skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Agreed, it's 2019 I too would rather have the computer vision community use a different image instead Lenna, perhaps the proposed Fabio Lanzoni[1] or the Kodak image suite[2].

[1] https://www.cmc.edu/news/every-picture-tells-a-story

[2] http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/
Yes, I read about it in the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L4_(Mikrokernel)), but the link provided there as a source does not work anymore: http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified

The other link provided is a press release in German: http://pressetext.de/news/090817022/sicherheits-beweis-fuer-...
> Lewis-Kraus’s critiques are based on incomplete facts and largely anonymous sources whose motivations are impossible to assess. Curiously, he did not ask me about the great majority of his concerns. Had he done so, the evidence underlying his thesis that my work is “indistinguishable from the racialized notions of the swashbuckling imperial era” would have fallen apart.

Well, yes. For those wondering why the author did do the simplest possible due diligence — asking the subject of the article about the thinking used to frame it — it's because it likely would have resulted in a less-interesting, less-trafficked story. Accuracy isn't the objective, reach and audience is. Corrections can be packaged up and slipped in later.
Air tight buildings need a heat recovery ventilator.
As an exploit analyst currently focusing on network traffic, can we stop all this fascination with SSL/TLS? TLS is incredible, but let's use the right tool for the job. Contrary to Let's Encrypt motto, applying TLS to _everything_ can be bad for security.

Let's Encrypt, when are you going to revoke placeimg.com's certificate? The site has been pushing Exploit Kit's malicious payloads since Jan 18 2019 via SSL. Many Flash/IE users are getting infected because most firewalls are unable to peer into SSL tunnels signed by you.

(To be fair, Let's Encrypt is not the only cert authority getting abused (Comodo, yes you))
I question what objective standards are here. Human intelligence sucks in terms of consistent long term memory, and possibly in terms of not being influenced by emotions/outside forces. It's pretty good at a number of things computers are terrible at however, including ability to generalize from very limited "training" examples, combining "models" i.e. general object recognition with physical movement/obstacle avoidance, lots of things having to do with natural language. What kinds of objective standards were you referring to?

For my part I have faith that computers are great at memorization, and will continue to improve on that front. However, I'm less convinced on their ability to "understand", which is admittedly poorly defined, but intuitive. It seems to me there's still a missing piece between machine learning (essentially all things that are called "AI" these days) and the kind of generalization that we expect out of even a human 1 year old or your average vertebrate.
Did you consider that when there is a manual process it is in place to bring combined attention to what surely is (by 2019) a critical section: that needs consensus not provided by some monitoring hook.
Sure, everything is about automation and it has been since 1999 in my experience.
And also, Do not forget that only a small percentage of developers are making those numbers. And that is quite normal since those companies are in the Fortune 500 most valuable companies in the world!

Comparing that percentage, you would see the same pattern in every other industry. If you do something uncommonly good, you make more than everyone else in the industry. Same applies to all other skills that are mentioned in the article. If you pick the top earners in law, medicine, etc, you will easily find higher numbers.
Intel MMX vs. Microsoft Talisman Abbott and Costello Do Multimedia
This makes me really nostalgic about Sun. A bit sad too.
It's unclear to me if you are familiar with GANs, mentioned by grandparent.

A software can hallucinate entirely new photographs that did not exist before of a certain category of objects, like a "dog" or a "burger" or a "celebrity".

Of course it was "made possible" by the human-programmed software, but very very indirectly. In particular, the programmer doesn't really know deeply how it does its thing, and cannot possibly create the same result himself manually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKQp28OqwNQ
PS: As always I recommend https://www.deepl.com/translator for translation.
TO BATTLE!

