skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
How will it kill academia? Will it suck up all the funding, starving other fields? If not, what damage can it do, any more than, say, topology could kill classics?

This is a serious question, not a sarcastic one. Is this study area somehow affecting other academic disciplines? I'm long out of academia so this is all invisible to me.
I agree. The internet today is fast, cheap, pervasive, and well-supported. We have Google, GitHub and YouTube. What is not to like?

I missed Usenet at one point, but I've come to find HN/Reddit/Twitter/web forums have filled that gap, from my point of view at least. HN/Reddit/web forums are quite similar in many respects, and while the UX is quite different, over time I've come not to mind, and in some ways to even prefer it.

(Twitter? - well, it is not really much like Usenet at all, is it? But it is a place where I've found myself finding out about new stuff, and found myself amused by seeing people write performatively, and it reminds me of Usenet on that basis.)
What always confused me about cases like this one is what is considered a hard fork. This was a software bug, and not a flaw in the design or protocol itself. When is it a bug fix, and when is it a hard fork? Is the client law, or is the protocol law?

- If there were more than one clients would this be an issue?

- If there were more than one clients and only one had the bug, would it still be a hard fork?
BTW you need IRB review for animal studies as well.

It's typically pretty easy to get too -- you can shop around for a sympathetic IRB. In my experience it's been basically a rubber stamp.

Note I work in industry not academia.
There are exceptions to IRB and while I couldn't necessarily shoehorn this case into any one of them, there is an argument to be made that this counts as a form of "performance evaluation" where obviously no consent could be given beforehand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_review_board#Exc...
But not by small arms fire, or a shoulder-mounted device — it was essentially shot down by an anti-aircraft installation (wheeled though it is)
I'm just afraid all of these volumes and resources I'm creating will be 100x easier to 'lose' and have total sprawl than it was in VM world, which already had enormous sprawl issues.
> well, I'm not sure what to call it...

Here's where to complain (next time) — https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame/...

As-it-happens that program was still an open issue, awaiting review, and the review was not favourable — https://salsa.debian.org/benchmarksgame-team/benchmarksgame/...
I haven't got a chance using ember. But the rancher guys https://rancher.com seem to use ember a lot for their web app. And it looks solid. There's no doubt that ember is capable when it comes to handling complex application.
>...it goes like this...on balance AI will be good for humanity. Oh – and by the way – its progress is unstoppable
... The truly extraordinary thing, therefore, is how many apparently sane people seem to take the narrative as a credible version of humanity’s future.

I don't see what's extraordinary at all. AI's coming and will probably be net good. There may be some inaccuracies in how it's reported and corporations are not all angels but for what field is that not true?

Also he says Theresa May has drunk cool aid by agreeing to fund AI but what she's funding is machine learning for cancer detection which is getting results like this

>In tests, it achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) — a measure of detection accuracy — of 99 percent. That’s superior to human pathologists, who according to one recent assessment miss small metastases on individual slides as much as 62 percent of the time when under time constraints. https://venturebeat.com/2018/10/12/google-ai-claims-99-accur...

That's for metastatic breast cancer that kills 500,000 people a year. Overall Naughton's arguments seems a bit silly.
If people get tickets to see your art they aren't really being experimented on.

If you want to, say, explode a simulated bomb in a TSA screening area to call attention to the waste of lives inherent in the checkpoints...yes, you'd need an IRB sign off, but probably that would be the least of your problems.
That's funny. The first thing I searched to try "I'm feeling lucky" when Google came out was coca-cola (probably searched "coke")
For something that was conceived in a very public way (e.g. a popular work of literature), I find it hard to believe that research wasn't inspired by the stories at least in part. Not the fundamental research in other fields that made it possible in the first place, perhaps, but the final engineering work.
I personally almost never comment unless I feel I have an original opinion, and one that isn't stupid so it'd get shot down. I guess I have a very strong filter. I wonder how many people voice things out that really shouldn't be a thing because they don't have a strong filter.
>"Judea Pearl thinks that DL is nothing more than curve fitting. Is he a greivence scholar?"

Deep learning? It is curve fitting (ie pattern recognition), is there supposed to be something wrong with that?
Sometimes, you gotta take one for the team. This prosecution will help the case far more than it will hurt.
It seems like some people are actually pleased the hoax worked. If this is you, try to honestly imagine how you would feel if it had failed -- if the journals immediately called BS and refused to publish.

Would you be happy or unhappy about that? If unhappy, are you really so sure you're on the side of truth, or are you just a member of one tribe pleased that the other tribe has been embarrassed? The world where the hoax failed would surely be a better one for knowledge and academic integrity.
No, the page loads perfectly fine if Javascript disabled. It's only if you go out of your way to break the page in the most difficult way possible that the script will fallback to having a delay.
I mean, if living before meeting aliens is worthwhile, then living with discovered and destroyed aliens should be fine, no?

