skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Really? He is saying that Dijkstra's own book Predicate Calculus and Program Semantics ("D&S") suffered because "in general computer people seem to have a penchant for whipping up homebrew logics," and Codd is another example. Anyway if he were giving Dijkstra's opinion that makes the lack of citation even more egregious.

But anyway the "who" is boring. I'm more interested to know what makes relational calculus an "obvious mess"?
It says you accept the terms "if you continue to use this website". Before clicking any button, negative or affirmative. Not a lawyer but pretty sure that's against GDPR.
what do you understand by super-intelligence?
IDK, Google's voice assistant thing still can't figure out my wife's name because it's not an English name and I pronounce it as it should be pronounced.
The inverse case seems more likely, where non-human equivalent intelligence becomes sufficient to recursively self improve to superintelligence. Both the before and after states seem relatively unrelated to human intelligence, which is one arbitrary (and, likely uninteresting) point in what I would assume is a many dimensional space to quantify intelligence.
GDPR requires active consent (or so I have repeatedly seen on HN), and that was clearly ignored
> No computer will ever demonstrate actual intelligence, which is the ability to bring a new and unforeseen solution to an existing problem

It's easy to disprove absolute claims such as yours. Yes AI can create new things and it's only getting better. You just need 1 example. Read up on AlphaGO. It was able to beat humans by coming up with techniques that no human has ever and possibly would never have come up with because of how illogical they seem to even the masters of Go.

Look into GANS. AI can create new things.
In particular I am interested in whether encrypted disk images or APFS volumes are "better" (by some metric), but I am interested in information about 3rd party solutions as well.
The problem is we have no useful definition for intelligence and therefore no way useful metric to measure.
>No computer will ever demonstrate actual intelligence, which is the ability to bring a new and unforeseen solution to an existing problem.

This is already false, given the many examples of machine learning out performing humans in a variety of tasks. Google's data center efficiency comes to mind (IIRC saving 30% in energy usage over human-found solutions). So does AlphaGO.
We had that in 2002, it was called P3P. Maybe it's time we came full circle...
Isn’t it the contract which gives the publisher rights to publish the game? If the publisher hasn’t executed their side of the contract, wouldn’t that mean that they don’t have rights to the game? DMCA sounds like an appropriate tool, then.

From what I understand, the way a breached contract gets handled varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I’m no expert.
Well, first off, is there a way to get stingrays broken such that they would be identified as rogue base stations and locked out as untrusted? If not, then hello to being compromised. Not that it would stop the NSA, but at least 3rd party or rogue states would not be able to deploy them if this could be achieved.
Here's my shorter-term thinking. Current ML can't generalize well [0], can't do arbitrary & conceptual thinking, and has trouble with language.

[0] by that, I mean that it does not easily pick up higher-level patterns unless explicitly forced to (through either model architecture, data & task setup, etc). Meaning - it has a much lower success rate outside of the training data distribution compared to "flesh" intelligence. Kind of reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHRvF0m3yuo
it depends on how old you are, but I think you may be right that AGI still needs on the order of hundreds of years to happen.
> Uber cars run over people. Facial recognition claims black people are criminals just for being black. Facebook's AI software lets in fake news.

Humans do all of those things too. We might not believe they are the right things to do, but doing them certainly doesn't rule out the presence of a human-like intelligence.
I have a 10Gbps uplink on my personal server and I can easily saturate it without getting capped on CPU or RAM.

LE offers other challenges to verify hosts, like DNS verification. DNS verification can be done easily with an external API for mirror owners to hit (most ACME clients offer DNS challenge with the standard update protocol for DNS which can be secure appropriately).
I don't necessarily disagree but go back to any of the discussions on here about data caps and read all the screams about stifling innovation, etc., etc.

I see both sides. Honestly, I think there was a better argument for it when the heavy users were a small percentage of users downloading a bunch of "Linux distributions" on bittorrent. Today, it's more likely to be a family that uses Netflix a lot.

Metering would change usage for better or worse and the fact is that a lot of domestic phone plans don't have caps, or at least meaningful ones any longer, although they may throttle data at some point.
Running SlashDB Under Hyper-V on Windows
Intelligence that behaves like the AI singularity.
Or even if it were all in the brain, accurately modeling neurons and interactions of neurons, on bajillions of cudas and threadrippers, will probably still take much longer than it takes for the real-life system to do its thing:

https://newatlas.com/spinnaker-neuromorphic-supercomputer-mo...
StackStorm – Event-Driven DevOps Automation Platform
But the point the page makes is that HTTPS wouldn't be good enough anyway. As such it's not a replacement for checking the PGP signature. I think it's consistent.

