skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
See what problem? That's the question here.

Climate change is not a problem, it is a phenomena which have consequences. Some of them we see today some are 100 years into the future.

We don't know what the right solution for the consequences in the future is as we don't even know what the consequences are and we don't even know what the problems are going to be.

We can speculate but we can be wrong and so its much better to solve the problems we have today in ways we know how to solve and then invest in R&D to develop better solutions than to chase a future that might or might not be here.

Alternatively I fear the current scenario were people have panicked and spend more time arguing on the internet than actually doing anything constructive about the problems right in front of them.
End user tasks might be able to be automated into dumb programming jobs, but companies have tried for decades to down-source their programming and it always falls flat on its face.

Even if you have library support to hand hold your budget coders, even if you use a lot of them, even if you give them all the time in the world, they will produce more complicated, less coherent, less stable, buggier, and harder to modify, improve, or iterate results than better coders who understand the problem better.

That means that no matter how little you pay up front you end up paying more in the long run throwing more man hours and money at fixing the mess made. A good mess is easier to maintain and improve and costs less over time. A mediocre / bad mess takes substantial efforts to maintain and iterate on.

Its also probably a domain impossible problem to remove the ability for any coder to make bad code. If for no other reason that in any programming environment you can never stop someone from iterating by index over a binary searchable tree for a specific element in it, or you can't stop someone from turning a float into a string to truncate the decimal part to then reinterpret the result as an int. But if you don't give them the tools - the integer types, the data structures, access to the bytes in some form or another - you aren't really programming. Someone else did the programming and you are just trying to compose the result. A lot of businesses, like I said, can be sated on that, but its still not programming unless you are in a Turing complete environment, and anyone in such an environment can footgun themselves.
Yes, it is finally leveling off after years of extreme increases in prices. Demand has cooled as mortgage interest rates have crept up.
Wouldn’t a meaningful study of Saudi Arabia include the house of Saud?

Anecdotals suggest the House of Saud itself has exploded in size.

Supposedly at a rate far greater that House of Saud’s revenue streams.

Petrodollar recycling programs often in the form of western arms contracts are a way for the House of Saud and insiders to “clip the ticket” on big dollar contracts.

The multidecade Al Yamamah contract worth tens of billions with UK defence industry saw a corruption investigation stopped as a “matter of nationa, security” due to Saudi pressure.

In commerce, financial reporting often includes “same store sales” for retail and restaurants.

I wonder if “average Saudi Prince kickback/revenue generated” would be a valid metric?

I suspect kickback revenue per member of the House of Saud has been in the decline.
No, nor does the United States' Congressional Research Service[1]. In a 2017 report, John Sargent projects that Computer Occupations will "see the largest increase in the number employed (546,100), the largest annual average number of labor force exits (75,800), and the largest annual average number of occupational transfers (217,300)". In total, 58.6% of all science & engineering jobs will be computer occupations.

Now, "is there a bubble"? Again, no. If we look at those numbers as hard deadlines, then let's see how many students are leaving college with CS degrees? The National Center for Education Statistics reports that only 60,000 bachelor degrees were conferred in 2015 [2]. Enrollment is still at its highest point, but no where near the amount Sargent says we'll be needing by 2026.

I think the biggest concern to a programming bubble is the capacity challenges we face in training these new developers. If you look at historical trends, there is no dot-com crash right now. Maybe people getting scared because of data analytics, but nothing as severe as 2003's web companies over-estimating their worth.

Instead, I think this looks more like the bubble from the 1980's [3,4]. Roberts and Henn try to explain the cause for the drop in enrollment. Henn focuses predominantly on gender representation in the media making females feel like CS was "boy's only". Female enrollment is only now beginning to return. Roberts, on the other hand, looks at how institutes handled the increase in CS enrollment. Since there were only so many qualified instructors, colleges began to make harder and harder qualifying requirements for enrollment. Students, as a whole, got the point and sought out other degrees.

So "is there a bubble?" maybe/maybe not; but it would be because there are not enough qualified instructors to teach the need.

[1] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf
[2] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.10.a...
[3] https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/CSCapacity/
[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when...
Invalidating caches when using many-to-many associations in Rails
Skip reading it on twitter and throw it in one of the million web apps that convert it to a blog. Probably some chrome extensions out there doing it too

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1086055092321697794.html
As a data scientist myself, I learned to write code that utilized arrays and matrices - from the most basic library. From cleaning to analysis to machine learning (I supposed numpy was used for ML). Is this the most correct manner to write code? I don't know but learning to do DS without specific Python libraries has improved my coding ability. Aside from being able to read in different data formats I believe I could do a fair portion of my work in C.
I haven't gone through your link yet, but sounds like Survivorship Bias here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
Fire safety experts recommend that bedroom doors be closed at night: https://closeyourdoor.org/
The means to do those things were programmed by humans. While the computer is faster at assessing all of the possibilities, it isn't coming up with anything that wasn't made by possible by the human-programmed software.