Your point doesn’t really hold up if the effort to destroy a civ is basically zero, while the cost to defend is approximately unachievable.
Sure, the criticism this hoax is trying to demonstrate may be legitimate, but the methodology is one designed to highlight the cleverness of its executors and diminish the credibility of a discipline, rather than point out constructive areas for improvement. Basically, it is a methodology that does not treat its targets as intellectual equals and is quite indecorous—you get the sense that a major point of this operation is to discredit the field and make its practitioners feel some kind of public humiliation or shame. A childish tactic.

In my opinion, this is not the right way to effect change in academic practices. Sokal's big hoax did a good lot for Sokal (whom everyone is now familiar with—but it's funny: is the public acquainted with Sokal because of the contributions he made to his field? Arguably, no. Who's supposed to be the sham academic again?) and caused a lot of drama—but was it an effective means of enacting the sort of change in academic practice it claimed to be striving for? Well, we simply need to ask ourselves why there's even a need for such a thing as "Sokal squared" to answer that question.

This is a conniving way to go about improving academic practice—doesn't the very practice sort of eschew the principles of open collaboration, transparency, collective growth, and honest dissemination of thought/knowledge academia should, in the ideal world, foster?

This is largely just an attempt to incite drama and gain notoriety on the part of the authors, and it further drives wedges between already highly disparate, specialized fields that may as well talk past each other.

Of course there are things to criticize about grievance studies, just as there were things to criticize about the lingo and methods popular in the humanities when Sokal devised his original hoax—but stooping to underhanded publicity stunts instead of open intellectual conversation likely won't solve the problem. Please don't give in to this sort of nonsense and stroke the pleading egos of the 'academics' that pull these sorts of stunts. Boghossian is not a hero.
Was this research, though? Or was this goofing around? Was their goal to publish a paper about what they'd done? If so, it's research. But if not, this is not research. Academics aren't required to get board approval for every human interaction they have.
Without changing the battery? Are you using G5 or G6?
Google’s Brain Drain Should Alarm Us All
True enough - instead of "Logically, from the above three points, it follows that", just "In short," or something would be far better.
New Technique Makes Electricity-Producing Bacteria More Useful Than Ever
Number one is not a great idea. Of everyone worked on most pressing matters then we’d live in an inconvenient world full of frustrations. Think of how many products and services we rely on that went through a bunch of iterations to become marvels that we take for granted without a thought. The mundane aspects of our lives are full of opportunities for businesses that can turn frustration into delight.
You can concievably MITM WhatsApp too, at least if your target isn't that observant. The only indication that your connection has been rekeyed is a message in your chat which could be easily missed.
My whole post was that you can’t throw around absolutes while mocking people throwing around absolutes. Which is exactly what you are doing.

You can practice science. You can’t “believe” in it.

The only ‘facts’ here are that we don’t know what causes autism. It does not appear to be genetic as I understand it. It’s entirely possible that in some people it’s triggered during something that happens with the vaccine process. We just don’t know. It’s unlikely, it’s not a reason to withhold vaccines, but scientifically it’s not a fact to say vaccines definitely does or does not cause autism in some people.

I’m sure that last sentience makes you mad, which again, is very unscientific. Try taking the absolutes out, and question everything including the big things.
The concern, as I have often heard it repeated, is that by being so capricious, unbearable and aggressive, the personality type associated with "grievance studies" will ruin any social goodwill held towards academics, along with their reputation for being more right than the average person. If that were to happen, nobody would want to send their kids, tax money, or endowment fund donations to any universities, and the whole system would go away.
For any workflow, it is worth considering org-mode. It has certainly satisfied me after trying many different alternatives.

It is plain text, so you are not locked into a proprietary object format. Thus, you can edit it using any text editor in case Emacs is not around. In fact, Vim is on its way towards implementing a decent subset of org-mode. GitHub and GitLab also support org-mode syntax and can even render HTML from it. There are also decent mobile clients, and even some bridges to things like Trello.

Emacs has lots of org-mode primitives that can be used to deploy any workflow. Moving items across sections or files can be efficiently done using org-refile. Storing new items on the flight from many different places can be done using org-capture and org-protocol. More importantly, you can easily create alternative views of your files using org-agenda. org-mode also has timestamps, so you can set schedules, deadlines or simply record events.

I've just scratched the surface. My favorite workflow is Ivy Lee's Method, which is a very basic kanban with two states. Easy to implement in org-mode. Just two trees: Today and Inbox. Every morning I refile 6 tasks from Inbox to Today. I keep new thoughts and important items with deadlines, etc inside my Inbox. I can use org-agenda to quickly see if there are any incoming deadlines or events, which I store in a separate calendar file.

