skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> I would argue that when "influencers" and "evangelists" in the field oversell what AI really is by injecting the consciousness debate into it, it is not because we have no sufficient definition of a human being, but to accumulate eyeballs for their content and investors for their businesses.

I cannot possible know why other people do what they do. I bother with this topic, because at some point in the future we will come to a question, what AI is now, what it can do, what can be entrusted to it and what cannot be. Should we treat AI as a human-being, or as a machine? What we shouldn't do to AI to be able to argue that AI is not a human-being? Can we add emotions to an AI and to treat it like machine? Can we teach AI to be self-aware and conscious, and then turn it off on a whim?

If we load human mind into a machine then should we treat it like a human or like a machine? What modifications of human mind can make it not human-being, and should be treated as killing, and what modifications are ok to do? What the difference between human mind in the machine and AI in the machine? Is there any difference?

> "How far from a truly sentient being is HTTP?" Ridiculous, right?

What is ridiculous here? You mean that protocol is not a system, it is an abstraction, and by itself it cannot do nothing? Ok, I agree. But http-server can do a lot of things, and it is completely reasonable to ask what is the difference between an intelligent being and http-server. We can see behavioral differences, http-server is very constrained and have a very limited ability to adapt to a changing environment. There are no chances that it starts to cache some URLs because web-developer didnt thought about it, but statistics shows that it could greatly lower the total load.

So we can argue that http-server is not intelligent. And we need to do it, because at some point we would need to argue about intelligence of AI, but to do that we need to know how to do that. HTTP server is a good start.
Thx - it was just some sort of standard HDD for Amiga 500 - cannot remember anything specific about it... .

Can it be that the Amiga 500 had in its case a place for a HDD? (I don't remember using external cases, but maybe I have forgotten...)
As war1025 noted, this is not true. People in tech are the most likely to have access to remote work that pays very well. I bring in the only income while my wife stays home with our two boys (6 and 3). I live in Pittsburgh, PA and worked remotely for a startup based out of SF until they ran out of money late last year and picked up a job in downtown Pittsburgh pretty quickly after that. I wouldn't say we're swimming in money but we are comfortable and don't have to check our balance for most purchases.
When will we see the whole Mueller report?
From all I have read about the history of software author Richard Stallman, I would classify him as an end-user.

By all accounts, he was not entirely satisfied with what commercial software was offering.
I had a bit of a hard time following your argument, but nkurz is right here in the sense that things like overflow and bounds checks are practically the poster child for things that perform well on wide OoO processors. They are leaves in dependency graph and hence don't add to dependency chains, and on wide designs the ALU op(s) will often execute almost for free.

It is in-order designs that take a slightly larger relative penalty since in some sense "all instructions matter" there so bounds checks cost similar to surrounding operations that do real work.

You make a lot of valid observation about the cost of actually implementing a modern, deep and wide out of order architecture: it is much harder and uses more silicon that some in-order designs, but once you have it (and largely that's what we have today as general purpose CPUs), the type of branches that are involved in overflow and bounds checks are not costly.
I wish I could compartmentalize fault this easily. I could dismiss so much suffering that way.
When family separation was international news I tried to see what my country (Sweden) does. What I saw was basically that if a crime was serious enough that you put a person in temporary holding cells, any children under their charge is sent to an adult relative, friends, or so called family home if there is no other options. Sweden doesn't have orphanages and instead have a system which is more akin to temporary adoption where the child enter an existing family. The process for infants is identical.

For Sweden, the rules in regard to temporary holding is also very clear. If the crime has a serious enough potential punishment and the investigation risk getting interference, or there is a significant flight risk, then the person under investigation is put in holding for as long as any of the above qualify. If Sweden ever get the same situation as the US and the government wanted to prevent family separation, what they would have to do is either write a special exception and override existing laws or change the punishment down to a fine.