We now have to have safety belts for Amazon workers to keep them from being run over by robots!
Just one suggestion, but https://www.euclidea.xyz/ is a great place to start. Visual Group Theory sounds appropriate too: https://www.amazon.com/Visual-Group-Theory-Problem-Book/dp/0...
Sure, but I think you'll agree that it's a dark horse, far more dark than Moore's law or Dennard scaling.
> These are all errors that could be avoided by actual human intelligence.

Do you think that dogs are intelligent? Can you imagine some situation where the dog intelligence is not enough to solve it?

Unlike dogs intelligence, the intelligence of computers is improving. Now they can play chess and go like a grand master, but 30 years ago it was an impossible task.

The problems you cite are real, but sometimes people fail at them too (drivers regularly run over people, witness misidentify suspect because they have a skin color that is not the skin color of most of the people they see, people actually believe and like fake news). Just give some years until the interface with the real world is improved and computers have more "street" knowledge to apply in difficult situations.

> See "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" for one reason.

I have now idea about how this is related.
You can check VLC website to know what’s the last version. It’s not a secret. While I don’t know the reason to prefer http over https, the only legitimate http threat is to serve non-latest version.
Betting on technology evolving faster than expected is usually a safe bet, but it feels like Ray has been working on flawed premises and refuses to revise them.
Oh, sure: I was just clarifying that copyright doesn't help here. Honestly I think it'd be a silly patent? But USPTO grants lots of silly patents.
People have enough money after two years!?!?!
Agreed!

And similarly just because it isn't doing well that doesn't mean that it is doing badly.
Nature never demonstrated Seaborgium, but we were still able to create it.
I believe the parent was trying to point out the inconsistencies in calling something "autonomous" yet still saying that it's incapable to doing things without a cell connection.
What, specifically, has he gotten wrong?
>1) It would definitely be slower than not having that dialogue at all (the less UI elements - the simpler).
>Do you remember that typical user visits Google web site NOT to setup his privacy settings, but with a totally different goal (such as do web search)?

I mean have you seen the current dialog you get when you get on a google domain with a "fresh" session? It's a wall of text with a scrollbar redirecting you to multiple other pages if you want to see what exactly Google collects. It's also pretty unclear what each link leads to and how to opt out of everything. Clearly they didn't really optimize for simplicity here, they're the only ones to blame for that.

I'm perfectly aware that people don't go to google.com specifically to setup privacy settings, and that's precisely what Google is counting on. By using an unnecessarily complex interface they hope that people will give up immediately and accept whatever Google is pushing.

>In order to form a reasonable opinion on that cookie choice -- I personally spent multiple hours (if not days) of reading and thinking.

Well that's your choice, my modus operandi is simpler: I systematically refuse everything I can refuse. That's quick and easy. I have yet to witness any degradation of my browsing experience.

I'd be curious to hear what kinds of dilemmas you've had while reading the terms and conditions that lead you to days of thinking.
As far as we know, human language is generated by the brain, and the brain is made of parts that can in principle be simulated. If other parts of the body also turn out to be essential, there's no known physical limitation on simulating those either. This doesn't mean it will actually be practicable to do so, only that it's not theoretically impossible. By what mechanism does your idea of "spirituality" make it impossible to simulate human brains with sufficient accuracy to pass a Turing test? (or any other language generator not necessarily modeled on humans)
Organizations Advocating for Privacy in 2019
My take on this is that: yes, a small minority of devs are substantially overpaid for their work right now. I don't think it will stop, since even if there is a glut of new developers, the ones with production experience at scale will always stand out from the fresh devs, and will be more prized for that reason.

What may end up happening is the funnel narrowing at entry, that is the salaries for brand new developers collapsing, while only a select few make it to the top. It reminds me of professional sports.
Is this for real? Or a satire like that "fake a vacation for instagram" kind of thing?
> So you're reading a number and then -blurp- your mind goes "Danish" or "Norwegian" letter?

Yes.

Once you become really fluent in a different script, I find that misuse of it starts to become really annoying.

Before I had any proficiency in a language using the Cyrillic alphabet, if someone replaced say an A with a De (Д) or a W with a Sha (Ш) in an English text, I'd have no trouble reading it. Now, this kind of thing always trips me up and I've heard from several native speakers that they absolutely hate this kind of thing. To the people doing this to lyrics of metal songs in particular: please stop.