Reducing it to "pro type-safety vs pro-flexibility" doesn't tell the whole story. For me, it's "pro-consistency vs pro-inconsistency" or "pro-tooling-that-makes-sure-I-don't-screw-up-something-trivial vs pro-keeping-absolutely-everything-in-my-head-at-all-times." Of course, that's _also_ pretty superficial and unfair -- plenty of amazing work has and will be done without type safety -- but as a bonafide Kool-Aid-drinking TypeScript Cultist, I feel obligated to share that because it's made my life better.
You can just buffer one packet and reject it if you want at the end.
> Privatizing profits and socializing losses refers to the practice of treating firms' earnings as the rightful property of their shareholders, while treating losses as a responsibility that society as a whole must shoulder, for example through taxpayer-funded subsidies or bailouts.
There are more variables at play than just co2, humans are not perfectly elastic spherical CO2 emitters ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study
https://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/greengood.aspx
more precise: for every website that wants to use cookies and choose (or had to choose for lack of alternatives) consent as their justification for processing. Not all data processing requires consent.
Sadly reputation comes from result.

He was given 2 tasks and he only delivers one result.

I know this sounds... not ideal... but it is what it is.

His manager probably has to operate at the same level of expectation: given 3 tasks by his manager (or director), either you finish all 3 or you're less dependable.
How do you define 'useful'?

My keyboard and monitor are brain-computer interfaces. I'd argue that they are pretty useful.

I can imagine a way to consume information that is dramatically faster than the 500 or some odd words per minute I get reading.

But for input to the computer? I mean, I'm not saying that a keyboard can't be improved upon, but I think there are some hard limits to how quickly I can compose my thoughts; I think that it's fairly rare that the fingers are the limit. (Of course, making it so I think less about the fingers would be great)

What I'm saying is that there might be human processing speed issues that limit how much value we can get out of faster I/O.

On the other hand, maybe it's like reading was for me; before I could read at a certain speed and certain ease, I couldn't enjoy books, because I'd forget the beginning of the paragraph before I got to the end. Like I needed to load enough words at once to see the picture. It's totally possible that output would be the same way; if I could somehow output the equivalent of five hundred plus words per minute, maybe that would change my writing the same way passing that speed changed my reading?
As someone who was only briefly acquainted with the "buy ugly produce" idea in the first place and thought it sounded vaguely good. I never looked into actually taking action because I couldn't be bothered.

I do think they are being unkind and rude. There were too sides here the "scammers" and the clueless good people who got taken for a ride. Alienating the latter group is a mistake and will just make people avoid you because they will never be good enough for you anyway.

I on the other hand, feel vindicated in my apathy. "Trying to do good is a waste of time, the world is too ungrateful"
No, Superman's S would be covered by trademark. Sending DMCA takedown notices in response to trademark violations may expose you to liability under DMCA section 512(f).

It seems like you have an objection to the DMCA, but the story about space lasers is a bit hard to understand. I'm not sure what your complaint is. The reason I chose "Lex Luthor" is because choosing a name makes it easier to understand hypothetical scenarios (instead of using them/they everywhere, or "the infringing party"), and because he took forty cakes, and that's as many as four tens.
Furthermore, this is the first fine falling under GDPR. The previous fines handed out by the CNIL were pre-GDRP, with much lower maximum amounts (300 k€). So a 250k€ fine is close to the maximum they could fine, which makes sense given the offense.
Evolution of CNN architectures in Emoji
Were an MMT system inevitably go awry, the outward manifestation would be of course manifest as inflation, so central planners would of course try to get ahead of it by draining more liquidity, faster, by increasing taxes. As this fed on itself and accelerated, the populace, as if being swept up in a hyperinflation isn’t bad enough, would be sandwiched between hyperinflation and hypertaxation!.

I'm not convinced. Deficit hawks have been beating the inflation drums for decades now, with zilch to show for it.

We do see inflation. But rather than inflated consumer prices, we see inflated asset prices as measured by historical valuations of stocks and record-low (or even negative) bond yields for example.

