skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
They should also work on a visa system for seasonal (low-skill) workers and enforce e-verify so that people don't skirt the system willy-nilly.

We need foreign low skilled workers and they want to work, but we need to regulate that workforce so they don't undercut our native low-skills workforce by being unregulated and overwhelming the workforce with cheap unregulated labor.
Programming is not fun anymore due to Type System.
Neither of those stop it being infringement.
Well, after posting that comment I decided to check out their current offerings which led me to discover Mint Mobile. It's an all-around better deal, provided you don't mind paying for a year up-front. I think I just may switch next month!
It used to be that Ivy League colleges laundered privelege into elite degrees for people who would become consultants who gave an aura of legitimacy to biased decisions. Maybe the robots will put them out of a job.
It was one-sided because I was replying to a comment calling rural Wisconsinites easily-misled Republican voting robots. It was an attempt to show balance in the other side's perspective.
This in not how copyright in the US works. Making money has absolutely nothing to do with the criteria of infringement.
This list is fun, but it's a little bit sloppy:

- The central limit theorem relies on the mean and variance of your random variable existing; there are random variables for which mean and variance don't exist.

- The definition of "measure-preserving" in the ergodic theorem statement is missing the measure.

- dim (ran A)^perp = dim ker A^T can be strengthened by dropping the dim's. If v in ker A^T, then A^T v = 0. Pick any Ax in ran A; then <v, Ax> = <A^T v, x> = <0, x> = 0, so v is in (ran A)^perp.

- Others pointed out that 20 looks busted.

- The definition of Haar measure needs to fix the measure of some nonzero-measure set, or "unique" needs to be replaced with "unique up to scaling" otherwise the theorem isn't true.

- "Sounders Mac Lane"

- 25: x_0 came out of nowhere; it's unclear from the text which "invertible" is meant; the basin of convergence for Newton's method for finding a local continuation can be very small indeed.

- 36: Why is the adjoint of A named T^*?

- 46: You need some assumptions about f.
If my search for development jobs in the UK over the past 20 years so I could move back home offers any form of enlightenment, it's that the EU doesn't value software developers. They offer shit salaries compared to North American companies for similar/same work.

A senior developer with 25 years of experience and continually golden references can expect a near 75% pay cut for the privilege of moving to the UK. Near as I can tell, the only companies offering similar pay scales to the U.S. are in Scandinavia.

Until Europe looks at software development in the same manner as North America, you can expect them to continue failing to cultivate a foundation of successful innovation.

If you want to earn decent money to become a developer, then only real option you have to chase a decent career is to leave Europe, and unfortunately once you've done that, there's no real option to go back without a substantial hit to your quality of life.
Giving a tax break to get a company to move to your state doesn’t cost you anything if not offering it means you get no new jobs.
I was actually discussing this today, especially the first fallacious conclusion. With a Ph.D. candidate at Stanford no less . . .

I don’t think Gödel was demonstrating the "limitations" of logic. I think he was demonstrating the limitations of lower logics so that we could wield higher logic. Just as Cantor broke through into the transfinite.

“From the paradise, that Cantor created for us, no-one can expel us.”

I don’t see Gödel’s theorems as expressing the failure of logic, I think the holes(incompleteness) it illuminates are doorways.

Gödel prompted people to explore things like plurivalent logic and fuzzy logic, at least in the “west”.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-logic-of-buddhist-philosophy-goes...
I wonder if gzip has improved? 15 years ago when I tested this, it was more efficient to gzip base16 encoded data than base64 encoded data. (At least, the English dictionary.) I assume that was because the 3:4 encoding broke up patterns in the source text and messed with the compressor.

But I just tested this again and it's not true anymore.

$ wc -c american-english
971578 american-english

$ gzip < american-english | wc -c
259977

$ base64 < american-english | gzip | wc -c
429263

$ hexdump -e '"%x"' < american-english | gzip | wc -c
478411
I don't think financial gain is a necessary component of copyright infringement? Though it may make your punishment worse.
Not just screens, but augmented reality goggles. Coupled with AirPods, you are set for a completely new type of experience.
No way. Fewer H1 visas means that instead of having foreign workers here on visas performing work, the functions will move elsewhere.

If the government was setting up a program to fund boot camps for ERP and other big boring tech like what is done in India and elsewhere, that would be different. But we’re not doing that.
Camera captures 15 inches of snow falling in 13 seconds
20K visas are reserved for those who had F visa in past and completed a US masters degree.
Congrats on it working for you!
How do you keep them from overstaying though?
People upvote the content they want to see. Implicitly, whether something is paywalled or not is already included in that judgment. What's more, people keep upvoting paywalled content because non-paywalled content isn't providing the same level of content. By not tolerating paywalled content you are making an explicit call for less content of the type that HN readers say they want to see.

