skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It's hard to ask my question without sounding a bit naive :-) Back in the early nineties I did some work with convoluted neural nets, except that at that time we didn't call them "convoluted". They were just the neural nets that were not provably uninteresting :-) My biggest problem was that I didn't have enough hardware and so I put that kind of stuff on a shelf waiting for hardware to improve (which it did, but I never got back to that shelf).

What I find a bit strange is the excitement that's going on. I find a lot of these results pretty expected. Or at least this is what I and anybody I talked to at the time seemed to think would happen. Of course, the thing about science is that sometimes you have to do the boring work of seeing if it does, indeed, work like that. So while I've been glancing sidelong at the ML work going on, it's been mostly a checklist of "Oh cool. So it does work. I'm glad".

The excitement has really been catching me off guard, though. It's as if nobody else expected it to work like this. This in turn makes me wonder if I'm being stupidly naive. Normally I find when somebody thinks, "Oh it was obvious" it's because they had an oversimplified view of it and it just happened to superficially match with reality. I suspect that's the case with me :-)

For those doing research in the area (and I know there are some people here), what have been the biggest discoveries/hurdles that we've overcome in the last 20 or 30 years? In retrospect, what were the biggest worries you had in terms of wondering if it would work the way you thought it might? Going forward, what are the most obvious hurdles that, if they don't work out might slow down or halt our progression?
Goddamn, I really really didn’t expect that level of extreme creepiness. The honey thing was weird, but the “sassy” policewoman thing? Wow. If you walked in on someone watching that, you’d be seriously concerned. Again, my asmptiom going into this was “oh boy, Internet moralizing and outrage again,” but it’s... incredibly sketchy. At best.
More efficient to produce a certain kW figure, but run for profit and at the cost of freedom for the consumer.
HN is just hearing about it now because it made it to the front page of HN, but HN should never have heard about this.
I'm not sure 0900 means what you think it means...

6p to 9a: Commute home, read, work on fiction, spend time with wife

9a to 5a: Sleep negative 4 hours

And, assuming you mean 9p, I personally need way more than 3 hours from the exit of the workplace to relax and sleep, esp with trying to have a family dinner and get kids bathed and to bed. Even single I'd need more wind-down time, and before kids I'd need more togetherness time with my partner.
I guess your underlying point is that a business model that sexualizes a 13-yr old is very sketchy and leads to worse things. If so, I agree wholeheartedly!

But who can tell for sure? You did not make a cogent point in your first post since people aren’t paying for these types of videos. They are watching them for free and the money comes from the ads served along side the videos. You should be asking what kind of person pays to sponsors these types of videos. I sorta agree your point isn’t refuted, but that’s mainly because it’s not coherent so logic can’t really be applied.

Anyway, I only point all this out because I think you have a good heart and the right sentiment but are losing the argument in the delivery.

I suspect this stuff is slipping through the cracks because these videos seem like normal nonsense to most people. “People watch videos of people whispering? Weird but so is almost all the rest of what other people watch on YouTube...” But apparently there’s some kind of sexualization in these videos for some people and that’s what actually makes them so popular. Very worrisome when we’re seeing children doing these videos. Raising awareness that these are actually sexual is important. I think 99% of people, including advertisers, just don’t see it and don’t realize it.
It's an mp4 video. But then the next question is: how did they make that video? And the answer to that is... I have no idea.
Column rename was added recently.
Isn't that the same argument that could be applied to child actors / singers / performers? I don't know the statistics, I admit, but there seem to be not so many people who were those things are a kid who are happy and well balanced people, and many who are not (or who are dead). Given the sexual undertones of a child doing ASMR, I can't imagine being a child Youtube star is going to work out any better.
> #YCFundMeToo

YC Fund "Me Too" -- I think you might want to let PR and HR take a look at this before you move forward with this name.
I am also curious about the audio generation.
Ya, but that is nothing compared to some of the other vids on youtube. Teenagers make and post crazy stuff every day. I am very hesitant to start pointing fingers at behavior that in other context our culture openly encourages and rewards. I dont like it, but it is the sort of thing best left to parents imho. I had some girls at my door last halloween dressed as harley quin. If thier parents are ok with it then im not going to say a word.