Personally I don't find the law evil. The US implementation could use some major redesign in order to prioritize the child needs over that of the parents, but children should never end up in jail because their parents broke the law. The solution to the US issue must thus be in fixing so that immigrants don't break the law when they want to apply for asylum/legal immigration. That is what we did during the refugee crisis.
In an old comment throwaway_yy2Di made me notice that in spite it has a ridiculously high specific impulse, the momentum to power ratio is very small, it's only 1/c = 3.3E-6 N/kW.
Brooklyn. Off the L.
The GP didn't ask how you would make a Dyson sphere that was invisible, but why it was certain the Dyson sphere would be built at all.
> How do we know an advanced technology would absolutely use Dyson spheres?

This depends on what question you're trying to answer.

The Fermi Paradox is a good one because you don't need to ask "would a civilization always use Dyson spheres?" It takes just one to use them within a billion years to be a sufficient counterexample. Would they be universally used? Who knows?

Dyson spheres are such an attractive idea because there's no new physics required here (like negative mass for wormholes and warp drives). It's largely just an engineering problem. Now it does require a fairly economical method of getting off-world but all of this seems relatively likely within the next 100-200 years.

So it's (relatively) low tech and attractive in terms of providing living area for unit mass (many, many orders of magnitudes better than living on planets).

It's worth noting that you don't even need nuclear fusion to make this all work (although that makes it much easier) and it's not a given that we'll have practical nuclear fusion.

If you don't have nuclear fusion, what is your energy source? The alternatives other than harnessing solar output are much, much higher technologies like using black holes (which is also theorized about as a starship drive).
It doesn't ship Chrome, for one thing.
What does the startup give up to get the $10k check? 1% equity or something?
So, a deep neural network?
Most of the buttons on that page have a shadow though...
> But some others only hide a trick that reduces the computation complexity to, say, 2^80. Unless you are a nation-state, you cannot use the backdoor.

That's not an issue - you just publish the backdoor. You don't need to demonstrate the complexity reduction, you just need to prove it exists.
Founder Commitment
> It's a gene that, in the long term, slightly increases the chance of every other individual reproducing while immediately greatly decreasing its own chance. That just doesn't work.

Don't forget that all those other individuals in vicinity carry some of the same genes - the closer, the more genetically related they are, in general. You'd need to compute how much that small but broad effect can add up to the total percentage of genes propagated indirectly.

I get that it doesn't sound very "common sense", but I don't think it can be rejected outright without doing the numbers and modeling first. Which is exactly what people in the field do, and if they say that it's plausible (i.e. that they can come up with models that are consistent with observations, and that demonstrate stable propagation), then it can't be dismissed out of hand. Look up "group selection" for the kind of models that they use.

Also, that Wikipedia article gives some far more extreme examples of biological altruism, like self-sacrificing ants - noting that this is still evolutionary viable because of how much shared genetic material is there in the rest of the colony (indeed, one could say that the very social structure of ant colonies with non-reproducing workers is an extreme example of biological altruism taken to 11 by evolution). And then we have our own social mores, which have included literal self-sacrifice for the sake of one's "tribe" as a virtue for pretty much as long as we can trace human culture back - and it's not on its way out, either. Clearly, we aren't ants, but in this case, is it really a qualitative difference, or simply the result of the same process applied to different starting conditions and different evolutionary pressures, producing different points on the same scale?

Side note: when I was digging into modern evolutionary theory, one surprising (to me) thing that came up is that there have been substantial revisions in the estimated speed of evolution as a process since Darwin's days. Sexual selection in particular is a mechanism that turned out to work much faster than originally anticipated, and can in fact push other traits that wouldn't be viable otherwise over the viability threshold. One theory is that it developed in the first place because faster selection - i.e. adaptability - is itself a selected-for trait, so it's kinda getting very meta. And there's a fringe but intriguing argument that our human culture (and its building blocks, like language) is, essentially, a further development along these lines to reduce the lag even further - memes can change faster than genes, so population groups that rely less on genetically hardcoded behavior and more on transmitted social mores, are more adaptable. But of course the genes are still there, so those transmitted behaviors that can be implemented on top of hardwired stuff are going to be stronger, even if the original effect was very subtle - e.g. modern concepts of fairness and justice (presumably evolved from hardwired behaviors like parochial altruism).
The OpenMIPS initiative is targeting the 32 and 64-bit MIPS Instruction Set Architecture, Release 6 - I'm unsure if the branch delay slot mess is present in it.