If you want to get fancy, you can use lots of trees, one per project. And create lots of tasks to plan things ahead. Then use task states to schedule things for today and get a clean view, again, using org-agenda or a sparse tree. There are infinite possibilities.
Megashifts, AI and Why the Future Is More Unknowable Than Ever
Wikipedia's article is very thorough https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber#Fiber_contents_i...

and makes the distinction between soluble and insoluble fiber. Quick source: 100g of almonds has 12.5g d.f., as well as a wealth of important vitamins.
can't sorry, and there are no public discussions on this (for now)
Right, it’s a protocol with a reference implementation.
It would just be nice to have a service with the kind of privacy properties this software provides on a mobile device where software distribution is very centralized and requires a tiny bit of censorship compliance.
> In the benchmarks where Python wins it's multithreaded

For reverse-complement and binary-trees, the Python program uses less cpu time — it doesn't matter that it's multithreaded.
Particle Life – A Game of Life Made of Particles
Original article and comments discussing the work: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18127811
> The world where the hoax failed would surely be a better one for knowledge and academic integrity.

Yes, it would. But that's not the world we live in. That's the problem.
https://clyp.it/a2eawahj
> I looked over digital ocean and they say they are working on kubernetes

FYI, Digital Ocean Kubernetes opened to everyone on December 11th.
I don't really know whether the government of my country knows I use TOR (i use obfs4) and whether he can "correlate" sites i visit. If i'm of such interest to him, he can knock at my door and get all my computers : i will give him without any resistance.

Because the fact is that i use TOR to be anonymous and escape data mining by dangerous Big Companies : i can elect a government and should give him access to part of my data needed to be a citizen of my country, but i never elect thoses dangerous companies that steal and sell data, violate privacy, accumulate large data set about us behind our backs to cross-annalyse and compute who know why we didn't ask or envisage ... Governments are supposed to be accountable, companies are not unless we publicly discover they did something wrong.
Wat. Sources please to back up this wild assertion?

The stainless steel hull is a viable design (though obviously given how many times it has changed it might not be final).

Scott Manley did a deep dive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVgEKBwE2RM
Having been through this a few times, my personal thinking now is:

"I like it" means absolutely nothing by itself. People will tell you they like your idea/demo/whatever all day and have absolutely no intention of ever using it, let alone paying money for it. What you want to hear is "How much does it cost and when can I buy it?" (assuming b2b) or "Can I be a beta tester?" (assuming b2c). Everyone else is fluff. If you're getting nothing but fluff after talking to a bunch of people, your idea is probably also fluff.

"No" by itself also means pretty much nothing. You want to be listening for "No because..." and then evaluate the because part. Is it no because they're not the right audience? Is it no because they don't see the market opportunity like you do? Is it no because they've already heard the same thing from 3 other entrepreneurs and yours is thus a me-too play? Is it no because [fundamental reason you didn't think of and have no answer to]? Etc.
Which is totally different from today when everything is in beta and best viewed in Chrome!
I bet none of the books will tackle topics like censorship, big brother, and concentration camps for minorities
Maybe he was just trying to misdirect the competitors, while himself building up capacity to sell a lot more cars.
This isn't true, even from a textualist or originalist point of view.

"Judicial Conservatives" in the US disagree with "Judicial Activists" on whether (or to what extent) it is OK to creatively interpret laws (including the Constitution) to get preferred outcomes.

But all common law systems take for granted that judges fill in the inevitable gaps in the law by setting precedents. They can't just interpret it ab initio each time (which in principle is what they are supposed to do on the Continent, though I don't know about practice).

So for example, suppose a city bans anti-abortion pamphleteers from operating on the street outside an abortion clinic. Does that violate the 1st Amendment? Does it matter whether the pamphleteers are quiet or noisy? Does it matter if the exclusion zone is 10 feet vs. 1000 feet?

The text of the constitution is too compressed to answer those edge questions directly. Instead judges have come up with finer-grained rules to satisfy the general requirement of the text, and try (or claim to try) to apply them consistently. Developing these rules is lawmaking.
I would consider using MS Teams web client to be a better option rather than running it in a virtual machine.
> In my opinion, this is not the right way to effect change in academic practices

So what is? Specifically, what is, given that the academic fields in question demonstrably have no interest in whether things are true or not?
If you want to see what the tail end of that, where we had the web but content generation was still largely amateur, a lurkers guide to Babylon 5 is exactly as I remember

http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/lurker.html
Is the real issue that companies, goverments and coprorations and nomries are finally using the internet

or the REAL ISSUE

is Companies now in 2015-2020 are based on POLITICAL AGENDA first and not making money first
Do you love colors?
> I know some who ‘do not belive in truth’

This is such an important point that it needs to be emphasized.
Large chunks of the humanities and social sciences operate under a completely different epistemology.
This epistemology rejects reason. And I don't mean that as a jab, I mean it literally rejects the philosophical concept of Reason itself.