MMT seems like a prescription, not for Weimar-style hyperinflation, but a world in which asset prices rise beyond any reasonable level only to collapse in a terrifying catastrophe, only to be rescued by central banks which buy up even more assets to continue the cycle.

The Bank of Japan has a leg up on the US here. It currently owns a sizable share of the Japanese stock market:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/BOJ-is-top-10-shareholder-in...
The only reason we'd needed QE in the first place is that we had been printing too little money when the Great Recession happened, and so we let "natural" nominal rates drop well below the zero bound. QE is like a "helicopter lift" for nominal rates (the "helicopter" metaphor is one that economists and central bankers use routinely to explain how QE works) - having to resort to it doesn't mean that we're printing too much money, but too little of it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18960564
Attacker can simply count the bytes. They can buffer one packet, send ack, and reject it based on bytes transferred. Also it's trivial know when next package starts. Apt doesn't steam all packages at once, it first send first package with http keep alive then waits until client orders the second package.
500.000$ release (2017)
I think that misses the point. SQL does not prevent a junior dev from selecting many more rows than he needs to and then proceed to iterate over them naively.
Is It Time to Call the Butterfly Switch Keyboard an Engineering Failure?
Why aren't you using cross compiled Rust then?
I downvoted you because you show disdain regulation but it is clear the marketplace for a secure, unified messaging solution has failed. EU regulation of the telcom sector has proven effective in protecting consumers from poor decisions (such as exorbitant roaming fees). Regulation should not be the first option, but the last, and it is clear it is the only solution left in this regard.
Doctors are already seeing commoditization as healthcare systems consolidate and adopt standardized workflows (aided by EHR implementations). And nurse practitioners and physicians assistants are doing much of the work once done exclusively by doctors, but with less training and lower pay.

It wouldn't surprise me if index funds have caused a decline in earnings for investment bankers.
Why are wages so low for garment workers in Bangladesh?
Street magician Steven Bridges performs A/B testing (9 minutes)
AMZN Vancouver pays fresh-grad $95k base + sign-on (30-50k) + RSUs (20-30 units)
That is an entirely different matter than what this decision is about? I would think this probably doesn't even need explicit consent, as it is stored in order to fulfill a legal obligation that results from the sales contract.

Now, maybe it would be preferable to ask for permission in those cases as well (just put a checkbox in the order form?), but my point (though maybe not stated clearly enough) was not that I expect only data to be stored when I explicitly ask for it for be stored, but that it is only stored when I explicitly ask for something that necessarily requires the data to be stored. So, if I order some digital goods, it might be required that the shop stores my IP address, so that's probably OK. But my point is that that does not include the permission to use it for anything other than fulfilling the legal obligation, and most certainly not to also store my navigation behavior on their website, or to keep it once they don't need it for tax purposes anymore.
>> How does TypeScript make your "productivity drop enormously

- Slow debug cycle due to increased compile time. If using TDD, it takes longer to run tests. The delays adds up - Especially on large projects and especially if you're not used to having a build step during development.

- Sporadic source mapping issues/bugs which makes it hard to fix things (I had an issue with Mocha tests last week where it was always telling me that the issue was on line 1). I've worked with TypeScript on multiple projects across different companies but every single time, there has been source mapping or configuration issues of some kind.

- Type definitions from DefinitelyTyped are often out of date or have missing properties/methods. It means that I can't use the latest version of a library.

- Third party libraries are difficult to integrate into my project's code due to conflicts in type names or structural philosophy (e.g. they leverage types to impose constraints which are inconsistent with my project requirements).

- Doesn't guarantee type safety at runtime; e.g. If parsing an object from JSON at runtime; you still need to do type validation explicitly. The 'unknown' type helps but it's not clear that this whole flow of validating unknown data and then casting to a known type adds any value over regular schema validation done in plain JavaScript.

- Whenever I write any class/method, I have to spend a considerable amount of time and energy thinking about how to impose constraints on the user of the library/module instead of assuming that the user is an intelligent person who knows what they're doing.

