skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I watched and and while to me it seemed like there was a whole lot of buffeting / oscillation it very well could have been much less or more than a Soyuz. Unsurprisingly I don't have the domain experience to judge it and would appreciate some perspective from those in the know.
It's not just about "raw" speed, but also about how much mental time you spend thinking about your setup. even if you didn't know about zgrep already, that's at most minutes of thinking ahead vs. potential hours or days setting up cloud providers, big toolchains, and whatever else just to get started.

since we're throwing links around, the (tangentially related) Knuth vs. McIlroy saga comes to mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15264997
The article subhead ("animals are no less emotional than we are") is a bit misleading. (The headline likely wasn't written by the author.) This essay is not so much about whether animals operate on more or less of emotional basis than us; but the degree to which animals have subjective experiences to begin with. I.e., when a cat or monkey or bat feels sad, is there someone in there feeling that sadness?

Because non-human animals exhibit demonstrably less higher intelligence than us, we tend to assume also that their subjective experience is somehow less sharp or detailed or consequential than ours. Consider the way that virtually our entire civilization treats animals as disposable goods. We confine them in horrendous conditions, we slaughter them for food in brutal ways, we force them to do hard labor, and we even hurt and scare them for petty entertainment. Many people seem to assume that because animals don't cry or smile or frown or grimace like we do, they must not be feeling the emotions we associate with those faces.

If we all could believe that non-human animals could experience emotions such as fear, loneliness, loss, terror, shame, embarrassment, and joy just as richly and profoundly as we do -- and the article suggests that they do, indeed -- then what might we have to change about the way we regard and interact with them? I believe this is the question the article wants us to consider.
The immediate alternative is to accept that life is not a meritocracy, and ceasing to act as if it were. In particular, it means not using fairness as a justification for policies that might be fair in a pure meritocracy, but not in the real world. "Fairness" sounds compelling, but when applied an unfair system, it can end up magnifying injustices.

It might be a good thing to push towards the "pure meritocracy" you mention, though the article does offer arguments that it's not possible. If it's not possible, then some things that push towards it potentially make the problem worse. One of the virtues of pure meritocracy is that it is simple, and if a system accepts an impure meritocracy while rejecting complications based on that virtue, then it will fail to achieve what you want a pure meritocracy to do and enshrine the evils of an impure one.

Even if it is possible, it won't happen immediately, and you will have to deal with that. Don't be surprised if people reject it when you say "Oh, I'm working towards a pure meritocracy, in a way that just happens to benefit me first, and I promise that as soon as I've got that I'll be sure to make it a pure meritocracy for you, too."

Essentially, I'm saying that if you want pure meritocracy as your alternative, you need to offer some evidence that there's a practical way to get there from here. And all the way there, not just a few things in that direction, unless you can show that they really do benefit everybody (or at least that most people would agree is a better state, not just some, and especially not when those "some" are those who are already better off).
I think Excel is a pretty good candidate for this. I've seen a lot of spreadsheets used to automate tasks written by folks who don't have programming experience.
I heard a lot of Western European governements run on Siemens BS1000/BS2000/BS3000.
I've never understood this idea. You might pay for AppX but if they use data provided from LibraryY, nothing outside the privacy policy and license agreement gives you any idea (much less control) Iver what LibraryY does, regardless how much you paid for AppX. Paying isn't enough, you must read and understand these agreements enough to know that most of the time "we partner with certain 3rd parties and your usage of those third party libraries are governed by their license agreement and privacy policies" type wording is all you get besides a big old middle finger.
Tim Draper Tells NBC Bay Area That Bitcoin Will Replace Cash in Four Years
In this week’s episode of NBC Bay Area’s podcast Sand Hill Road, business and tech reporter Scott McGrew sits down with billionaire investor Tim Draper who makes more predictions for the cryptocurrency Bitcoin and stands by his defense of Theranos founder and CEO, Elizabeth Holmes.

McGrew and Draper discuss the future of cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin. Draper asserts cryptocurrencies will supplant all other forms of payment in four years. He tells McGrew that some businesses “will laugh at you” if other forms of payment are used.

On Holmes, Draper – who invested $1 million in Theranos – reveals why he hasn't paid much attention to all the reports and evidence documenting Holmes' transgressions and defends her. “I thought why would I follow that person?” he says about John Carreyrou’s first Wall Street Journal article that raised doubts on Theranos. “I’m going to follow people who do deep research and really understand things, not people who have an agenda and want to take down an entrepreneur.” Draper ends his comments on Holmes by saying “this attack and vicious rumor mill to try to take down Elizabeth Holmes has been a real setback for humanity.”