Everything is about ideology.
It has at it's core the notion that there is no objective truth, and that any assertion of truth is merely the application of power of one group over another.
Under this epistemology, lying, contradiction, hypocrisy, fallacy, and rhetoric are all acceptable and even encouraged.

Dig a little in to post-structuralism, postmodernism, critical theory and deconstruction and so much of the Social Justice movement will make sense.
You'll start to find very little about Social Justice is about social justice.
I was maybe 9 or younger in the early 90s and I was very computer savvy (am in software now, surprise?) I knew how to log into chat rooms. My parents had no idea and it wasn't as dangerous as it was now. It was just a lot of people really excited to talk to each other. I may have been lucky.
I also have '..' and '...', AND '....' heheh. I use that last one a lot
This can be refuted pretty easily, on various grounds.

One, you are assuming that all parties interested in deanonymizing Tor collaborate. As you say: agencies, not agency.

The design makes sure that you do not need to trust any node in particular. The damage individual nodes can do are small and basically amount to temporary denial of service for non-exits (which clients will quickly route around) and messing with your traffic as exit (which becomes less and less of a problem as everything moves to e2e, and https is improved/hardened with key pinning etc). The remaining problem is statistical correlation, where studies show it is actually not trivial to perform and takes time and repetitive behavior.

Your argument also assumes that everyone is immediately fucked when one powerful adversary can break the anonymity. This will very rarely be the case in real scenarios, where "the NSA" will just not care about you, but plenty of other actors might. By spreading not necessarily false but very simplified claims, you are drawing users who don't know better to systems where they will be clearly much worse off!

The list of relays is public. There are actually surprisingly few exits that carry most of the traffic, which yes, is a weakness, but that weakness is still stronger than anything else you could compare it to. You can look at the large operators like universities and nonprofits like www.torservers.net, their relays, and you will see that it does not take that big of a budget to run the majority of all exits in terms of total capacity. Is is much easier even to contribute high bandwidth entry nodes -- again, feel free to check the largest non-exits in terms of capacity, and investigate the motives. It's all public information.
The standard library provides safe downcasts on trait objects, which aren't all that dissimilar to Go interfaces.
Gday Platforms that censor speech List :-

* Facebook

* Twitter

* Google

* Youtube

* TUMBLR

* Pateron

* Stripe

* Paypal

* Twitch

* Spotify

* Apple

* pin interest

* LinkedIn

* Mailchimp

* Wordpress

* mastodon

* azure

* Mastercard

* Godaddy

* MEDIUM

* Shopify

* Cloudflare

* pusher

* WIKI

* Reddit

* teespring

* Slack

* coinbase

* GOFUNDME

* VISA

* Square

* Bitpay
Yes. The trust is not in the code, it’s in the hash power.
Understanding How Marginal Taxes Work: It’s All Party (Yet Again)
Liu Cixin already covers this in his well-known trilogy.

Also, Folding Beijing is an award winning short story encompassing all three things plus class strife, written by a Chinese author.
That came later. This is what they're talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hampsterdance_Song
If you think this stuff was on YouTube before it was in academia, you haven’t been paying attention to academia for very long.
It's miner and user confidence in a specific chain that ultimately defines it.

Similar to country sovereignty, these things are defined only by how most people define it. You can't just stand up and say you are now your own country, you need to get other countries, other people, to agree with you. But at the same time, if a country changes its name/laws/maps, it doesn't become a "new country", it just changes.

You can fork bitcoin, but unless most users and miners out there agree to call your fork "bitcoin", then it won't be bitcoin. But if "bitcoin" decides to radically change, and most people agree with the change, then it is still bitcoin, despite the differences.

(as an aside, anywhere I say "most people" here, you can replace that with "most hash power" or "most users" or any other metric you want. I'm not trying to speak to specifics, but more the overall idea)
I wonder how they got the raw hospital price data, is it published anywhere?
I've been back-burner-planning a long canoe trip, might just recycle this concept if I wind up writing about it. Thanks!
What was the problem exactly? The article is a bit shy about it. Integer overflows usually reduce the value instead of increasing it.
Top Ten Richest YouTubers and Their Worth
I can’t tell if you’re trolling or just have the strongest case of nostalgia I’ve ever seen.
It's both: it's a bug fix, whose side effect is a hard fork.

The whole point of a blockchain is that there is no single authority that can unilaterally impose "law" by fiat. In practical terms, the software used by the majority of clients is "law", but it's entirely possible for forked and non-forked chains to coexist: for example, Ethereum Classic is a pre-fork version of Ethereum, and Bitcoin Cash is a fork of Bitcoin.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Cash
This site has been a life saver on so many trips through places like India and Africa, where the information available through official channels is often difficult to find out understand.
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3225718