- Compiler warnings make it hard to test code quickly using console.log(...); I'm more reliant on clunky debuggers which slows me down a lot and breaks my train of thought.

- The 'rename symbol' feature supported by some IDEs is nice, but if a class or property is mentioned inside a string (e.g. in a test case definition) then it will not rename that; so I still have to do text search after doing a symbol rename and manually clean up.

- It takes a lot of time think of good names for interfaces and they are renamed often as project requirements evolve. It's not always clear whether similar concepts should be different types or merged into one. It often comes down to what constraints you want to impose on users; This adds a whole layer of unnecessary mental work which could have been better spent on thinking about logic and coming up with meaningful abstractions which don't require arbitrary constraints to be imposed.

- Setting up TypeScript is a pain.

- Adds a lot of dependencies and complexity. It's a miracle that TypeScript works at all given how much complexity it sweeps under the carpet. Have you looked at the output JavaScript? Try to compile something that uses async generators and see what the output looks like.
I measured CO2 levels in my bedroom and it where highest just before sleep (around 1000ppm), then wen't down during sleep. The article got some very high readings. Either they're doing "exercise" or the room has bad ventilation.
Front-end web development is at least as old as the web itself so I’m not sure I agree with that argument.
Through the Moongate: Richard Garriott, Origin, and Ultima
It's not a general disdain but IMO here it makes sense.

Has it really failed though?
There was an ACM problem a few years ago where it was asked to count the collisions. We implemented the simulation and noticed the digits of PI but we didn't actually proven the fact. Got AC.
Transparent bones reveal hidden blood vessels
Like you say, the fact that they're mostly grain-fed makes the grass-fed angle largely moot, but in a modern context, surely if it were for some reason necessary for humans to derive calories from grass, there would be more efficient ways to do so than by than by feeding them to a cow over a several-month-long period and then eating the cow (e.g., enzymatically or through fermentation).
Vespa.ai is just awesome. I praise everyday since we moved from ElasticSeaech to it!
One of the ways to add a substantive "me, too" or "+1" is to provide additional insight and reasoning as to why (and omit the "me, too" or "+1").
if you're compensated 300-400k annually, you'll have enough to move somewhere else or take risks if you play your cards right (huge savings, etc).

Or the other options is to jump to a different companies that offer more money or more equities or higher level.
Why would you need it on a home network? Best case scenario you just add latency to all your requests.
Right. So we've just successfully moved the goalposts to "write a reward function that objectively evaluates g"
Quietly Suffering: Why Aren’t More Founders Talking About Mental Health?
Of course. There could be a dozen harrowing stories just like this from that day except for the part where they survive.
Did you even read the article? This is explained at length. Https doesn't give you that benefit since attacker can still single out package based on length and in https address is in plaintext.
But we do know there must be algorithms capable of solving the Turing test, since there are only finite questions you could ask and only finite answers you could get back (just like how we know Go is solvable). Whether or not that's equivalent to emulating the human mind is unknown, but what's the difference in practice? Anything that could solve the Turing test is necessarily equally as powerful as humans at the use of language, which was the original problem being addressed in your post.
I think (but maybe it is only a duplicate) that you may be thinking at this story about Tom Watson (IBM):

http://www.mbiconcepts.com/watson-sr-and-thoughtful-mistakes...
Do we have secure SMS messages? Do we have unified mobile messaging with a mature protocol that is both widely accessible as well as secure? How many more decades shall we wait? (asked rhetorically, yet politely) Yes, I argue it has failed, and an SMS/MMS successor would look like a descendent of iMessages and Google's RCS.

iMessages supports CALEA (but is still end to end encrypted, as well as FaceTime), all US messaging products must support it (even Twilio supports it [1] [2]). You are unable to subvert nation state legal jurisdictions within fundamental telcom infrastructure. Signal can get away with it, Apple, Google, and cellular carriers cannot.