You could make the argument that HN readers shouldn't upvote the things they are upvoting, that HN would be a better place if people didn't upvote the things they are upvoting, or that there might be a longer term benefit to be gained from accepting short term losses by eschewing paywalled articles. Those are all things people could argue.

But the fact that they show up on the front page with regular basis is explicit evidence that, even if you feel they have no value, other people do.
Just draw arrows for how the air is moving the whole time.

The force on the plane is in the opposite direction.
“ if a car detects a sudden obstacle—say, a jackknifed truck—should it hit the truck and kill its own driver, or should it swerve onto a crowded sidewalk and kill pedestrians? A human driver might react randomly (if she has time to react at all), but the response of an autonomous vehicle would have to be programmed ahead of time. ”

I hate this logic. No, it didn’t need to be programmed ahead of time. It should try to avoid crashing. It shouldn’t try to solve a philosophical problem. We don’t want to require our cars to observe it’s surroundings and calculate number of things identified as humans to minimize expected loss of life. That’s difficult and error prone.

If you’re going down a street and something jumps in your way, make the program try not to hit anything. Ideally by braking, because you shouldn’t be going fast enough to not be able to do so based on your environment.
Does this have anything to do with driverless cars?
Driverless cars will not be programmed to target victims by race, and driverless cars' main benefit is reaction time to take simple safe actions like stopping the vehicle or turning into an open space.

The car systems won't have elaborate neural nets for deciding when to jump over a pylon onto a train track.
Here is another perspective from a non-developer user on those reasons and the resulting tradeoff (of allowing DDG to trivially track which result links are followed):

1.

Privacy conscious users can control whether a Referer header is sent and if so, the content of that header.

They might choose to use a browser that does not make it easy to control the Referer header.

But DDG does not account for those privacy conscious users who may be using browsers that do allow this control. (Bias discosure: I use one and not for privacy reasons.)

The DDG decision seems to encourage users to choose browsers that have privacy-unfriendly default settings or that do not make it easy or even possible to control what if any Referer is sent.

At the very least, it tries to resolve an issue that is a clearly client-side one and is best resolved there.

2.

Correct me if I am wrong but storing "settings" with DDG requires a cookie and/or Javascript to be enabled.

If this is true, then again this is not an improvement in privacy. Privacy users may prefer to keep these browser "features" disabled wherever possible.

Users can of course control whether they send GET or POST by using a client such as curl or the like, or sending requests from a local copy of a DDG html search page with the method changed from GET to POST.

One might wonder why DDG cannot provide an alternative search page with its form method set to POST. Users can then choose which search page they prefer. No cookie needed.

Instead it sets the default method on its search pages to GET (perhaps leaking the query in the URL).

How many users will bother to change the default? A minority of them, no doubt.

There is an opportunity to let users turn off cookies and Javascript and let them perform searches using POST, the method usuaully advocated by those advancing internet privacy.

I cannot see that it would cost DDG anything substantial to provide it, except not promoting GET as a method by default, not requiring users who want to change defaults to enable cookies or javascript to "keep state" and reliquinshing the ability to easily track which result links users follow.

To reiterate, control over the Referer header is easily done by the http client. Clients that do not allow easy user control over this are not improving internet privacy.

In my experience sending Referer headers is almost never necessary. It is very rare that I find a site that requires a Referer header, let alone a specific one.

Sending gratuitous information seems like a clear departure from the internet privacy playbook. Then again, I am not a privacy expert and perhaps the experts have decided there must be a carve-out for the Referer header and users should err on the side of sending too much information rather than too little.

The only reason I am aware of this stuff is because I use the web heavily without javascript or cookies and I take an active role in what headers I send. I generally do not do this for privacy, but for speed and control. I can strip out the prefix client-side if I must use GET.
seeing a comment like this downvoted to the bottom.. i just.. miss the old HN
> The law does not define free speech

What is the first amendment then? It’s also the other way around. Freedom of speech is defined as speech that has no negative legal ramifications, among other things. Look it up.

> So the American founding fathers weren’t engaging in free speech when they declared independence from England (an act of treason against the crown?)

Correct, as you pointed out. It was an act of treason from England’s legal point of view, punishable had they gone back to England. It was also written in the middle of a war, and is a declaration of secession. This is a pretty wild example to try to use. I’m confused what makes you think this is a demonstration of freedom of speech in any way? It’s almost completely the opposite, it’s a demonstration of successful speech against the law. England did not offer the freedom for this speech, and freedom of speech wasn’t establish in the United States as a legal concept until after the country was formed.