Imho they looked less sexy than literaly very cold.
Ask HN: What languages teach the wisdom of C without the uglyness of it?
I have been going through C again. I want the manual power on memory management and low level computing without C's ugly I/O and other pointer semantics it provides.

The syntax is inconsistent in many ways.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4025768/what-do-people-find-difficult-about-c-pointers

So basically, I want to be able to use pointers but in a sane way. Most of them are dependent of standard library than language anyway.

I can't afford time for going further low level like machine architecture or assembly language.

Does Pascal help?
Does learning functional programming first help? If so, which small functional language( except for Haskell)?
The key is pre-emptively identifying cases where that will happen before the need actually arises, since splitting out microservices from a monolith retroactively can be exceedingly painful and complex. You have to strike a balance between the short-term and the long-term.
This is the law in theory however, China has stated that the declaration is a "historical document that no longer has any realistic meaning" [1]

1: https://m.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2100779/s...
There's also the infamous Brew developer and Google's interview for a counterexample. But that's more of a devil's advocate thing.

I think your point still stands, but instead of Linus I'd use the more relevant Mike Perham and his Sidekiq tool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12925449
Allowing automatic claiming of ownership by a third party is extremely dangerous to the ecosystem. This sounds like a vulnerability that could be used to publish malicious code to repos that people are using but that are no longer maintained (event-stream->flatmap-stream, anyone?).
> then the system is all cost and no benefit to you.

That's not strictly speaking true.

Having and using defensive patents has the advantage of disadvantaging competitors who don't have defensive patents but wish they did.

(Not that this is necessarily what djk44 would like to state as his reason for seeing benefits, just as a general fact)
So is Kubernetes.
Evidence? (From either of you?)
This was in the past and there was not much risk. These days I freely disclose my outside endeavors before the offer is signed. It’s never been a problem.
There are hundereds of different subsidies in the US across all the different states. Some vesting over time, valid from day x to day y, and all kinds of other scenarios. It's really complicated, but chances are high that there is a subsidy or grant somewhere you could take advantage of.
How about "cloud-amenable"?
Thank you for the information but, as a realtive laymen, the whole "It seems to be going pretty well" doesn't seem to jibe with the fact that we seem to be failing miserably to meet Paris accords with even Germany pulling out of the commiment.

If things are going pretty well and renewables are "What's not to love?" (to shamelessly steal your quote) then what on earth is going on.
I thought this was going to be an article about corporate taxes (or lack thereof).

So now we're going to introduce the perilous hand of federal invention, and it's not to make gigantic companies pay their fair share, but to stifle speech?
If that was honestly the case, new laws and regulations would never get passed as you fear both sides abusing them to further their own goals. It only furthers the goals of those who believe the government should be destroyed to employ gridlock because over time regulations will be erased with nothing to replace them.

For some things I would trust the government over states. If Gay Marriage was left up to the states, there would still be a large amount of states that would gladly ban it. Yet people feared any sort of laws or regulations surrounding gay marriage being passed as a way of the government usurping power.
First, they have to notice. Second, they have to care. Your activity would need to be above a certain threshold to make it worth suing you over.
Real estate is a finite resource. NYC isn't some dying rust belt town, someone will setup shop where Amazon planned to, and they will pay taxes that Amazon thought they shouldn't have to pay.
If you haven't, you should take a few moments to read the original AlexNet paper (only 11 pages):

https://papers.nips.cc/paper/4824-imagenet-classification-wi...

What you're saying is true, it should have worked in theory, but it just wasn't working for decades. The AlexNet team made several critical optimizations to get it work: (a) big network, (b) training on GPU, and (c) using a ReLU instead of tanh(x).