Sand Hill Road is a new weekly podcast hosted by NBC Bay Area/KNTV business and tech reporter Scott McGrew, featuring interviews from the heart of Silicon Valley with the venture capitalists, start-ups, and innovators behind the trending technologies of tomorrow.

In next week’s episode of Sand Hill Road, Alphabet, Inc. chairman John Hennesey talks with McGrew about possible government regulation, entrepreneurship, and Google’s big plans in San Jose.

To listen to past episodes featuring interviews with Elad Gil, Randy Komisar and Maynard Webb among others, subscribe to Sand Hill Road on iTunes and wherever podcasts are available.
> Cash is not what makes stores stink or get dirty; what you're saying is that you prefer stores without people you associate with stink, ie., homeless. But if the homeless could "simply" get a card, cashless stores wouldn't have that advantage.

You are reading more into what I stated than what is there. I'm saying I don't care if someone is homeless or not. If they stink in a restaurant or coffee shop I don't want to eat there. That's all I said. I did not link it to the store being cashless or not. You added that in yourself.

Then I simply offered up an alternative to get around the cashless rules. Someone collecting a monthly fee from the cards does not matter as much if it's just going to be spent within the month anyway.

Many businesses have cashless as a theft prevention measure. It's only mildly more difficult for people to do transactions there if it's more difficult at all. When I was poor I preferred cashless. Nothing has changed since I'm less poor now than I was before. With cards I have recourse. With cash I have zero recourse if something is stolen or there is fraud.
Absolutely nothing on that page is sent to us. The only thing sent to our servers from the extension is when you create a golink using the extension. Your content is completely private to you.
So true. I sold my exotics and drive cars I always wanted as a kid. Its more fun, and cheaper to boot. I can't help but smile every time I see one of my cheap little cars.
> In a world where self-driving capabilities are in almost every car, car ownership will be vastly reduced.

We'll see how it plays out, but I don't think that's true. Maybe it's what Uber wants, but I think car companies and consumers will disagree.
Considering that OpenVPN saw almost perfectly linear improvement with multiple processes with no sign of slowing down, it seems bit odd and arbitrary to stop at 16 processes. Was it explored further to see where the scaling hits limits?
Oh wow, I had not even heard about that. Damn. :-(
> Does this bet mean anything if the only employment you can get is 10 hours a week at minimum wage?

Yes, because it's about relative rates. Unless you believe the EU is more "honest" about reporting unemployment numbers, the US numbers are just as meaningful.
Show HN: Hacking Kindness – how to make people behave better on the Internet
There are so many impossibly complex factors and unknowns regarding how life and the universe works that this type of speculation seems odd to me. The reality is, we don't know how life would or could adapt to any of these differences, or how likely other differences or anomalies we are simply unaware of might have countered or exacerbated various knock-on effects. It's simply guessing.
I have to see vegan bears and vegan whales, I only know humans who are able to decide not to eat other animals based on their beliefs.
I can understand how you would get there, and the McDonald's site (intentionally?) doesn't make it easy to see comparisons and product lines.
Thiel is tiiiny compared to YC.
A simpler explanation in my opinion is that it's projection. But we each then are basically performing petitio principii.

Occam's Razor is not truth generating, it only says that you shouldn't make things more complex than is necessary, it doesn't say what is necessary; crucially the World, and humans in particular, are not logical or especially confined by necessities.
Phoenix (the elixir web framework) uses simple CRDTs in it's presence API.
Don't worry - I'm not going anywhere :)
I agree that the author is opinionated, but it's not an uncommon opinion. Plenty of Bay Area residents who lived there before tech took over feel pretty "suffocated" by its dominance. I've seen first-hand how SF has changed, and agree with the author on a lot of points.

Maybe there would be less anti-tech sentiment if tech culture stopped taking itself quite so seriously and had a little perspective. A sense of humor would go a long way. It's possible to both enjoy these kinds of events and understand why some people might find them sad or weird.

The self-seriousness of the tech crowd, in my opinion, invites these kinds of hit pieces.
> unless I'm paying for it directly

The tendency is that apps are doing this even when you're paying for them directly.
Folks, the "Great Filter"[1] is looking us right in the face, in the form of catastrophic climate change[2].

It seems quite a likely hypothesis that any upcoming intelligent species would, like us, ride the horse of fossil fuels right into disaster.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

[2] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-...
Yes, he broke the rules and now he is going to be busy dealing with the fallout instead of continuing to bring the advances of science to the masses. How is this a good thing? Why do we have rules that do this? That is what I mean by shooting him in the foot. This is not an outcome that we want, and our rules got us here.