You seem to be confusing having strong reasons to take a moral stand with actual freedom. If there are negative legal consequences, then you don’t have freedom, by the definition of freedom. People can and do risk choosing to take actions knowing there are negative consequences, but that’s not the same thing as having the “freedom” to take those actions.

> Books, art, music, any expression considered subversive by the state, none of that is free speech?

“Considered subversive” and illegal aren’t the same thing. If it’s illegal, then you don’t have freedom to say it. When people say “America is a free country” they don’t mean you get to do anything at all, they mean we have fewer laws limiting personal freedoms than other countries. But there are still lots of illegal things you shouldn’t do that if you do will result in punishment.

> There is a great deal of historic precedent defending illegal speech as free speech.

No, there are some specific cases of speech, and some specific classes of speech, that were illegal and have been changed, and for good reasons. There are also types of speech that remain illegal and probably always will. Slander and libel, among others, are not protected classes of legal speech, for good reasons.
These discussions always bring up the Trolley Problem which I find to be pretty insidious. The trolley problem is designed to hide the real moral issue. Here is the original Trolley Problem for comparison.

“Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.”

The whole thing starts with a pretty elitist framework, that the best way to run society is to lie to the public because they can’t be trusted. The problem then ends with the infamous trolley problem which is so stripped down of any context it’s basically a dark pattern. You are expected to choose who is to die instead of wondering why do people keep getting run over by trolleys? Why does anyone have to die? Why can’t the track workers have safe working conditions?
seems like the page have been taken down?
The description of the hack fits StageFright perfectly[1], which was exactly what it did. The sources may have just changed the affected platform to iOS to gain some traction.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagefright_(bug)
One thing that really helped me is to realize that many of my favorite songs are probably not that special to most people. This is, no joke, still one of my favorite little ditties:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Io5l0YgNko&t=34m20s

I actually sometimes still listen and maybe even dance to the Amiga version of this ^^ And I'm not saying this isn't a great song, musically, but most people wouldn't want to hear this on the radio or in a club, while I would absolutely go apeshit if that ever happened. I know having heard it first as a kid is a part of it, but the end result matters. I love this tune, even though most normal people might not enjoy it, and would at least prefer "normal instruments". (And don't even get me started on L.F.F. by 4mat :D)

So I try to shift my standard from "is this really good, does this make me look awesome", to "is this too embarrassing, or really just a pointless amusical waste of time", and try to raise the bar for what embarrasses me... because even something I might not like that much, might be the jam for someone else, who knows. What would I tell that imaginary person, that they never got to hear their jam, because I was afraid of what other people might think of it? I also know songs where I like the demo or some dirty live version much more than the perfectly produced studio version, so I try to tell myself, the more the merrier.

I think what really helped in my case is that it all became coupled with lyrics that are either very personal or very political, and it took me so much.. wrestling, not being able to sleep well doing it, but also not being able to let it go for good... and also the world (and rap music) becoming a lot more crazy, and probably me getting older, to become less inhibited -- and being embarrassed about too simple music was completely overshadowed by that. It used to be a concern but it got lost along the trek :) And I also discovered that as far as "beats" go, less really is more, at least, very little is more than enough. The same goes for chip style melodies, and those two are all I need to be happy musically, basically forever.

Well, that and compos with small sample packs becoming more of a thing again. Nothing more fun than that IMO :)
It's the ultimate bikeshed. The only winning move is not to play.
E-verify flags them as not having valid work authorization when their visa expires.

If they reliably can’t find work when here illegally, then there’s less incentive to be here illegally.
I remember reading about this a whiles before 2018.

Found it: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-17/colbert-r... (2014)
> We need foreign low skilled workers and they want to work, but we need to regulate that workforce so they don't undercut our native low-skills workforce by being unregulated and overwhelming the workforce with cheap unregulated labor.

That ship sailed some time ago to China or anywhere there is a sweatshop.
Consultants are the ones legitimizing the robots
And even if a car was implausibl in the same situation with the same options, it still of course could choose a response randomly or arbitrarily based on how the sorting algorithm happened to rank equal outcomes.
e-verify. If they don't have a job and regular income it won't make sense for them to stay.
I'm guessing most of increase are the "moderators/censors" the media and political groups pressured them to hire. The same thing happened with google a couple of years ago when they were forced to hire thousands of people to moderate/censor content.
It's nice to try to recover the spirit of it, but also for this to work it should be also lightweight (or at least usable).

I'm getting:

"This webpage is using significant energy. Closing it may improve the responsiveness of your Mac."

