protection you wouldn't hesitate to impose such a vesting schedule on a solo founder, likely using some of the other arguments in this thread that you've even discounted in the original post.
> This is what happens when "The People" lose control of the Government.

That seems doubtful. Nearly everyone agrees that TSA checkpoints are irritating and slow, how many would actually vote to abolish them? Even just returning back to pre-9/11 security?

I think we have exactly the government most of us want. That's the uncomfortable truth. If the majority of voting citizens wanted the TSA gone, it would be.
There is one big omission in this article, which seems to focus mainly on hydrodynamic computing: "static" hydraulic computing, as implemented with relay valves --- and found major application as the control unit of passenger car automatic trnsmissions throughout much of the last century, before electronic controls became common. Examples:

http://cogpro.com/chapters/M-ThreeSpeedHydramatic/images/M%2...

http://oldcarblog.com/manuals/1970/1970%20Service%20Manual/1...
It seems to make most sense if there's multiple founders, and the risk that they leave at different times.
Have any tech giants like Apple or Google commented yet?

They should be the ones leading the charge against this draconian insanity.
I think the govt will attack smaller companies first, the ones who don't have the means to refuse.

They'd be stupid to start with giants like Apple or Google.
Also, economically. You can't really displace a bunch of Valley freeway construction if your train bypasses all the populated parts of the Valley that generate the traffic driving freeway demand.
I'm not sure if there are more than usual now but those of us in TX have dealt with interior checkpoints traveling anywhere near MX I'd say most of our lives. We go out of our way to take paths that avoid them. If you didn't know they existed it makes sense that they'd surprise you. I didn't know until moving to TX and going on aimless roadtrips in my Jeep, quite the surprise. And yeah, they'll harass the hell out of you. Everyone has some friend who was detained for something or other then released. That's why we avoid them if we're not actually going to MX. Specifically I remember a friend getting detained for an expired drivers license when he was just a passenger.

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

edit: Evidently there are some near Canada as well, didn't know that.
Also, we lock cockpit doors now and pilots aren't going to let someone in just because they threaten passengers or crew members with harm.

I think we should give up on the TSA theater, but most people seem to want it. Makes them feel better, even if their rational minds know it's a lie.
Yes but a single request can include an unlimited number of targets.

They can literally ask for all communications of every one of your users.
They've still managed to find 100% of the bottles of water I've forgotten about and 100% of the water bottles with trace amounts of water still in them.
> I was replying to your own claims,

My claim was "they do fine" which, in the context of the question, doesn't mean "there are no side effects".

When a family friend had to have his spleen removed, it put him at somewhat higher risk of infection for the rest of their life, but in the context of him having emergency surgery for a ruptured spleen everyone knew what "he's going to be fine" meant.

> I dont think it actually is ridiculous to worry if novel food products could "wipe out the human population".

I don't think it's ridiculous to worry about in principle. If fact, I think human extinction is super important to worry about and not enough people do it. But I do think it's basically ridiculous to worry about any particular disease or diet doing it (except possibly maliciously engineered diseases). Diseases and diet changes just never have the extreme mortality rates you'd need to threaten the species.
The amount of effort I've seen others apply towards getting straight As has led me to believe that they have been misled on priorities. They essentially asked as children "what does it take to be successful", received "straight As" as the response, and then ran with it.

Although it ended up working out for those I knew who went into medicine, for those who went into other fields I can't help but think that they would have been better off spending time actually learning something else, whatever it may have been, as opposed to trying to please their teachers without really learning anything.

Being a hard worker is a great virtue, but effort needs direction otherwise it might be wasted, or worse, destructive.
Something I see a lot is bright students taking easy courses for the marks. And these students are not lazy, don’t have many other time commitments, are generally very pleasant and engaging to talk to, and ace the material. But when I suggest that they should be taking harder or more interesting subjects, they respond with something about marks.
4 Keys to Creating an Irresistible Offer
That's what I said -- "dripped by design" OS. That being said I don't see it as something that's going to change. The duopoly behind phones and tablets wants these devices locked down. In Apple's case it's so they can take 30% of every transaction. In Google's case it's so the device can double as a surveillance platform.
Killer robots: New models go 'off the rails in deadly malfunction errors'
That and Microsoft didn't support developers.
Well, I can definitely speak to that from the other side. I took courses I figured I wouldn't get a 4.0 in college, and they were some of my most educational precisely because they did stretch me a bit.