If I had to have a guess at why, I'd say if you are fluent in English but not a Cyrillic language, then your "System 1" autocorrects such mistakes to the the closest English word without you noticing. Once the other letters start to mean something, you consciously notice the mistakes as such. (For an example of the mental "autocorrect", did you notice the repeated "the" above? h/t Scott Alexander.)

Same idea with that game where you have words written in different colours but you have to read the colour instead of the word, so if "blue" is written in green you have to read "green". It's incredibly annoying in a language that you know, but really easy in a script/language that you don't know.
Aren't you two hiring for completely different position? One is looking for web system developer and the other is looking for the kind of coder that will write exploits and smaller tools. In one position you expect the senior to have general idea about wide range of relevant technologies, because you expect senior to choose between them occasionally (plus hiring manager knows that stuff too). Second position does not require it at all.

Plenty of people can do both or can change from one to another. But it still seems to be that the interview focus should be different as both positions require somewhat different focus.
If the people running the companies have business backgrounds surely they understand the principles of supply and demand, no?

They want FAANG like employees but only if they work for peanuts. Then they cry to the press they can't find skilled engineers.

The same way I also can't find Ferraris, with a budget for a Hyundai.
Freedom’s Ring King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech [Stanford University]
I see, that's an interesting perspective. I'm sure positions like that will be the last to be made redundant.
The publisher is UK based, as far as I'm aware contract law is somewhat similar in the US.

The DMCA isn't against the publisher as I understand, its against the sites actually selling the game.
Have any of his concerns been addressed? Do you, for example, have a pithy rejoinder to the idea that manipulating an exponential number of states to any degree of precision is kind of impossible?
Although Consolas is beautiful on Windows (and is one of my favourite monospace fonts), Inconsolata for me looks very good on Windows 10 (as I remember it didn't quite look as good on Windows 7). In fact, because the font is slightly thicker at lower font sizes, I find it easier to see and use -- so it's currently my default font in PuTTY and VS Code, for instance.

Thank you for your work on Inconsolata.
AMD Radeon 7 Will Have Day One Linux Support
In fact, it does. It shows that human bias (facial recognition) and the inability to posit all possible outcomes (Uber; halting problem) are built-in to the software we write.

While another human may be able to overcome one's racial basis or another driver wouldn't have run over that biker, the fact remains that the software did which shows that it inherits human frailties and limitations. It doesn't surpass them.
Your unusual argument recalls a discussion I once had with members of the Go club at my alma mater, nearly 10 years ago. On the question of whether Go would ever be mastered by a computer, one asserted that the game needed to be understood at a spiritual level - not simply as a computational problem - and that’s why computers would never reach the level of humans. The game was simply too sublime and complex, came the claim.

At the time this might have seemed reasonable - after all, Go software struggled mightily for years to achieve even beginner levels of play, and seemed incapable of mastering the intricacies of high-level play.

Well, we know now in retrospect that spirit was unnecessary to play Go. We know now that it was, in fact, a computational problem. There’s really no reason to expect that “spirit” is necessary to perform the tasks of language or cognition - tasks which are demonstrably executed by impulses of chemicals and electricity pulsing through the brain.
GDPR fines are intended to generally be proportional to the company's revenue.
It's game over when machine intelligence controls all the resources needed to ensure their continuation. As long as they are trapped and subject to our control of the power switch and reproduction they can't do much that we don't want them to.
> software that solves the problem (poorly) now is better than software that doesn't exist.

That has always been the case and is about as good a one-line summary of the software industry as I can think of.
The brain and "mind" is insanely complex. There is so much we still don't understand, so of course there is so much we cannot replicate. But is it possible? If there is an incredible breakthrough in understanding, then yes of course. Personally I see little value in people saying it can or can't be done (of course it can!), it's just a matter of if and when. We shall see...
You're replying in a thread about how those very same FAANG companies colluded to keep engineer compensation artificially low.
I've had them disabled for years, and everything works fine.
Since the current standard model of physics requires an 11-dimensional universe for all the math to work out, it's quite possible that we live in a space which we cannot understand. That makes it even less likely that we could program a computer which would understand it better than we do.
No, the problem is that the SMS standard was never updated with an encrypted version.

Apple didn't want to open iMessage to the world. EU/USA should enforce a common, secure method for sending text messages to mobiles.
I read this as more of a tale of a man that fell into the insides of a machine and managed to hide in a crack to avoid getting crushed untill the machine stopped its course.

This kind of attack and response is like mad contraption fueled by old human stupidity and borderline futuristic deadly powerful technology.