Can't have your cake (universal messaging) and eat it (end to end encryption with zero trust requirement) too. So can't we push from something better than SMS, using regulation if required? It must not be perfect, but simply extensible in the future (similar to SS7). In jurisdictions that are favorable to it, you support E2E encryption. In those that are not, you downgrade loudly. Compromises must occasionally be made.

[1] https://www.twilio.com/legal/law-enforcement-guidelines

[2] https://support.twilio.com/hc/en-us/articles/223136547-Submi...
> Cities competing for businesses is a net loss to the tax payer.

Sure, if the taxpayer exists as an abstract concept. Not when the Taxpayer is a sandwich seller near the new company’s office. Or when the Taxpayer is given a new job at the company. Or when the Taxpayer is the family that can now rent out its mother in-law unit more easily
If I agree with you: Yep it sure is, and that's perfectly ethical for personal and corporate use. To businesses, they have a responsibility to filter what goes in and out of their network, in the interest of their customers and themselves.

If I don't agree with you: Do you think IP/port based firewalls are censorship? That any kind of cyber-border security is an affront to rights? If not, then how do you govern access as a private organization when everything is tcp/443 on AWS? Gotta know what it's going to.
There are actually a bunch of different ideas that all go under the "singularity" label making the term fairly confusing. You describe one. Another is the idea that if AIs start designing computers you'll have a positive feedback loop in improvements in computer speed. Another is that we can't predict the actions of a smarter-than-human intelligence. And then there's Kurzweil's idea that progress tends to speed up and at some point we call it the Singularity for some reason. I just wanted to point this out because I've seen a number of arguments caused by people using the same words for very different ideas of "the singularity" without realizing it.
One would arguably have been right. All that is necessary to make this argument compelling is to take a longer view than the human attention span.

The current population explosion is evidence for, not against, this, IMO... stars also enjoy boom times, even as they consume the last of their resources, in ever more exotic formulations...
So MMT is terrible because it prints money and will be a catastrophe, but measures like QE are fine because it prints money to bail out the financial sector but isn't that large a catastrophe?
Not exactly. Most societies have survived for the last several centuries, at least in a broad sense. If we compare the last century or so, especially the last century since the last conflict since the largest governments, the current economic system has proven to be one that can deliver consistent economic growth without necessitating inter-state violence.

Most prior economic systems have failed to do both of these. Either they didn't have that much capacity for growth (e.g. once you're farming all the arable land, your agrarian kingdom isn't going to be producing much more land), or necessitated violent expansion (only way to get wealthier is to raid or annex somebody else's territory).

Unless we have examples of societies experience consistent economic growth, without any substantial form of expansion of territory or use of state power, then this isn't survivorship bias. It's just a sober analysis of history.
>Look, if you looooove declaring types and somehow thinks this reduces bugs, great.

I'm speechless. Do you believe type checking doesn't catch bugs? Because that's what it sounds like you're implying.

>But if you want to declare one is fundamentally or empirically better, then you need to get a grip. We can all like different things, it's allowed.

This is a ridiculous argument. People make such declarations because they believe them to be true. You're basically saying, "You're insane if you disagree with me that one is not fundamentally better than the other."

>The one core thing I'd like to stress, however, is that TS is not JS. If you use TypeScript, you are not using JavaScript. They are cousins, sure, or maybe uncle and niece, but they are not the same.

I don't see why this would stop anyone from using TypeScript. Why should we care?

(Also: When people say 'TypeScript is just JavaScript,' it's not because they're crazy. It is just saying something else. TypeScript is a strict superset of JavaScript that is compatible and compiles down trivially, which is in contrast to CoffeeScript for example, which was previously popular. Nobody was ever claiming that TypeScript triple equals JavaScript.)

...

You start off by implying that type-checking is ineffective ('[somehow think] this reduces bugs') then call for people to not engage in flame wars... what did you expect to happen?!
That would be a worthy HN post.