If HTTPS could be used to replace PGP signature checks then I'd agree with you but it's not the case. So I go back to my initial point, if you worry about your image being tampered with HTTPS is not enough. If you don't care then you don't care either way.

In a way not using HTTP is kind of an implicit disclaimer on Debian's part. "Don't trust what you get from this website". If they feel like they can't guarantee the security of whatever server is hosting the CD images adding HTTPS might actually be a bad thing because people who might otherwise have checked the signature may think "well, it's over HTTPS, it's good enough".
I see people rolling coal several times a week here in Texas.
If the only thing stopping the structural changes necessary to prevent ecological collapse was a fear of aliens, then I think we'd be doing better.

Also, the kind of technological delay you're talking about there would be a couple of decades at most, when it looks like you're talking about thinking in terms of centuries. If anything, we're slowing down necessary technological advances to maintain the status quo long past the point where it's tenable.
> People speaking on condition of anonimity because they are not authorized to discuss is one of the most annoying things about news today.

This has likely annoyed people since the beginning of anything related to journalistic inquiry. If these people didn't have a guarantee of anonymity, the public would be in the dark most of the time.

> I still appreciate the Snowden method. Got fed up to the point that the info must be released, but did not hide to keep his job.

Not everybody is in Snowden's position; relatively young, unmarried, no kids. He may be able to take this "cool guys don't look back at explosions" approach, but most people can't. That doesn't mean that what they know should remain hidden from view because it doesn't meet your standards for what a 'real whistleblower' looks like.

Snowden is also essentially trapped in Russia. The only reason he was able to find refuge there at all is because his revelations are a useful symbol of American hypocrisy any time the words "surveillance state" are bandied about in discussions about Russia. He's a smart guy and probably knows that the Kremlin's generosity will last only as long as he doesn't try to rock the boat by commenting on domestic Russian matters.
Question is, are the current approaches at AI the equivalent of the early flappy wing planes we were building to emulate birds?
I (once) wrote a Sports Illustrated opinion article years ago (similar situation to yours: made a comment on twitter to one of the popular talking heads, talking head took notice and replied, SI took notice, asked me to write something), your experience matched mine from the editing and review standpoint.

At first sitting back and reading the suggested edits and changes in place I had a similar first reaction as you did, but after doing the "walk away, do something else and come back to your writing later" thing, I found the opinion was still there though much less verbose.

Share that to say, the editorial process itself, even for opinion pieces-is rather....well... opinionated.
While the definition of senior engineer is a bit squishy, I agree completely that as some one gets more senior they increasingly choose the company rather than the other way around.

I'm soft-launching a product to help companies recruit and I've done about a dozen customer development interviews with hiring managers (5 person companies through FAANGs) in the last two weeks. One thing I heard constantly was that referrals are their best source of candidates and that for roles with 7+ years of relevant experience they actually don't believe good candidates will come in by just randomly applying on their website/LinkedIn/etc. I had an engineering manager tell me "a senior engineer actively searching for a job is a negative signal of candidate quality" as opposed to going through somebody in their network or connecting with somebody at the company first. I had another manager tell me for the senior roles he's hiring for he only considers candidates explicitly sourced by his internal recruiter who searches LinkedIn for the specific skillset or people who are referrals for the specific job. This isn't some CTO level position; this is just a role for a ~10 years of experience individual contributor. Applications from the website go straight to the trash can. The implication was people with those skills aren't looking for jobs.
You can't keep a significant portion of the upside without taking on more risk.
I disagree. I think his rhetoric feeds the 'we already understand it' mythology around the nature of AI technologies, and worse the state of our own understanding of the system they claim to model, and directly contributes to the harmful and frustrating boom-and-bust cycles that AI goes through. I'd lump him in the same category as Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking in this space; sellers of fantasy.

I admire his optimism, but I think it's irresponsible to sell it like he does.
Dialogs with Machines: Enterprise Conversational AI’s Turing Test
I disagree with you - security is important at all layers of the stack. Right now, your mobile phone will connect to fake towers (Stingray). This means that SMS 2FA codes can be intercepted to you, I believe.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2018/04/06/washington-dc-aw...
Who says you can only worry about one thing?
That would come perilously close to tortious interference. They would have no standing to do so, any more than withholding your funds because you didn't pay your rent.
Ethereum / Solidity Smart Contract Debugging Course
Thanks! So 2ppm/year gives us another 300 yrs to top 1000 ppm. I guess we’re safe for now! Rock on
SpaceX's Crew Dragon settles on Feb 9 launch debut as Falcon 9 nears static fire
cant tell if downvotes are people who don't understand exponential growth or people who think I don't understand exponential growth
Watchmaker Patek Philippe May Be Coming Up for Sale
It’d be a lot easier to believe not coming from a company selling ads. Google would be far more of a self improvement tool if it were not incentivized to sell you things you don’t want.
> Before we can have a healthy conversation about this, I assume you’ll agree that our industry has an inclusion and diversity problem. If this isn’t the case, you can stop here; I doubt I’m going to convince you of anything in this post.

