skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
We can only compare what's on the table, ie. arbitrary text selection. The targetText proposal doesn't necessarily result in a unique identifier that deterministically corresponds to user's original selection. So, I'm not sure if there is any point in discussing the syntactical differences on specificity further at this point. Having said that, at the end of the day, it is going to be the application that generates and uses the identifier.

Please have a closer into why we should be mindful of different use cases here, especially those pertaining to different resource representations, ways to "select", and factor in the state of the resource/representation at the time of the selection. It is there for use. It doesn't mean that all possible options needs to make its way into the identifier. This is important because people are going to use these identifiers in documents, and preserving context matters. Like I said earlier, the W3C Note has considered these, as well as permitting the use of different (RFC) selectors for different media. Let's reuse instead of NIH-FUD.
Because we haven't really solved the waste problem.
> For example a start up gains a lot more benefit from being in Silicon Valley than a company with 10,000 developers.

No, I'd say they have about equal value. Consider, Google has tens of thousands of tech workers in the bay area. How many other metros could they feasibly relocate their HQ to? Even if you assume that only, say, a third of their employees decline to relocate with them, you're possibly looking at ~10,000 job openings you'd need to staff up on within a year or two to not be absolutely crippling.

> You can still do the latter in a research center that you can keep in the hub and move a lot of the other code to the periphery, which will be most of your employees.

This completely glosses over how companies work. Google doesn't have two tiers of software engineer types, where one gets more exciting stuff and better pay/benefits, while the other languishes on boring things with mediocre pay. Trying to split up the company that way, "we'll just hire crappier engineers in [cheap place] now and treat them worse because they're dumber" would be a total disaster.

> you have housing markets that are so insane that the majority of your developers will not be able to buy a house, which means they are going to leave you or demand really high wages -- wages that a company with 20K devs can't afford.

While this is absolutely a problem, and I applaud efforts to increase affordability either in the areas where tech HQ's already are, or by distributing more offices elsewhere, you're missing the obvious fact that these major tech companies already do this, and it already works. Yes, some people leave. The strongest, and probably most valuable employees largely don't, because they make enough to offset the increased cost of housing: a T6 at Google may make 400-500k/year.
While it does smack a little of the arrogance of a big player, they are using the fragment part for more-or-less what it used to be used for (navigating to a specific location on a page), and if you use something in a way it isn't intended (using a navigation aid for state management) perhaps you should expect certain things to break at some point when combined with other hacks of the same feature.

It is important to note that this won't break your site/app in the normal use case. People using your work will continue to do so uninhibited unless/until they wish to use this new feature in Chrome.
The bad skeuomorphism is about replicating physical world design and constraints in digital apps -- and thus imposing constraints that don't exist in the digital world.

Merely looking like a physical product (but with interactivity that takes advantage of what the digital world affords) is not the skeuomorphism people complained about.

One might like or not like faux-leather, for example, but that's just an aesthetic preference (and those things come in circles, in 10-15 years it could be all skeuomorphism in vogue again, as a backlash against too minimal / plain vanilla designs).
There are a vanishingly small number of long time LIC residents. Up until ten years ago it was mostly industrial, one commercial tower, and a smattering of low rise residential.

So who makes up this supposed groundswell of local opposition? People that moved in to one of those shiny new towers last week and are already looking to slam the door behind themselves?
This really isn’t about New York.

The problem is the race-to-the-bottom communities engage in when heaping tax subsidies on companies that would create jobs no matter what.

For public finance, it is one of the purest examples of a prisoner’s dilemma one could think of. And just as in that thought experiment, it is entirely obvious how to get to an outcome that is better for everyone: cooperation.

Other economies have done so successfully: The EU limits direct subsidies to individual companies, shifting competition to areas that benefit all companies and citizens as well, such as education, safety, public transit, reasearch, or even low taxes, as long as they apply not just to those that are large and mobile.

The results speak for themselves: Ireland has become a knowledge economy powerhouse, not primarily with their illegal subsidies to Apple, but with lower taxes across the board, plus some rather good universities and the English language.

Eastern Europe has managed to attract manufacturing, especially automotive. Over the last 20 years, they have experienced a massive economic rally. Meanwhile, old economies like Germany aren’t exactly hurting, either.

There used to be an argument against that seemingly made sense, namely that subsidies may be the only tool poorer communities have to attract investment and catch up.

But if anything, this debacle has exposed that argument as hollow: it wasn’t Detroit or Kentucky winning HQ2, it was New York. Financial competition seems to favor the already rich, to everyone’s surprise.

The trouble seems to be a sort of fetishisation of market mechanisms: citizens favoring tax competition makes about as much sense as a union disbanding because “this really isn’t fair to McDonalds”.

