skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Oh, thanks, had momentarily forgotten Oppenheimer(!?) ..that is about as strong an act of atonement one could make.

I have actually read a lot about it (though it may not seem that way), along with the justifications and reasons etc. I believe people have a tendency to act in their day to day without ever confronting their own complicit cruelty. Division of labour and all. The difficult choice would have been to face the reality and opt out in that situation, as Rotblat did.

The truth of the matter though was more of "murder children" or "someday the possibility of somehow your children getting murdered and also have a glass of dry sherry".

I also never said they were monsters, that mischaracterises everything i said about the banality of it. What i said was i find it easy to believe the kind of person capable of working on cluster bombs or toy land mines would not have an issue with killing children. Whatever fucked up justification they used to live with the rest of their work would function just fine to also include future children. Despite all the years between Vietnam and Laos and Afghanistan and now, mines are still being designed made and planted. Yes. They definitely know now.

Also, despite the facts that you mentioned, despite the hindsight of doubt in the necessity of the dropping of the bombs, a lot of people still defend it to the hilt. Still need for it to have been justifiable beyond any evidence to the contrary.
Nice idea to use defect injection to test the automated tests.
Benefits of Hiring a Professional Web Design Company to Get Website Designed
I suspect the capital costs of this would make the business unsustainable. The company would have to maintain essentially a dealership sized inventory of cars, but instead of having the revenue stream of car sales they'd just have to rely on this test drive fee. How many $20 test drives would people have to take in order to offset the costs of buying millions of dollars worth of cars?
1628, at least, and, with some help from Samuel Johnson,

> In 1738 the Commons fought back, declaring that it was a "high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege" to report what was said in the Chamber, even when it was in recess. [0]

[0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...
A related method not mentioned in this article (or, in fact, many places at all) is iro3d[1]'s "selective powder deposition": a 3D printer effectively creates a mold out of sand, with empty spaces filled with a metal powder. After the "print", done in a crucible, is finished, an ingot of metal with a lower melting point is set on top & the whole thing
baked in a kiln. The metal from top fills the space between the granules of powder and solidifies with nearly no shrinkage (as the object is mostly made of the powder, which never melts).

[1] http://iro3d.com/
That’s possible, I definitely shoot for low inflammation. I think it’s the foods themselves though because I’ve done calorie restriction with less optimal foods and if I have sugar my joints will hurt the next day.
Yeah totally, or like selecting for confident people where you tell people who score well on the test that they're super confident.

Tall is an absolute, objective measure of a real thing that exists. IQ is NOT a measure of a thing that exists.

Similar effects can be found throwing dice and ascribing the total to an IQ score, then telling parents, teachers what the poor kid's IQ is as though it were their height. It's insane.
I'd say exact dimensions are the norm for FreeCAD too - the mouse isn't used for freely drawing shapes in any workbench that I'm familiar with. With the Sketcher workbench in particular, the constraints control the geometry; the mouse is essentially used for selection and input of relationships between shapes.

For example (I've only skimmed this video, there are likely better ones), check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgstQi9jpGc
This seems like nit picking, doesn’t really change the patent posters argument.
ah, yes, I agree with you on where we're at now, it's not coming from any sort of necessity currently. my initial comment was only meant to say "there's a time and light in which this might have made some sense."
From my reading of the article. Stardock purchased some rights to the franchise. Then the original authors released a new game in the series. Stardock then sued the original authors as they believe they now own the franchise. The original authors are now counter suing.

Edit: after reading https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/article/487690/qa...
it seems Stardock only sued in response to take down notices.

Second Edit: after reading
https://www.dogarandkazon.com/
I have no idea who sued who first. Both accounts don't seem to agree.

Third Edit: Watch the video in cdumler's comment it gives a very good summary from the courts.
Really? For the most part, the government is pretty functional at all levels and while costs generally rise it seems like they do less so than compared to the privatized version.

I'm sure there are many cases where they do a bad job and costs rise, but I'd imagine the things government has done well and that keep costs somewhat okay far outweighs it and I also imagine you never hear about 99% of the stuff where things are humming along.
I'm on board insofar as bosses, regulators, and customers find "heightened awareness of state" an acceptable substitute for the production data that was sacrificed to the cause.
Check out CircuitHub they make it really easy to iterate on a design and get an instant quote on cost to build it. Really nice automated interface for quoting takes almost all the design parameters directly out of your design files. Makes traditional quoting interfaces feel like the stone age. They are doing for PCBA what OSHPark did for small batch PCB ordering.