Following rules != Good for the human race
Yes, I think there is a different dynamic when your company scale runs to "I work on campus". In smaller offices, particularly in dense cities or "business parks", I think it's more common to go to the restaurants nearby. Those are really not open to people bringing food.
I didn't say nobody would use it, I'm just saying a large portion of people using Uber wouldn't need it if they had a self driving car of their own.

Also, with a self-driving car the driver doesn't have to deal with parking because the car can take care of it.
Ah I misunderstood the point that you were trying to make, but it makes more sense now and is something I can agree with.

Thanks for the clarification.
>> The sun will go boom soon enough

Depends on your definition of 'soon enough'. The sun will have exhausted its hydrogen supply in about 5 billion years. In about 1 billion years, the temperature on this planet will probably become unsustainable for life.

Your right of course, but that event is so far in the future, I doubt we can speak of anything even resembling humanity by that time. I was thinking in timeframes of about a ten to hundred thousand years, not billions.
Your own source:

"Researchers from the Harvard Kennedy School who followed 122 men and women who had been released from the state prison in Massachusetts found that six months to a year after their release, just over half of the group had found a job."

That means he's actually right by a narrow margin. Most ("just over half") former inmates did find a job.

This source reports an unemployment rate of only 25%:

http://www.esrcheck.com/wordpress/2018/07/16/report-finds-on...

> I appreciate the author making such clear and well-stated points, that makes it easy to use to simple facts to refute his/her argument.

You didn't refute anything. Of course a conviction is career poison and one can write long-winded articles on the injustice of it. Still, the statistics say: Most ex-convicts can find a job.
> I added three custom metrics/events in google analytics to collect statistics on correct guesses after 100, 200 and 500 inputs. If you’d rather not be counted, please load the html file from my github repository instead.

I'm happy to participate in such statistics so I don't need that HTML file, but I'm not okay with sending it to some third party that then tracks a whole lot of other things as well. So Google Analytics is blocked as always; I'm sorry that I couldn't submit my 52% score...
> Of course animals have no such conception of deeper emotions, at least in the same way that we think about them

how can you possibly claim that?
in your experience at startup school, who created the illustrations and videos, the founders themselves or did they get a designer involved?
This is excellently stated and is exactly the macro-dynamic across much of mega-business in corporate America.
> Why buy a 10-100k car when you can pay the incrementally per use?

Because it's cheaper over the long run.
I've and some family members have been going to that particular hospital. Generally had good experience especially if getting admitted. Most of the nurses are so compassionate. However its been getting more and more busy. These days their entire parking lot is filled during daytime. I sometimes have to drive around for 10-15 minutes to find a spot. Its quite the change from even 2 years ago.
It simply doesn't matter to me very much what I eat. I find dwelling on the specifics of food to be incredibly tedious (even if cooking itself is occasionally fun).

Some things I like more or less than others, but taste and variety is a distant second to tasty enough and fast.

When choosing where to get lunch, my primary criteria are usually (1) is the expected wait negligible and (2) is there at least one thing on the menu I know for certain I'll like.
Thanks for pitching it! We do not send any content from the destination pages back to our servers.

Based on what we're hearing from the comments, we're planning to roll out a more detailed privacy page to build more confidence with our users.
That may be true in your case, but it certainly isn't necessary nor universal.

We're certainly capable of it. It remains unclear whether other animals are capable.
> I'm so confused by people's response here. It's a location tracking app.

My problem is that Foursquare (the company, not the apps) is using location data of people who aren't using location-tracking apps and who haven't given consent to have their location tracked.
Wall Street Critic Warren Vows to Break Up Amazon, Facebook, Google
Do you happen to have any tutorial handy that explain the steps needed for a mac os user to set that up?

I have a U2F key from NXP that works very well as a 2nd factor auth for my email account, however, I'm having a really hard time finding documentation on how to use it to store my ssh private key.

I just did `brew install opensc` and though it'd probably magiically work form there, but no luck.
An Actual Photograph of Shock Waves from Supersonic Jets
I feel like it wasn’t very random. I could predict your answers to some extent after the first few.
i dont know why people think there is a paradox. the way that life springs from barren rock is not known. if we dont know how that works, then we cant assign a probability to it happening on a given planet. people just assume that the probability is very high. it could be next to nothing for all we know, small enough so that even the entire universe only produces one. the paradox is all based on huge assumptions. there is no paradox until we prove that the probability is high.