Focusing on New York shifts the debate onto a side issue, namely that economic indicators do not always perfectly correlate with quality of life. Because NY would have seen a benefit in the former, without a doubt. But the impact would have been distributed somewhat unequally amongst the population. That’s a debate to be had, and one where a clear answer eludes me. But it’s tangential to the unique features of this incident, namely the reality-show competition and massive subsidies.
Alternative: build datasets that offers insights on X.

Examples:
- Newswhip crawls news articles and uses the FB api to get share counts. Newsrooms use their data to find out what is trending

- SuperData crawls info from Twitch and YouTube to provide insights into the games that are engaging.

- Similarweb provides data into the traffic that websites are getting

- AppAnnie scrapes App rankings to provide insights into the growth and trends of apps.

- Ahrefs built a huge database of backlinks and provides insights into who is linking to your site or your competitors.
Yeah - tons of traditional analyst jobs (Business Intelligence / Analysis, Marketing analyst, etc.) have been re-labeled as Data Science.

I'd be amazed if even 10% of the people are able to do anything more than just import scikit-learn, and train a classifier through tutorials.

This is IMO no different than when the software dev. craze started, and people with 3 weeks of coding experience started applying for entry-level jobs. You start interviewing them, and they can't even explain the difference between a for or while loop-

In the end, there's just more noise. You need to find a good way to cut through this noise, both qualified candidates and employers
The difference is between 50% online being disinformation and 99.999999% being disinformation as content is overrun with cheap bots. Think of what happened to Usenet except worse. Instead of forums being overrun with ads for V1agra, social sites with be overrun with fake members posting reasonable sounding stuff that is laced with coordinated tactical falsehoods.

I think eventually every piece of information will have to be digitally signed and our devices will by default limit what we're exposed to based upon whitelists.
They'll have to pry my autotracking Nerf ADS off it's hot, charred turret mount. Better tell Aperture Science as well.

On a more serious note, where do unmanned turrets and gun platforms fall? They're not making the kill/no kill decision (they're always in kill mode) and don't have a human directly at the trigger.
That is really cool thanks! I'm going to start reading
Monthly Recurring Revenue. It's the simplest metric for a subscription based service or SaaS.
That respects https://12factor.net/dependencies
Lethal robots are not a technology that can really be regulated by ban.

It's not like nuclear weapons, where you need a huge industrial operation with tens of thousands of high-tech centrifuges running for years before you have enough fissile material for a bomb. Even the rulebreakers, like Israel, couldn't hide the fact that they were doing it and had to rely on America's UNSC veto to save them from the consequences.

But lethal robots are a trivial step away from the current state of robotics. Hobbyists have already mounted guns on quadcopters. Tesla and Waymo have made robots that kill people accidentally. Any robot can be made a killer robot with minimal change to its software and hardware.
+1 for nostalgia!
> NO JUST NO

> EW GROSS NO

Something like this should be an obligatory addition to any dialog with actions like "Maybe later".
> this really highlighted the kind of leverage a big company can hold over even a huge metropolis.

Agree, it was a gross display of cynical power. Amazon played a dozen large cities off each other, forcing each to bend over backward to offer up as much freebies as possible. In exchange for what? A tentative fungible "promise" to deliver 50000 high-pay jobs to the lucky city? In response, even poor cities like Philadelphia strived (in secret) to come up with "proposals" to one of the richest and most ascendant companies on the globe.

And what ultimately happened? Oh, turns out, it wasn't an HQ2 after all, it is now an HQ2 AND HQ3 in TWO cities with half the number of jobs each.

I sort of expect such behavior from a greedy American corporation, but what makes me sad is the pathetic appeasement from the cities courting this.

Good for the people of NYC, who finally opened their eyes to the bullshit.
Is There a Place for Psychedelics in Philosophy? (2016) [pdf]
There was apparently a possible warm period during the later Roman period:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
Magnetic and majestic: visualising the powerful storms hidden from human view
Why don't we just buy a few of those Navy reactors and hook them to the grid?
Forth and AI Revisited: BRAIN.FORTH (2004)
Indeed, there is the unfortunate fact that directly pointing out that a particular person has not read the paper is against HN's rules. Let us not violate the Prime Directive further.

If I understand the origin of this paper correctly, it is mainly the idea and work of an undergraduate student. From this perspective, several problems become more understandable. The limited computation done in support of the paper may have been done by a setup as meager as a lone student's laptop. The naïve view of machine learning as a field could be explained by undergraduate eagerness; indeed, perhaps they did "recently [find] out about least squares".

I agree with your thoughts on SGD. The authors did do PCA for some of their tests, but this entire setup should be buildable in a more efficient and incremental way.