I guess I have to stop reading there. :/
I agree with you, I would also suggest, fines are a niggling mentality. A non serially compliant like google should have its financial holdings [all of them] taken into receivership, and appropriately docked until they comply or liquidate and cease operations. now there are some big pointy nasty teeth to have sink in to the bone
> we are looking at the top 1% of software engineers

Working for a big company that pays well does not mean you're at the top 1% of software engineers. It means you're willing to do what it takes to secure that job and maintain it, including moving somewhere many don't want to live.
The course stand-alone is 30 USD, but the monthly subscription that gives access to all the videos is 10 USD (70 videos, 10 hours of content). 1 new video added every day.
Bizarre to see this type of comment on a technology-focused site. Turbo Tax can figure it out, but the government can’t?
Recursive self improvement in which field of intelligence? Does getting better and better pattern matching eventually lead to human level intelligence? Does improving pattern matching accelerate our ability at improving pattern matching even?

We can solve any board game now with alpha-zero but will that necessarily improve how fast we develop other types of intelligence?

I used to be in Rays camp but my girlfriend got into Computational Neuroscience and I talked with her and her colleagues got the impression very very few people think we’re close to general intelligence.

Human intelligence is a lot of things put together and we may get better at pieces but we don’t even have all the pieces and when we do try to put them together it doesn’t work. Look at criticisms of Europe’s Himan Brian project[1] (another example I had seems to be outdated), some believe we don’t understand too much to even begin to attempt modeling the brain.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project
SV Bubble? Maybe. But looking at it more long-term, aren't all the incentives there for programming to become a blue-collar (as in more modest pay) job?

* Good to great pay both attracts more people and makes employers supportive of policies to increase the labour supply.

* Cultural acceptance.

* Widespread access to computers and the internet. This was not the case just ~15 years ago.

* Low risk of automatization gets it promoted by governments all over the western world.

* Low barrier of entry. I mean come on, let's not pretend that work on most apps/websites today necessarily requires a CS degree.

* Remote work, in all its glory, may however increase competition for jobs.

I'm just worried about how far this will go given the currently rather widespread anti-union sentiment - even after years and years of game industry bullshit.
It appears to have been the developers only option as the legal route to resolving the problem would cripple them financially.

So perhaps not the right tool, but certainly an effective one.
Yeah, very true. :\
Laughing can be a nervous or awkward reaction as well as the usual. I don't know if this is universal but I and others sometimes get a compulsion to laugh when told bad news.
Microsoft Employee Hints at Windows Core OS Open Source Components
I mean Kurzweil has found a home at Google but he has been talking about the singularity for far longer afaik.
>I think (human)intelligence almost guarantees recursive self improvement

That's quite a wide claim, seeing that we haven't seen much "recursive self improvement".
> just negotiate better

In every other aspect of computers, the industry has finally embraced usability as a desirable goal, and not just for end-users.

On my first computer, you had to read a 100-page user manual and learn exactly what commands to type. In my first programming language, you had to manually allocate (and worse, deallocate) memory. With my first database, we used to have to go type VACUUM regularly. None of these is true today.

Yet even though some of the highest paid people in the world are members of unions and have agents to do their negotiating, programmers seem to have latched onto this idea that if you're not making top dollar or have your ideal working conditions, you should "just negotiate better".

Why stop there? Tell programmers they should "just program better", too.

> You can also unionize

Have you ever organized? I don't think you realize how difficult this is, especially without strong support from an existing union. There's a reason unions heap rewards on people who do it.

Existing unions also have great labor lawyers. A common response to even thinking about unionization is getting fired. (That was in the news recently because it happened 4 weeks ago here in Seattle.) Labor laws aren't what they once were, and there's usually no consequence to the company for firing organizers.
> Dijkstra on the other hand believed programming students should be forced to prove the correctness of their programs.

This is why Dijkstra wrote his newsletter by hand - he couldn't find a word processor that had been proven correct, nor a proven correct OS to run it on.

I'm kidding, but it illustrates the problem with Dijkstra's approach. If not just students but actual working programmers had to prove the correctness of their programs, we'd have much less software - say, 5% as much. But that other 95% does some actually useful things, even though it can still break. Would you rather have a word processor that crashes every once in a while? Or would you prefer a typewriter?
Here's the game in question: https://store.steampowered.com/app/505740/Eximius_Seize_the_...

And the announcement on Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/games/505740/announcements/detail...
Anybody who understands opportunity costs...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1086055092321697794.html
I agree with the statement "they cost money for both parties" but I disagree with "in that sense it's fair."