Speaking from the interview side, I will say that if I get a resume from a recent grad with a 4.0 or greater (given the way some places grade nowadays), I will often subtly probe for the difficulty of courses taken. I could have easily scored a 4.0 in college, but I would have been worse for it. Unless you're 4.0'ing the hardest set of courses you could reasonably be taking, your 4.0 doesn't necessarily mean to me what you probably intend it to mean. It doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing, it just... doesn't mean the good thing you would have expected most people to interpret it as.

(That said, there were also some courses I could have done better in, even so.)
120/80 is now considered per-hypertension.
Berkeley smorgasbord
What an amazing piece of text to read. Almost teared up. I am so excited about the future of humanity.
How does it compare to CuPy (in terms of Numpy compatibility)?
What is your proposed mechanism here?
Past discussion of the Op-Ed this is a response of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18521499
Show HN An open source chrome extension to read medium.com paid article for free
My pulse was running 120-140. Not pressure.
From the blogpost

"Automatic Batching
To get the most from these accelerators – which can have significant overheads per kernel launch, but scale very well over input size – it is common to batch programs, applying the forwards and backwards passes to multiple training examples at once. In simple cases, such as with convolutional nets, it’s simple to handle this by concatenating, say, 10 images along an extra batch dimension. But this task becomes much harder when dealing with variably-structured inputs, such as trees or graphs.

Most researchers address this by taking on the significant burden of batching code by hand. Different solutions have been proposed for different frameworks (DyNet, TensorFlow Fold, which heuristically try to batch some high level operations together when possible, but these typically either have their own usability issues or do not achieve the performance of hand-written code.

We suggest that this problem is identical to that of Single Program Multiple Data (SPMD) programming, which has been well-studied by the language and compiler community for decades, and becomes visible in more recent approaches to batching like matchbox. Indeed, it is very similar to the model of parallelism used by GPUs internally, and has been implemented as a compiler transform for the SIMD units of CPUs. Taking inspiration from this work, we are implementing the same transform in Julia to provide SPMD programming both for scalar SIMD units and for model-level batching. This allows us to reach the ideal of writing simple code that operates on individual samples, while still getting the best performance on modern hardware."
I’ll be happy when my TM3 can even recognize stoplights and stop signs on autopilot,
and the adaptive cruise will stop at an intersection and continue on when it turns green. Next they can work on left and right turns.

But in all seriousness, IMO the biggest challenge to AI driving is not object recognition or modeling instantaneous state, but the full hierarchy of “statefullness” which humans keep effortlessly, but which seems to be almost totally missing from the driving AI.

Understanding the current state, the upcoming state, and the expected transitions in between... are crucial to how I am able to turn left with oncoming traffic, smoothly cruise through a 4-way intersection which happens to be on a curve, zipper merge with entering cars coming off an on ramp into my highway lane during rush hour, change lanes to avoid a bad driver, and not slam on the brakes when a stopped car is in the process of turning left up ahead.

When driving on a two lane undivided road, and a left turn lane appears ahead, suddenly an AI finds itself driving in between two lanes and makes a random choice to veer left or right to try to stay in lane. Without the stateful understanding of how and why this new lane came into existence the AI is clueless. The AI can’t solve the problem just by identifying lanes at t=0, or trying to read signs or markings on the road. Us humans know intuitively (or from memory) which lane is for onward travel and which lane is for turning. Any AI driving system built in the next 5-10 years will need an annotated map which tells it which lane to choose.

This all adds up, in my estimation, to a metric fuck-ton if metadata required per mile in order for an AI to operate. It cannot be done “statelessly” (like a human can do it) without an AI at least 5 orders of magnitude “smarter” than what we have today.
People do not make choices. The programming we inherit from society, produces different outcomes because the events are in a linear order and the different orders between persons matter! Everyone seems to not grasp how important "order of knowledge" is when digested and how it will alter the person in comparison to another person who has the same knowledge but in a slightly different order of the linear input system we all share being the brain.