In the end, it was the hardware that made it possible, but up until their paper it really wasn't for sure. A good analogy is the invention of the airplane. You can speculate all you want about the curvature of a bird's wing and lift, but until you actual build a wing that flies, it's all speculation.
Obviously a million open sockets uses more memory than having a stateless http backend. However, having worked on the very largest RPC service deployment ever fielded I feel it is safe to say that there is no reason to have a million open gRPC channels.
That's not what my recruiter spam indicates
Facebook thinks about removing anti-vax content due to spread of misinformation
>Free speech does not mean a guaranteed platform for your ideas, unless you are the owner of the platform.

Extorting the platform owner with implications that if they don't do as the government wishes they may compel them isn't exactly "freely given" consent.

The government has the ability to regulate many things, but threatening prior restraint of speech is a pretty bold claim, and perhaps content providers should call that bluff.
This would be a fantastic way to expand headcount. Of course any team supporting this many languages and services will need at least one person for each, and then a few extra to coordinate the chaos, and then a few more to clean up the damage from the previous few.

Only being slightly tongue-in-cheek.
First Look at Twitter’s Snapchatty New Camera Feature
Good for NYC, good for Nashville.
I think the only reason this is legal are “cryptocurrencies are classified as commodity, not currency”. Banks can’t technically make their own currency, but commodities are okay.

I see this eventually becoming a fairly serious issue with the fed, if this takes off.
Because the birth rate is lowered voluntarily, by the people themselves. I'm talking about people being given education about birth control, and free condoms.

Also the Gatesnotes blog has mentioned before that lowering the child mortality rate goes hand in hand with needing to produce less children, as more reach adulthood.
Being 'single-core only' is not that much of a problem if you're coming from Python and immediately seeing a huge performance boost compiling to Go-style static native binaries, I think? People immediately jump on the 'single-core' thing with OCaml, but can you explain what exactly it is that you're trying to do with multicore that's not covered by a concurrency library like Lwt or a multi-processing library like Async Parallel?

Re: database drivers–which one are you looking for? MSSQL ( https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ann-first-release-of-mssql/3242 )? Or Postgres ( http://mmottl.github.io/postgresql-ocaml/ )? Or SQLite ( https://github.com/mmottl/sqlite3-ocaml )?

Re: web frameworks–Eliom ( https://ocsigen.org/eliom/6.6/manual/intro ) is one of the most powerful isomorphic web frameworks. Or do you want to spin up a quick JSON API server with Cohttp ( https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-cohttp )? Or dig into a high-performance, lower-level server ( https://github.com/inhabitedtype/httpaf )?

Or you want a Kafka client ( https://opam.ocaml.org/packages/kafka/ )?

Or maybe you can just take advantage of BuckleScript's high-fidelity approach to transpiling OCaml to JavaScript, and write some bindings to take advantage of basically everything in the npm ecosystem?

Sure, not every OCaml library is battle-tested, but I think that's not a good reason to immediately discount it. I didn't tell StavrosK to immediately commit to and rewrite everything in OCaml, I said he might find it interesting. Even with Go, Rust, and TypeScript as options, because:

- Not everyone is satisfied with Go's type system or its model of error handling, or its low ceiling for abstraction.

- Not everyone is satisfied with Rust's overall newness and potential compiler and library bugs, its lack of GC and the subsequent having to deal with borrow checking, or its slow compile times.

- Not everyone is satisfied with trying to model the dynamic complexity of JavaScript in a new, explicitly unsound type system. And it's no secret that the BuckleScript compiler can run rings around tsc for compile speed (not even mentioning the more powerful and battle-tested OCaml language).
Chrome will Soon Let You Share Links to a Specific Word or Sentence on a Page
There's a museum in the Haigerloch beer cellar where the prototype reactor was built. https://www.haigerloch.de/de/Tourismus/Atomkellermuseum/Der-... says that the B8 attempt did not reach criticality.