They have some competition but CircuitHub is my go to. Others to check out are...

https://smallbatchassembly.com/

https://www.tempoautomation.com/

https://macrofab.com

[0] https://circuithub.com/
I'm curious how export restrictions would affect open source projects like Tensorflow and PyTorch. Would they be forced to become closed source? Could the license just include a disclaimer: "You're not allowed to use this if you're in one of the following countries: ..."? Would sites like Gitlab and Github be forced to implement per-repo geoblocking? Could they somehow be moved to ownership by a non-American entity that wasn't subject to such code? Does a US citizen contributing to a non-US open source ML project constitute a breach of export controls?
AFAIK Smooth scrolling isn't available on BBEdit, and my eyes can't track the code as it scrolls. If you use Cocoa text views or basically anything from NEXTstep way back in 10.0 your view would be either automatically or trivially be upgraded to smooth scrolling over the years. BBEdit seems like a perfect example of what happens when you don't continuously adopt and rewrite to new/modern interfaces.
Using PyTorch (and the broader space of machine learning algorithms under the “deep learning” category) really makes me feel like a wizard. But the downside to being Python-dependent is that putting PyTorch stuff into products not easy. I hope PyTorch 1.0 will change that.

Note: This article was not written with Machine Learning in mind, and I will have to re-read the article to better articulate my thoughts on “Machine Learning Wizardry” and juxtapose my own ideas with those of the article author.

Kudos to author: The article’s main metaphor is excellent because it got my creative juices flowing (i.e., brain working at 110% for a few brief moments).
The old SAT correlated more with standard iq tests and can be used for admission into MENSA from what I remember.
"I know, we'll ban math!" - brilliant politicians
Lol. Absitinence only sex Ed has nothing to do with TDD. Nor is it fundamentalism. It’s a waste of time to ponder as no real conclusions can be made from slapping the fundamentalism label on TDD. Better to just have an open mind and give it a go. And pay attention to the real benefits than to poison your mind against trying something that could help you deliver more features.
What a bunch of maroons.

This stupid approach was such a disaster in the days of crypto controls. Lifting them protected Americans and unleashed a huge number of new capabilities.
The fact that there are people who are better performers, communicators, creators, producers, or whatever does not point to the viability of IQ as commonly conceived, nor is it evidence that there could be any single one dimensional scale constructed to measure whatever that quality is. In fact I suspect it’s multiple traits interacting in complex ways that make up the results we attribute to “intelligence”.

The IQ test I have taken as part of a psychometric examination given to me to diagnose ADHD was an interesting experience but unless there are far deeper subjective meta-layers involved, the test itself measured lots of learned skills—including spatial reasoning, memorization, and of all things English vocabulary. There is no way the test that I took could be an unbiased measure of inborn potential.
I think if you go over my comment history, you'll not find me a fan of cryptocurrencies nor blockchains.

I'm partial to this comment I made recently.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18538733

The point wasn't to defend bitcoin and blockchain, but just the opposite, to point out how immature the technology is to something vastly simpler, moving data from point A to B on the internet. And TCP took years to get right.
Staying in academia
Love using RPN
Got it, this was helpful as was the answerer below. Thank you guys!
Thats pattern identification and solving, which is the bulk of what most IQ tests are. So, it kinda does.
Yeah, I loved that! Seeing an article with actual actionable things is so rare and so great.
Nice! That’s is the best workflow for me too. Your basically working from big picture downward or said another way: outside in.

To do so otherwise creates more risk. I feel the bottom up approach leaves me exposed to discover bad news later in the game and I have to go back and refactor or toss a bunch of code.
I definitely remember it being in color, a few colors anyway.
why is calling native americans a faction weird? a faction is a group that is in some form contrasted (not necessarily opposing) to another group.

native americans were certainly a different group of people than european settlers. i think that is clear enough.

but i am not a native english speaker, so maybe my understanding of faction is different from yours, and you define faction in a way that is incompatible with its application here.

however for the sake of discussion i'd like to ask if that is important? isn't the definition that should be applied into the context of this discussion rather clear?

i mean, go back to the original statement and replace faction with something else:

Successful society is usually predicated on genocide to remove dissent between groups.

it doesn't seem to me that that would change anything in that statement. we still don't know exactly which groups are actually referred to.

faction, group, party, nation, ethnicity, opponents, whatever it seems you got hung up on that word when you really want to know more specifically which examples are being referred to.
One link about such things if anyone cares to read further.

http://nymag.com/news/features/27840/
In the 90s it meant open source software (we didn’t use this term back then) like Kerberos were considered munitions and it was illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license.

At Cygnus we generated a version with no cryptography at all and sent it to Switzerland where someone wrote crypto routines (available in the open literature) that interoperated, and the everyone on the planet had access to it (but American folks had a different version). All so that the Swiss stock exchange could use Kerberos for single sign on and end-to-end encryption.
It exists, but I see those as edge cases. Compared to when someone is asking "am I smart enough", they are really asking if they can move from where they are now, to just a bit higher, the answer is usually "yes". At that level, innateness is irrelevant to those who succeed, and a self-fulfilling prophecy (at least in part) for those who don't.
My point is the double-standard in the tech community making that argument on behalf of one kind of technology, while ignoring that weapons extend from the very basic human need for security and agency.