Punishment is the cruelest and most dehumanizing thing in this world by mankind. I view "original sin" being born into humankind "assuming free will" is correct. The barbaric justification for punishment is we will construct a deterrent for other humans. Yet, it's ignoring how we are punishing a person who had no control by "the universe not favoring the person" and resulting in others "being favored by the universe" from punishing the person resulting in deterrent to others. The whole thing is madness because it's the system that is flawed not the individual.
I would be very happy to keep my Galaxy S7, but they make it slower on purpose with each software "update".
Sure, but Julia doesn't need it: https://julialang.org/blog/2018/12/ml-language-compiler
So the opposition party decided to pass this with no amendments on the understanding that it will be amended early next year. I doubt this will happen, they never go back and fix things. If they find out a piece of legislation has a loophole that is or will be abused, they never go back and fix it, it's hands up in the air - too hard.
I’ve had a handful of those episodes over the summer but only after heavy exertion. Running stairs for 4 hours at an indoor water park, TKD sparring, and once or twice after very stressful events. I wrote it all off to a stressful year with unique occurrences. That morning I just happened to be paying attention and the Watch was the final straw that made it click.
Why plug into a hub?

I’d rather just wear those (inexistent) googles that create virtual screens anywhere I want.
The Miranda programming language: http://miranda.org.uk/
Ineffective at preventing hijackings of airplanes, but that is assuming that the purpose of the TSA's airport security measures is to prevent hijackings. More likely it was originally intended to reassure the public that flying is safe by presenting conspicuous screening processes, and considering that it remains politically impossible to wind it down, I think it was very successful. Consider this: a few years ago the TSA leadership suggested that it would probably be OK to allow small knives through the checkpoints, and not only was the idea killed by Congress, I even heard my otherwise intelligent aunt express how terrifying the idea sounded to her.

The basic purpose of the TSA is to prevent a collapse of the air travel market, and now it seems that a few related business interests are also part of that picture. What is or is not allowed through the checkpoints is as much determined by what the public is afraid of as by what will work well for airport businesses and airlines. The shoe rule is slowly but surely going away (it does not apply to anyone who participates in the various pre-screening programs that have been developed; I am guessing it will be gone in general a few years from now), but the equally pointless liquid rule remains in place for everyone. The only difference is that one of those rules boosts sales for airport businesses while the other only makes the lines to get through the checkpoints longer and discourages flying. The proposal to have all laptops go into checked bags was killed almost as soon as it was thought up, even though there was some legitimate concern about attacks strategies involving laptops (it seems to be more realistic than the liquids plot), simply because airlines said it would have too negative an impact on their ticket sales (especially for business class seats, which are the most profitable per square foot of cabin floor space).
It doesn't really, unless the founder has signed a stockholder's agreement with other founders or investors specifying a vesting period. Under normal circumstances a founder or founders form a corp, put some cash/equity in, sign a stockholders agreement specifying who owns how much, and from that moment the equity is wholly owned by the signatories to that agreement. Other agreements may come into play as the company seeks additional investment, etc., but I can tell you that at least 20 years ago when I did a startup + angel round + series A + B nobody at any time suggested that the equity I'd worked for the first four years should somehow be clawed back and then vested, and the conversation would not have gone well if they had.
It’s possible the grade isn’t the actual factor, but rather there are certain groups that are more likely to get As and those recruiters have a bias against members of those groups.
And hand over our phones and passwords at airport immigration and use the even worse than ours internet?
The US is also selling its Strategic Peroleum reserve at about a million barrels (0.15%) a week. This is mandated by the Trump tax reform law to make the federal deficit. This makes net imports appear smaller.
Framework. Technically still maintained, but a shadow of its former self. In a word, it was more or less Emacs for the office -- built around a unifying metaphor of "frames" rather than buffers. A frame could contain anything: text, graphics, numbers, even other frames, and on this basis was built a word processor, spreadsheet, database, graphing facility, and a powerful outliner that was as close as an 80s PC got to org-mode. Tying it all together was a sort of mouseless GUI that let you open and manipulate documents visually, and a scripting language that was essentially Lisp disguised to resemble Lotus 1-2-3 macros for familiarity.