Individual consultant: loses 5 hours of interview time (and commute time) or take-home exam. Let's call it $800 for the sake of argument.

Company: loses 5 hours of interview time, plus the time it takes to "quiz" the exam.

Individual loses money that he / she uses to pay their mortgage.

Company loses profit because the time spent interviewing the candidate could have been spent working on feature Y of the application. So shareholders / VC's lose.

So you're saying it's fair that the individual contributor who loses half a day's pay in your interview process is equivalent (you DID use the word "fair" so that's an equivalence argument you made) to a company's loss of a few hours out of the many thousands of man-hours they rely upon? It's a .0001% of their profit, assuming the employers don't work a few hours more to make up for the lost time, because they will (they're salaried!)
Well, do you make 500k? If not, then why not? It’s possible in the US, but the median US household income is 1/8 that. The vast majority of workers, probably including most software engineers, ate better off at $50k but not having to worry about insurance if they get laid off, and getting 3-6 weeks notice when being let go (among other things).
> I think until you have interviewed a LOT of people, it can be hard to quickly spot this.

What is your threshold for "a lot"? I have given a few dozen interviews. I always ask at least a couple background questions. The number who even have a polished delivery for that part at all are a minority, and the couple that tried to bullshit me we're painfully transparent. Maybe I just haven't done enough yet.
Just FYI, going to the moon is also impossible. See "Van Allen Belts."
Why isn't the network cleartext then?
That article is talking about needing to increase production 20% over twelve years, which doesn't seem like a major obstacle. It also highlights pricing as the issue more than production capacity.
For the Love of Pipes
This post sounds like it was taken right out of the Facebook "connecting people" PR playbook.
When I think about lower level security, I think about things like jamming and signal intercepting, and I think about things like being able to tell that you've connected to the right tower.

Secuirty at the client and server layer doesn't help you if you can't get connected at all.
The problem is that politics doesn't deal with the lifetime of our species; it deals with the recent past, the present, and the near future. When you narrow the timeframe down like that, race and ethnic categories are meaningful, important, and real. You can look at someone and make some pretty good guesses about their life history and where their ancestors came from and what they experienced. I appreciate the sentiment behind the "race isn't real" position, but it's wrong and, in being wrong, it gives a toehold to people who really do care about race for all the wrong reasons. IMO, a much better position is to acknowledge that race is real, but just one part of what makes an individual who they are.
If the abstracts were actually true and someone implemented an actually error corrected qubit with lifetime 320ms, I guess it should be trivial to apply a few thousand operations to a mere 4 qubits and factor the number 15.

You're at Yale and presumably going to Berkeley later: maybe you should try to do this. Sounds to me like you could build a whole career on meeting the challenges involved in factoring the number 15.

Edit add: since you continue to add material, I will continue to add comments; half the text of the Blatt paper is verbiage making excuses for the fact they dropped the operations they knew were not needed to factor 15, just like the NMR quantum computers in the 90s did. In fact, this one is worse than 90s results.
Most humans use a GUI when they can(with their connections stored and autocomplete and a few other nice-ities. Of course if you only ever use MySql or Postgres through command line, congrats - you know how to do basic connections(I assume using -h makes you an imposter)

As for the Linux/tar piece, I've used Linux on desktop for a few years(both Ubuntu & Fedora) & have used Suse and CentOS for servers for much longer.

I can tell you tar means tape archive. I can tell you I mostly use it with gunzip to compress it. I still google/reverse terminal search what flags to use with it both when archiving it and unarchiving it. I could probably remember some flags if I spent enough time thinking - why would my brain waste that much effort though?

I don't work as a backup administrator. I have better things to worry about knowing/having present at the forefront of my (admittedly human sized) memory.
> No machine intelligence has yet shown an ability to match humans in multifaceted intelligence

This is pretty absurd to point to as an intermediate goalpost; that's basically game over when it happens.
Not sure what you're arguing.

I'm fine going through tough technical interviews.

I'm not fine spending 3-5+ hours on some trivial coding task that can be gamed and was issued to me by folks who may not have even thoroughly checked my resume.

Given the current supply/demand curve, and the fact that top employers like FAANGs do not require this sort of time and effort (and for a good reason), I don't have to jump through that hoop.
I don’t find this any different than a steam shovel outpacing a human digger. It’s still necessary to prevent both from destroying things and harming people.
well, people do use wifi from hotels and airbnb...
same :(
> Each time they would laugh afterwards, like they were just playing around, or like it was a big party or something.

Terrorists in TV and movies are never like this. They're always super-serious evil, like Voldemort, like nobody ever is in real life. I wonder how much violence could be prevented if Hollywood didn't give us such a bullshit view of human nature.
But definitely not Python 2.6!