I think, however, that the reason that this paper got the other three co-authors on it, despite its controversial nature, is that the core of the original idea is interesting and has yielded related fruit like UMAP [0] in the past. We should be more comfortable exploring it.

I like your book reference. It's informative and direct, without mumbo-jumbo. To accelerate the lookup for the next follower, start at p279.

[0] https://github.com/lmcinnes/umap
Why do you think there are no safeguards? Why do you think this is terrifying?
>the entire point is to have multiple isolated userlands use the same underlying kernel. That's why they're so cheap.

Ironically, this is what Plan9 does out-of-the-box. And even cheaper.
Tips to improve your resume so you land that technology role
There was this good thread about Delphi on HN some years ago:

Delphi – why won't it die? (2013) (stevepeacocke.blogspot.com)

http://stevepeacocke.blogspot.com/2013/05/delphi-why-wont-it...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7613543
Wow, I literally wrote down an idea for a tool like this, just a couple of days ago.

I'm running OpenCV on Android for an app project, and gauging pipeline costs at different steps is a pain. Right now I'm resorting to a "timing" build, with basic printouts of elapsed times at each step. Archaic.

Do you guys plan to add e.g. Snapdragon etc. as a measure at some point?

Also are the benchmarks based off of real device numbers, or are they fuzzed estimates somehow?

You seem to target businesses, understandably, but I signed up for a beta in any case.
A good tip for saving time is to workout in your lunch hour if it's possible. I go running in my lunch hour as it has a high time:reward ratio which free's up a lot of time in the evenings or mornings.
Oh I have votes disabled on social media. I'd rather form my own opinion when reading comments.

Regarding AMP, I appraised it from a speed perspective and found it partially effective, but only a bandaid fix. Addressing real site speed issues is the better approach.
When Gravity Breaks Down
User Manual of MindForth Artificial Intelligence for Robots
The labour was never free. The price of benefiting from that labour was paid, in part, by becoming a part of the community - through contributing back and giving others the choice to do so in turn. This fact is why it worked and continues to work so well.
>At the very least it makes NYC a less likely competitor to the Bay Area.

Nonsense. If the bay area were a competitor, that's where Amazon would have wanted put their new HQ, not New York. Amazon doesn't have an HQ in San Francisco.

Nevermind the fact that New York has been experiencing a tech boom for the last decade or more, with Apple, Facebook, and Google all buying campuses similar in scale to Amazon's proposed one, and without demanding bribes from the state before doing so.
I've used sr.ht for some time and it's not that hard to work with e-mail flow. It's still not as easy (the main problem is setting up SMTP settings but that's done once). From my perspective most of the issues with git that GH solves is tooling, that same could be achieved with ML.

That said, having worked with git internals and models of repo access I'm pretty sure GH introduced forks to work-around the issues with repository control. Conceptually there is no need for forks, one could push to private branches of the target repo directly. Unfortunately git doesn't have tools for per-branch level controls directly. More details in https://github.com/rescrv/gitswitch
For 15 years nobody can use a invention, even if willing to pay. How is that in public interest?
As someone who was writing analysis for my CEO when we were involved with the POSIX definition, let me say that POSIX was driven by the complaints of users, who insisted that they would stop buying product if the vendors didn't stop the arbitrary fragmentation. So POSIX was forced on vendors who then had to identify areas with mature features to standardize - so that every UNIX admin and UNIX programmer wasn't using a completely different environment. We need to do the same for Linux, the same for Kubernetes, and the same for any mature technology. The vendors are striving for lock-in, and we need to fight it.
It's going to be interesting to see how the circle is squared regards defending against autonomous weaponry. There's probably a large design space of offensive autonomous weapons that could only effectively be countered by a system with no human in the control loop. If the design / use of autonomous defensive systems is also prohibited, that would give an overwhelming advantage to any aggressor willing to defy any such a ban on offensive systems. If they're not banned, then the difference between a weapon designed to auto-target other weapons and one designed to auto-target humans is so blurry as to be virtually indistinguishable in terms of verifiable arms control.
I think it is too late. The genie is out of the bottle and there is no way of putting it back now. The tech is not some obscure, super complex thing where the expertise can be gated and it doesn't require controllable materials or preproduction technology.

I mean, the sort of tech they are warning against can be put together by lone operatives using commonly accessible electronics and concentional arms.

Why not call for banning mines or cluster munitions? Those remain functional for decades after deployment and kill/maim indiscriminately.

I'm not trying to appeal to whataboutism here, I'm trying to point out the futility.

Perhaps I'm too jaded, but I can't see any scenario where military robotics can be prevented.
You can simply run `brew cask cat sloth` to look at code.
Ive stopped drinking coffee a year ago. My brain is dead for the first few hours at the morning. Im a night-kind-of-person, quitting coffee did not help as its tied to each and every person differently.