As a civilian you are supposed to keep very safe distance from such a powerful tech but someone, somewhere gets inevitably confronted with it mixed with a dash or a lot of human stupidity and most often dies.
I know it sounds simple but local city councils have much of the blame here. They are underpowered to deal with the influx of workers for the past two decades making the salaries necessary to attract people.
Who are the people who both predict super human intelligent AI and do not believe in human caused climate change?
Martin Luther King Jr.'s Haunting Reflections on Science and Progress
Aren't you a little bit worried ? I mean there has been a long history of "you can't do this with computers".

It started with carrying out list of simple instructions, then doing anything with images, then recognizing images, then drawing images, then simple games chess, recognize audio (though people realized this was stupid in the 60s with IBM speech synthesizers and so today people don't remember), and then Go (and less well known: backgammon, video games, ...). For most of those we now roll our eyes and go "how could they have been so stupid ?".

As for practical applications: robots run something between 3/4ths and 5/6ths of the stock market. Maybe you're unaware of this but that's the thing that decides how and where humans work (not just the ones also doing stocks, anyone working at any public company is partially directed by it, which in practice is nearly everyone).

AIs talk to humans more than humans do. AIs produce more writing than humans do. AIs judge more humans (for insurances, or creditworthiness) than humans do. Despite what you think AIs actually drive just a little under 1 millionth of total miles driven in the US today, going up exponentially. AIs currently drive a little more than a 1000 person city does.

In experimental settings, AIs have beat humans at convincing other people that they're human. At "chatting up" humans. Seriously. Not that it seems to take much at all to convince humans you're sentient: iRobots have convinced soldiers to threaten army technicians with guns into repairing them. There wasn't even that much AI involved, but that's got to count for something.

In research, I would argue there are already multifaceted artificial intelligences in reinforcement learning. There is nothing in those atari game playing AIs about the games. There used to be the score of the game, but the modern ones don't even have that. They can play any atari game, from Montezuma's revenge to pacman, which I'd argue are very different indeed. There must be some measure of "multifaceted" in there, surely ?

But let's keep it simple: could you make this problem a bit more accurate ? For example, which animals would you say exhibit an acceptable level of "multifaceted" intelligence ? Why do those animals qualify ? What would a good test be ? I'd love to find an interesting test for this.
it sounds like there is an experiment to be designed on this basis. One thing that comes to mind, is my experience with IQ estimation tests, is the question or concern the tester had regarding any past testing, there was a very different heuristic for people who have had even one previous test.
I have been tested on 6 occasions each estimate at a high percentile, we would need to find someone in apx. 10th percentile and follow thier score distribution as a function of test frequency, with some non trivial considerations for experimental controll of confounds.
I'm not sure this is a systematic issue vs a workplace by workplace issue. Certainly some companies have a lot more of a drink focused culture than others. Additionally, some teams (lookin' at you, Sales) have the stereotype of having that kind of environment.

As far as addressing drinking, I think the thing to tackle is being compassionate and empathetic to all sorts of issues, not just alcohol abuse in particular. Do you have members on the team that have a disability? Do people practice a religion that requires quiet space throughout the day? How will you accommodate those people?
you're welcome, i saved you both 3 minutes of your life.
True, 1 d0nt get h0w anyone c0uld f1nd that an0ying 1n a font, when c0ntext make5 it readily apparent that they are letters.
are people still listening to this guy?
That's the perfect use case for a feed. Noticing when something new is available.
All of these are great suggestions and comments! But, the funniest comment...

> Configuring printers is a discount hell run by a counterfeit Satan.

Genius!
I love the implication that if you don’t agree, you can’t have a healthy discussion.

I’m also not sure of the aim; if you have no desire to convince those who don’t initially agree, you’re preaching to the choir. Isn’t the diversity gang enough of an echo chamber already?
From the original story sounds like one of the traits you have to have is luck. Lots and lots of luck.
> I apparently spent my free articles this month, and barely had a decision in the matter — lead their by HN, and wasn’t paying attention

"I already read so much great content that people find interesting that they TRICKED ME into reading"

What's the theory here? If only you knew which articles would be out in 2 weeks you'd better be able to budget your free reading?

Serious question: what's the threshold at which youre willing to part with $10/month?
Computers that are capable of analyzing and understanding their environment with a level of fidelity comparable to a human, without being preprogrammed with information about the nature or structure of the environment, are out of reach for the foreseeable future. I don't see any fundamental reason why such a computer should be impossible, but there's not even a realistic roadmap towards such a thing. That is to say, if it ever does happen, nobody alive today can predict when it will happen.