well thats not true, because you need life but you also need intelligence. and again, everyone assumes that if you have life it will eventually become intelligent. and people assume that if life is intelligent it will eventually build space shuttles. its all a huge, huge assumption. look at all the animals that qualify as intelligent. some birds and monkeys are hugely intelligent, but they dont build space shuttles. this shows that intelligence doesnt equal space shuttles and that even when life springs up, and even when it becomes intelligent, it still could be super unlikely that it will build space shuttles.

hell, there are even humans that might have never built space shuttles. there are indigenous communities all over the planet that never developed technology and probably never would have. when you live in a warm climate and food is abundant, there may never be a reason to.

it is unproven that it is likely at all for space-shuttle level intelligence to spring up from bare earth. there is no paradox. its probably just really unlikely.
Well here's an anecdote; I went abroad and at one place was enthralled by the coffee they served. Astounded, I bought some beans and felt quite happy of the "treasure" we had found. Later back at home, I went to a local coffee shop to buy some beans. Turns out there's a local coffee place that makes their own coffee, actually just a kilometer away where I lived. After trying out their coffee, the coffee I had brought abroad just seemed bland.

There's so many things you don't discover just because you aren't "looking". When going abroad you're actively seeking out great experiences and places. In your home town you're probably satisfied with sitting on computer and watching Netflix.
> Also, Austin, while not as bad as other parts of Texas, is still in Texas.

I've lived in six cities on three continents (and I'm talking signing a lease, not staying for a month) and I can assure you Austin is no better or worse than any other metropolitan area regarding... wait, what metric exactly are you using here? Weather? Burrito size? Number of smug, passive aggressive west coast urbanites per square mile?
One of the most interesting explanations of emotions that I've read is that emotions are subconscious predictions produced by the brain (sorry, didn't save the link). For instance, happiness is a subconscious prediction of safety. Depression is a subconscious prediction of death. It's like super-scalar execution -- the event hasn't happened yet (and may never happen), but the brain has already calculated its outcome and signals its estimation through emotions.

A few conclusions:

A) Anything with brains has some kind of emotions. The bigger the brain the more developed emotions are.

B) Emotions in animals has nothing to do with "soul" or anything transcendental. It's just a way the animal brain works. Humans can feel empathy to animal emotions because they are also technically animals.
One thing to keep in mind is that ~80% of the universe is 'dark energy' and ~20% is 'dark matter'. The stuff we're made of is ~5% of the mass-density of the universe.

For the stuff you and I are made of, we have a pretty good clue as to what is going on, how it works, what the 'bottlenecks' are in terms of talking with other stuff that is like us.

For dark matter, well... it falls down. That's about all we got. How it interacts, if at all, is a total mystery at this point. And there's about 4x more of it than of the stuff you and I are made up of (which is mostly in stars and black holes, at that!). Does it have phases? Can it have a temperature? If it can sustain something like life, what would that even be like?

For dark energy... um... it falls up? Honestly, we got nothing at this point. We've not really even got an idea if it's a particle or a field or what. Most 'serious' physicists just ignore it as it's embarrassingly mysterious. If life could exist in something like dark energy, we'd be totally left out of any avenue to talk to it. At least with dark matter aliens you can send gravity waves at them. With dark energy ones, we have no idea at all. And dark energy has 16x the mass-density that we do.

My point is that the majority of the universe that we know about today is just a total mystery. And we've only discovered this issue in the last 50 years or so. Meaning that in another 10,000 years, we're likely to have a completely different understanding of the universe than we have today. Like, so radically different that it's akin to the flat-earth model vs. general relativity.

When it comes to alien communication, be patient. It's likely to be so outside our current understanding that it would baffle anyone currently alive; it will be literally unbelievable to you and I.
Gamma Ray Telescopes Could Detect Starships Powered by Black Hole
You can definitely narrow the Fermi paradox to 'earth-like life' so you can at least attempt to make some sort of estimate. That's reasonable. What's not reasonable is saying this huge assumption is not an assumption. It's totally an assumption, even if it's an assumption you are making because without it, there is even less to say.
The problem is the other car has a human in it, and those situations are ones where the reaction of the other human is critical to safety analysis, but generally unpredictable.
This is indeed very interesting line of thinking, and if one agrees that there is no soul, and there is no quantum process essential to life that can not be modeled on a classical computer, then this is the only remaining way of thinking.

But this is different from dictionary definition of panpsychism, because this doesn't need to assign consciousness to simpler computations (rocks, buildings, simple cells).

And this indeed opens really interesting questions. For instance if you have a simulation of many people, is it ok to continue the simulation when they are killing each other? Is it ok to ever stop the simulation? Is it ok to create a model of a person you do not like and torture him? What if your brain is augmented with a powerful computer, and torturing happens literally in your imagination?