TL;DR there is no single magic solution
> if closed timelike curves existed, then quantum computers would be no more powerful than classical ones.

If we find quantum computers are no more powerful than classical ones, well then perhaps CTCs exist.

--

Although what if quantum computing is actually a result of CTC under the space time fabric? (Probably a nonsensical proposition eh?)
Awesome job. any chance of adding a filter for Gender or Age?

e.g.
https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/?$gender=Male&MinAge=30&M...
Exactly when a guided weapon is launched many of them are autonomous eg ATGM's that do top attacks on MBT's
Quantum computers are not exactly what people imagine them to be. For one, they're not for all purposes but for niche uses by their very nature (e.g. that's not something we can invent our way out in the future).

And they depend on shitloads of regular algebra and arithmetic to create and program them.

In fact, Quantum Physics is a huge user of math.
... But It Helps.
Nasa heading back to Moon soon, and this time to stay
Sanna: A language written for the first time
Quote from their charter [0]:
Today this includes publishing most of our AI research, but we expect that safety and security concerns will reduce our traditional publishing in the future, while increasing the importance of sharing safety, policy, and standards research.

They referenced that from the article you commented on in the section 'release strategy' [1]:
[...] we see this current work as potentially representing the early beginnings of such concerns, which we expect may grow over time. This decision, as well as our discussion of it, is an experiment: while we are not sure that it is the right decision today, we believe that the AI community will eventually need to tackle the issue of publication norms in a thoughtful way in certain research areas. Other disciplines such as biotechnology and cybersecurity have long had active debates about responsible publication in cases with clear misuse potential, and we hope that our experiment will serve as a case study for more nuanced discussions of model and code release decisions in the AI community.

[0] https://blog.openai.com/openai-charter/
[1] https://blog.openai.com/better-language-models/#releasestrat...
> at that point we are only speaking about access control

That’s the entire point. sed cannot run Microsoft Word because it cannot control the hardware in the right way. Sure, you could hook up sed to do this, but that would be kind of stupid and useful only in a purely academic sense.
Of course, that's how it works. Chrome is hardly alone in field testing their new feature proposals.

You'll note that they're also willing to kill features which are not adopted, like PPAPI.
This will further entrench Facebook and make it “too big to fail”
my brain always preferred rewriting systems to naive TM interpretation

anybody else ?
Bigger companies get power and the ability to lobby because the outcomes are a much bigger deal and 'everything affects everyone'

Bombardier, here in Montreal, is maybe the biggest private employer. They are one of the few companies that provides high end jobs like 'designing products'.

Bombardier makes big planes - they might need special status at the airport, special access to certain things etc..

In a negative case, Bombardier was about to go bankrupt on the tail of a recent bad project. They needed a bailout which the market was not interested in really. If the government did not step in, the company could have folded and would have been devastating. The devastation would have been one thing for Bombardier investors, but probably much worse for so many regular people involved. That fact should express the degree to which these investments are 'important' to parties aside from investors.

Consider for a moment why 'they market' wasn't interested in the first place: because they couldn't make huge bank. Too much risk.

Why does Softbank plow zillions into WeWork and not Bombardier? Because they, Softbank - wants to make 'all the surplus' - not the community. With WeWork, investors 'make bank'. With Bombardier, most of the surplus goes to other parties.

Bigger picture, consider that 'a company' is a balance of power between 1) shareholders/debtors, 2) executives, 3) workers, 4) buyers and 5) suppliers.

In the case of Bombardier - shareholders stand little to gain. The 'winners' of the perpetual equilibrium are the suppliers, buyers, employees.

In many cases, it can be demonstrated that the overwhelming amount of money and surplus generated when a company comes to town is generated for parties 'other than' the investors. (I'm not saying this is always the case of course)

Since to this day, Amazon doesn't even make a lot of profit, and almost 100% of their proceed are invested in jobs, or surpluses for customers ... it's those participating in the system i.e.

For the most part, Amazon is an 'efficiency machine' that provides structure for smart people to work in, to collaborate effectively to do cool new things.

The are 'mostly' a positive force who's investors hardly claim a dime in profit (at least for now).

It's reasonable that some accommodation was made for them, though the $3B seems high, it's actually a small deal especially if it's tax incentives commensurate upon future returns.
A novel by William Hertling titled "Kill Process" follows the story of a startup building such a social media. It is depicted in the positive light.
Bloomberg remember me Alex Jones sometimes.
One that quickly comes to mind...

https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Adventure/#p=3&tab=To...
The vaporized rock and extreme heat at a huge landslide’s heart
Despite it's flaws I found this thing really useful. Much more useful (for user) than utm_source & fbclid which pollutes todays URLs.

However, i think that the functionality should be in browser extension not browser itself.