It's a standard human fallacy, which I've made numerous times: we look at the intentions of ourselves (the tech community) while looking at the results of others (eg, the military). But the question we really need to be asking is if our impact on the world leads to better outcomes than theirs, regardless of what either group intended -- and I'm not sure it's so clear cut, once you account for second order effects of social media.

And it's certainly not as simple a moral calculus as "Well, they work on weapons so they're worse people than me!"
The takedown notices were entirely legit, given that the original devs retain the copyrights to various bits of content that Stardock used without permission. Stardock's lawsuit, in comparison, seems pretty baseless, given that Stardock only owns the SC trademarks, and Reiche and Ford are obviously avoiding use of those in their game.
Neat! This post reminded me of a mobile app I started developing, but then abandoned it. I planned to create an iOS app that would cater to drama clubs to help the cast members learn their lines. The motivation for me was to create something that might be beneficial for the arts (in some tiny way), and this app was the only thing that came to mind.
Psychology is a pseudoscience per se.
There’s clarity that the original study was way overblown and the effect size is, on average, really small.

I don’t know whether this parenting advice was actually borne of that research, but it smells like it. But also, the advice is at worst harmless, if not obvious.
>mountain of evidence to the contrary.
[citation needed]
Just go straight to the paper or code... the write-up is almost content free.

Paper:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.01508

Code:
https://github.com/cair/TsetlinMachine
We already know that a panopticon is ok with voters. Cars drive around with prominent labels visible at all times. People walk around with tracking devices. Etc. Nobody complains.
"Stealth, space supremacy, global surveillance, carrier groups, strike wings, nuclear arsenals, reaper drones and all the other crazy battlefield robot tech in service or development can cut to pieces any obsolete nation state military, let alone some rebels armed with cheap 3d-printed guns. "

So why isn't the US (which has all this tech) winning in Afghanistan over some rebels with AK 47s? Likewise Vietnam after literally a decade of fighting.

Weapons superiority is one factor in winning wars. Likewise, to address the gp's point, the history of political organization is partly driven by military technology.
Agreed:
* Step 1) (macro) ATDD one or more acceptance criteria
* Step 2) (micro) TDD your code to get a macro test to pass.
This effect does not work for me at all. I watched the clip before reading about what the effect actually is and I saw nothing like they described in the article.
How do you square your claims with this?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18802997
Given StarDock's bait and switch practices when it comes to their Start10/Object desktop line I have no sympathy for their situation.

More detail is that if you try to purchase Start 10 which is an unlimited licence, they will try to upsell you to their other object desktop product which is a 1 year licence without telling you that you will loose access to the original unlimited product you wanted.

They then ignore you when you reach out to them about this bait and switch.

Never deal with Star Dock.
Yea. Brains work differently. Some optimize for least-wrong; others curiously search for most-right or why is it right?

Learning how to suffer fools and survive foolish aggresses is a real thing in some jobs, and it will quickly make you abandon curiosity.
> My logic centre isn't working fast at all.

Your logic centre was working plenty fast enough. It's just hard for someone who already knows to procedure to appreciate just how open-ended the possible space of procedures is. It seems obvious to them, but only because their mental filters are already blocking out other possible solutions.
There has to be a better approach than to just settle on one of the two extremes: what architecture styles have a mix of moderate ornamentation, but with straightforward and utility-driven design?
Was publishing cryptography papers in open-access journals also illegal? Without such a ban it seems it would be very hard to stop the export of AI, as it's not particularly difficult to implement an AI algorithm from spec, just tedious; certainly much easier than implementing one's own crypto.

>illegal to provide them to non-us persons without a license

I wonder if in this case Git{hub|lab} would need the license, or the person uploading the code?
Well, I was rather interested in this article at first, as I think IQ is highly questionable and we give it waaaaay too much credit, but this mostly seems to be an article wanting to bash people with focused thinking patterns (perhaps autistic people), or "nerds", or other groups of people that fail to conform. While calling them wage slaves. It's curious how they managed to conflate both Mensa members and the military in attitudes.

Would be nice if we could call these various things into question without stooping to something as low as modern Western (who am I kidding, American) conceptions of "succeeding" in life.
You are not guaranteed to find optimal solutions (although you might find local minima)

For constrained optimisation ideally you should be using Lagrange multipliers. But even then there are `abnormal` cases where the Lagrange multiplier fails to give you an optimal solution. Roughly your constraint does not have enough information to give you a unique solution (dg insufficient rank to find solutions in df = \lambda dg).