Last paragraph:

> Der Vermehrungsfaktor (das Verhätnis Voll- zu Leermessung) ergab sich etwa zu 7. Damit war der Haigerlocher Reaktor nicht kritisch geworden. Berechnungen ergaben, dass etwa die eineinhalbfache Reaktorgröße notwendig gewesen wäre. Eine Vergrößerung war im April 1945 nicht mehr möglich, weil weder weiteres Uran noch Schweres Wasser vorhanden war.

Google Translate:

> The multiplication factor (the ratio of full to empty measurement) was about 7. Thus, the Haigerlocher reactor was not critical. Calculations showed that about one and a half times the reactor size would have been necessary. An enlargement was no longer possible in April 1945, because neither more uranium nor heavy water was available.
There's no copyright for factual data, and if the entire value proposition of your site can be summarized in two sentences, you've got a problem. Especially since Wikis have also been collecting this data, for example, WikiNetworth, also Wikipedia itself often has net-worth info on celebrities.

This doesn't seem like a compelling use case for onerous regulation that can do far more harm than good.

I personally think anything published on the internet that's not behind a paywall is ripe for forking and summarizing. It may be nice and polite to ask permission, but to me, the raison d'etre of the web, is that it's a communal forest for permissionless innovaton. We all harvest from it, and we should all give back to it, so that the next group of people can benefit from it.

CelebrityNetWorth themselves are guilty of taking data without acknowledgement. They don't list their sources and what information they're republishing, much of which comes from industry trade journals, where beat reporters zealously follow celebrities and publish everything from houses, cars, or other luxury goods they own, to any new publishing, actoring, or singing contracts they've acquired.

The internet should be a resource for everyone on the the planet to harvest, filter, and remix, reinterpret, and republish, and I feel like excessive copyright on these transformations violates that spirit. Not many people may share my position, but I grew up on the internet from the 80s, before large scale commercial activity arrived, back when 'information wants to be free' was the mantra, and I've never really given up on that ideal.

Eventually, lots of people are going to be turning loss NLP AIs on text all over the internet and extracting out Q&A systems. In ten years from now, it won't just be Google's fact box you have to worry about, they'll be tons of these agents around. Europe is still tooling their policy for a pre-AI world.
LG confirms the G8 will feature an OLED screen that vibrates to produce sound
Entity-Component-System (Which I think is more correct than Entity-Component system)

It's a pattern of organizing data and code that consists of:

Entities: Conceptually these are like objects, in memory they might just be an index.

Components: Conceptually these are like fields on objects, they can typically be added and removed unlike normal fields. If entities are being represented as index's, each different type of component is generally stored as some form of Map<Entity, Component>.

Systems: These are where you store your logic, they typically iterate over all entities with a given set of components and do something. For example iterate over all entities with a position and velocity components, and do position += velocity * dt.
I think he meant that it changed the nature of error handling, and thus changed the way developers think about bugs and the way we encounter them. Errors are returned from function calls, and callers are expected to check the value of that error. The error must be assigned into a variable (or intentionally ignored, which should never pass a code review), and then must be checked. This forces errors to be handled on the spot, or returned up the call stack intentionally, usually with some extra info/annotation. You don't get try/catch scenarios where an error is caught 10 calls above where it occurred.

Imagine writing Java, and wrapping every function call in a try/catch block, and inspecting the exception if one was caught, and then handling it or re-throwing it. That's kind of what we do in Go. There are no "unexpected errors" because it is clear where all errors originate and how they are to be handled.

Go2 will improve on this if err != nil syntax, possibly with some function-scoped error handler and a new language level handle/check concept. Check it out

https://dev.to/deanveloper/go-2-draft-error-handling-3loo
https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/Go2ErrorHandlingFeedback
Still, Americans are vulnerable to propaganda just like all populations are. And pretending that people can't be affected by propaganda because they'll think their way out of it is a dumb position to take.
From the RISC-V Privileged ISA Specification [https://riscv.org/specifications/privileged-isa/]:

We briefly note that the entire privileged-level design described in this document could be replaced with an entirely different privileged-level design without changing the user-level ISA, and possibly without even changing the ABI. In particular, this privileged specification was designed to run existing popular operating systems, and so embodies the conventional level-based protection model. Alternate privileged specifications could embody other more flexible protection-domain models.