That's Safari on my 15" mbp 17 2018.

edit: formatting
The privacy people care about and the privacy Facebook violates are two mostly distinct things. The average person does not care that Facebook tracked them to espn.com or wherever else they went on the web, but they would be outraged if Facebook installed cameras in their bathroom.

I suspect that if it came out that Facebook knew what porn sites you were visiting, outrage over Facebook's privacy practices would become much more real. Currently, the Facebook outrage is mostly just manufactured by the media.
This is a fine by the French regulators for one specific breach. In the broader context, it's a warning shot. The GDPR gives them the right to levy fines of up to 4% of global revenues, if such a fine is deemed proportionate.

If Google remedy the breach, that'll be the end of the matter; the fundamental purpose of the regulator is to ensure compliance with the regulations. If Google continue to disregard the regulations, the regulators will not be so accommodating in future.

Last year, the EU fined Google $5 billion for antitrust offences related to Android; Google should be under no illusions about the serious intent of regulatory bodies in Europe.

https://www.dw.com/en/google-fined-43-billion-by-eu-regulato...
Isnt that literally the H2B visa?
Maybe they are now self-censoring and therefore are even less fun or weird?
Punish employers with heavy fines for e-verify violations. If no one hires you, no reason to stick around. This is what Japan does, Korea, Taiwan, etc. The US is way lenient on illegal entry and accommodating to irregular workers. In many countries the only way you get around that is if you work with the local mobsters --so only highly risk taking indivs take that opportunity.
What a weird world we live in though, where PhDs and Masters with a steady job still have to wait 7-10+ years for citizenship, while people can just flip over the fence in the southern border and get citizenship via asylum or birthing kids
Free your SSN and mother's maiden name to me please.
The Germans might remember something slightly older than the Stasi.
The Trolley Problem is the most boring part of the ethics of autonomous driving.

Would you tell a human driver to stay off the roads until they decide in advance what they'd do in such a ludicrous situation?
let the downvotes begin, rain them upon thee!

am not looked to get myself banned but the parent comment is as outright an original, authentic, relevant comment you will find here. yet there it is, too light grey to read. serious question: what is going on?
Once I had a similar conversation with Scott Aaronson about this. I said the theorem shows the limits of logic; he said it shows the POWER of logic. My reply was: what does it matter? It just depends on perspective. As in: "logic is so powerful, it can even demonstrate its own limitations!" or: "logic is limited, and we know this for eternity, because logic proved it!"
There is no concept of privacy in Indian banks. My father in law owns a business that has to deal with large sums being exchanged through checks. Now, unlike USA bounced checks in India are as good as lost money. So most people will simply refuse to accept checks. Since my father in law does large number of transactions with nearly every bank in town he simply calls up the manager and asks "Does Mr. X has Y money in his account ?", the bank manager then gladly tells him how much money the customer has in his account and based on statement if the check in en-cash or not.
Also the original "X square miles surrounded by reality" coined back in 1978 by Lee Sherman Dreyfus that similar cities have since borrowed. :-)
It's a good comment. I down voted because I do see the reason for the allergic reaction.

Perhaps the diction could be improved but I think what the piece points out is a dastardly trap as you're just upon grasping (whatever can be grasped of) Gödel's Wonder.

I speak as a layman.
What’s the reliability of the risk assessment?

If you child died because there was a 1% higher projected chance that two people would be killed in a collision... would that seem just?

I think the insistence on experimenting with autonomous driving outside of controlled access highways is insane.
GBATemp users have reported that the game gets localized at runtime[1], rather than a a modified ROM. Kind of ingenuous on Nintendo Redmond's part[2].

One would likely have to use Dolphin to emulate the Wii emulating the game.[3]

[1] https://gbatemp.net/threads/sin-and-
punishment.183066/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Software_Technology

[3] https://wiki.dolphin-emu.org/index.php?title=Sin_%26_Punishm...
Building decentralized blockchain webpages
The Society of Jesuits aka Jesuits have also conducted technical research in parallel with religious pursuits. Don't see any problem.
A. It was a joke.

B. What about Scala? Would you say Scala is a "good fit" for people leaving Java because it's also built on top of the JVM? Or would it be a "bad fit" because the idioms and functional-nature of Scala are vastly different than Java? Or how about Kotlin?

I'm not thinking about "successor" in terms of "Java-specific" design patterns. I'm thinking successor in terms of - can Rust, with concurrency as a first-class-citizen and C-like perf with a safer programming model, replace Java for many of the "higher-level" applications that would've typically been written in Java?
If nothing else, the fines should continue and I expect escalate.
gotta upvote this, even a smart guy like Elon Musk had to sleep on factory floors to push forward the native R&D.
There's literally nothing wrong with OpenRC