In infinite dimensions (minimising a functional) a penalty metric is an even worse an idea. My favorite example is sub-Riemannian geometry [0]. People wanted to find sub-Riemannian geodesics - special curves that could only move in restricted directions. Early on people tried to use the penalty metric idea (making it really expensive to move in certain directions), but Montgomery [0] proved that this does not necessarily give optimal solutions. The limit of an equation is not necessarily the same as the limit of the solutions. In a sense they used Lagrange multipliers to examine the situation.

Looking at abnormal optimisation problems is an interesting area of research [1]. However if a local solution is "good enough" maybe you can get away with a penalty metric.

[0] https://www.ams.org/books/surv/091/
[1] https://books.google.com.au/books?isbn=9401594384
Agreed. Well said and good points.
a-Deep generative/adversarial networks.
b-Inverse reinforcement learning
c-Translational robotics
d-Brain-inspired buzzword computing

Sorry for a and b but they are in the beginning phase.
It's his Twitter/Medium blog, he can write as he pleases.

And his book sales do fine, with or without you.

This is interestingly a point of his: what's 'rational' is what survives. Maybe arguments/discussion need emotional draw of some sort to be heard in the first place (in the 21st century). If a philosopher is arguing in a forest to no one, is he really arguing? Etc.

We've seen the same effect of stylistic changes in classical music even. In my city, in order to keep up ticket sales and actually get to play proper classical music, the local symphony has to do renditions of pop songs to occasionally draw a larger audience and boost ticket sales.

Maybe classical music is dying. Maybe dry academic discussions that nobody except academics read, are dying.

[Aside - if you want to argue that maybe the 21st century modern discourse sucks, I'm right there with you. Ditto for changing music tastes.]

It's OK, these things happen. Things change, as driven by the market of human interest and willingness to participate.
innovate? what bullshit
I played a bit with mock driven development (I think this is the same as mockist). I so for haven’t found that valuable other than as a kata for learning a new mocking framework.

@walligaotr Have you found mockist useful?
I've been a long time fan of Star Control. I've been watching things for a while. If you check out YouTuber Law on YouTube, you can get a really good take. Not a lawyer, so my layperson's understanding:

The creators sold the rights for Star Control's trade mark, marketing and distribution rights on the condition that if the game fails to generate $1,000 in revenue then all rights revert to them. The distributing company eventually stopped selling the game. The creators presumed the rights reverted to them, but never got a declaratory judgement to legally cover that they did. The defunct rights were eventually sold through companies until it wound up with Atari, who sold the trade mark rights to Stardock. Stardock believes that the contract for the copywrite is still in effect; thus, they own the franchise.

Stardock wanted to make a game and began doing so. It's he said/she said at this point: Creators says they were in discussions with Stardock who wanted to by rights to the copywrite to make a game, but ultimately the creators said, "No, we want to make a sequel." Stardock says they told the creators they have the rights to make the game and wanted their blessings/input. There appears to be evidence that Stardock's version of events have changed over time and misrepresents events.

Whatever the case, Stardock decided to go ahead with the idea that the most the creators could own is the original characters, artwork and music. So, they made a game with the core idea but with alternate versions of the characters, art and music. The DMCA takedown was issued because it appears that Stardock then decided to use some original characters in the game, to which the original creators claim copywrite.

The most recent court ruling was less than stellar for Stardock, who used very poor legal arguments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo
Well, if it's not deep mind, Google can buy some other companies and let them use the world's most advanced AI compute infrastructure and who knows what they would do.

I do not doubt deep minds talents, but your comment seems to me an overstatement on its value.
But many of the tests aren’t binary in outcome, like ravens progressive matrices or N back.
We're gonna need government permits to do gradient descent.
Not starting retirement savings till I was 41

Ps I just started this year. Would like to see how I can understand what I have lost so far and what would I need to do to “make up”
Since the Hitler period came up, there are great parallels to the topic of land mines for that time period. During Harris bombardment of the civilian population they did not just use regular and incendiary bombs, but also delay-action bombs which exploded hours or days after the impact with the goal to hit rescue workers who dug out the dead or wounded.

Like with most aerial bombs at the time, there where quite a few who didnt detonate. Its one thing to dispose of a regular bomb, but the time delayed ones are mostly just stuck. They detonated since then once some unlucky bloke moved or just touched them. Just in 2012 for example such a bomb killed 3 bomb disposal experts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1283273/WW2-bomb-ki...

With them getting older and older, they get more likely to detonate without even any interaction as the trigger guard rots through.

The situation of some south eastern Asian countries with unexploded ordnance and actual land mines is a better example though. Using a weapon like this will continue to indiscriminately kill people for well over a century.

edit:

To be a bit more positive, there is also people doing the opposite, like Aki Ra.

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