Do many/most other architectures have this attribute? The idea of replacing only one "side" of an architecture has never crossed my mind before and seems pretty cool.
I, like many others, loved and used Delphi a lot in the 90s, but for one major client we identified a major risk was the declining availability of Delphi developers (in Australia, at least), and I did a rewrite of the entire app into C#, splitting off the calculation part (it being a financial application) into a separate 'core' which is now re-usable across Windows, MacOS and web. At the time we did this it wasn't even clear if Delphi the product was going to survive. I'm glad it has, but the rewrite was the correct decision (yes, as risky as rewrites can be).
Oh so it is - also available here: https://www.yoycart.com/Product/578484113485/
Why was the video taken down ?

I have just watched it, so far I disagree with him (this ASMR channel is weird as fuck but I don't think it makes it sexual) but I don't see what would justify taking down his video.
I presume when she says "extortionate" she means "inordinate."
Major journals do not enforce basic trial registration rules
If you find it easier to fall asleep with the TV on... you're likely someone who would enjoy ASMR.

I used to think of it as, "That tingling feeling in your head when you learn new things." And there are so many triggers. Throughly enjoyable to explore.

* What The H-ck is ASMR!? - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFqbWwKg_o4

But... yeah, look, the kid doing it in sexy clothing... pure cringe.

* Kids doing ASMR is a problem - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk

As was YouTube's response to all of this. TL;DR: YouTube removed the critic's video of the kid's video, saying the critic's video was "sexual" but they left the kid's video.

* Apparently Kids Doing ASMR Was A Problem: YouTube Deletes Video - YouTube || https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA

Now all the videos are back, but some have been de-monetized.
>And then there are the Bandwidth Alliance members who give free egress to CloudFlare, which then charges nothing to most users: Data Space, Dreamhost managed hosting, Linode, Packet.net and Vapor.

You are stating that as if DO is not a member.

[1]https://www.cloudflare.com/bandwidth-alliance/digitalocean/
Moralizing has gotten a bad rap over the past couple decades, to the point of being almost completely declawed in progressive circles, but one can only hope that morals will grow their claws back soon enough for stuff like this to be stopped.

No matter how liberal you are, you're shooting you a future self in the foot if you profess a unconditional disregard of moralizing, because eventually you may discover that you do actually have morals. All it takes to get enligtened is for something bad enough to get spread around.

Edit: don't get misled by thinking I'm using the Twitter/Cable News vernacular, by liberal I mean "permissive," and by progressive I mean "in favor of changing things." Those categories could apply to the forces in any culture, even historical cultures.
> ...and that is what they did.

In fact, that is what they still do. As someone who deals with ABS regularly, it is as weird of a conflict of interest as one would think. ABS, as far as I've seen, is comprised of honest folks who take their jobs seriously (i.e. they don't take it easy on shipbuilders or owners in hopes of retaining business). However, it's an odd dynamic. It's kind of like being sued and having to pay not only your defense lawyer, but also the prosecution's lawyer.
Ranjit Jhala – Language-Integrated Verification
Douma Chemical Attack and the Fog of Syria's Propaganda War
Exactly. It's ludicrous to imagine some 65-year-old retired bluecollar widow should be working on making apps more efficient instead of having some fun by playing penny slots. So completely out of touch with the ordinary lives of regular people.
But that simply means there’s functionally only one browser - the fact that there are different skins isn’t really relevant.

Standards are not about “anyone can just use that implementation” they are about “anyone can make a competing implementation”.

Looking at the sources is not a specification.