Hopefully someone can chime in with the answer.
Is this the first time the concept of neural networks of neural networks has been proposed? I think it’s close to an idea I’d been knocking around in my head but never studied NNs deep enough to encounter.

I wouldn’t be shocked if consciousness were composed of hundreds or even thousands of NNs. Or even a tree thousands of levels deep.
Under preferences -> appearance you can choose status bar position: bottom (or top).

Then you can right click on the status bar to get to the editor.
The weapons symbols are just very big characters.

The health and shield bar percentages could be measured
by counting pixels. For instance you could draw a
horizontal line across the bar and see how many pixels are
lit up.
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting to HN from now on?
Ok, but the effect of the energy output of any civilisation is basically the same, and for the same reasons. It doesn’t matter if it’s a star or TARDIS whose inside is eternally expanding and you’re grabbing energy from its internal dark energy field, if you use that energy, you get hot, and that heat is visible.

Unless you can violate the laws of thermodynamics.
A 2% nominal increase every year is a decrease every year in real terms. Annual inflation has averaged above 2% every decade since the 30s, often far above 2%[1].

[1] https://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Rate/Long_Term...
I think the point of the article is that brain neurons are not equivalent to the ML representation of neurons, so that count if 17 billion in the cortex would actually require many more "ML neurons" to be simulated.

It also explains how we can keep adding complexity even if no new neurons are being created, since the branches themselves act like extra neurons.
I know how to make antifreeze! Hide her nightie.
Qt is the industry standard for software in the computer graphics industry. It's definitely easy to write big applications with it and imho its very easy to work with.

Of course YMMV, but i wouldn't discount it
Indeed, this is a good question. Along with 7 figures, what about assets vs liabilities: I'm curious how many programmers think about this part of the equation over their career? Except for shares, as you write, I wonder how many are investing those assets into new ideas - to, in turn, build more valuable assets to grow their wealth?
If you have a dedicated host and reliable internet, you can be a Tier 1. We have a guy who is going to be hosting one at his house, and soon as I get some parts for an SGI Challenge server I have, dataforge's uucp server will be hosted here too. So feel free to join us in IRC!
800 Scientists say it’s time to abandon “statistical significance”
At least for me, it definitely factors in. Getting a new perspective on problems by using a language with a different toolbox (functional rather than OOP for example) can help with future problems. And it's just good fun to learn a new language just to challenge yourself a bit.
I suggest you take a look at the 80,000 hours website. Earning to give has become less emphasised as 80,000 Hours has done more research and the broader effective altruist community has grown, in experience, numbers and expertise.

https://80000hours.org/articles/comparative-advantage/#shoul...

> Should I earn to give or do direct work?

> We often advise people who say: “I have high earning potential, so I have good personal fit with earning to give, so I should earn to give”.

> But this doesn’t follow. We’re in a situation where we need the right ratio of funders to direct workers, so what matters is comparative advantage. This means you need to compare your earning potential to other people in the community who might do direct work or earn to give.

> If they have even higher earning potential, then you might have a comparative advantage in direct work, even though you have high earning potential compared to people in general.

> Cases like this might be common. There are people doing direct work in the community who could donate over $500,000 per year earning to give. So, even if you have earning potential this high, you might still have a comparative advantage in direct work.

> Of course, some people’s comparative advantage will be earning to give. If it looks like you might be less good than existing people doing direct work, or you have struggled to find work in direct work, we think that earning to give is a great alternative.
That's an example of bad documentation: the image shows all buttons without shadow, but then goes on to explain that contained buttons (the thing most people would call a button, as opposed to links etc) are "distinguished by their use of elevation and fill", with elevation obviously being represented by a shadow.

The rest of the page also always shows contained buttons with shadow, just that one picture showing them all together doesn't.
I learned how to use manual transmission when I was 11 years old. We lived out in the country, 35km from the nearest hospital and my Mum burned her hand quite severely late one night. We drove to the hospital with me shifting to whatever number Mum called out, while she kept the burned hand in a bucket of iced water.

In hindsight I don't know why we didn't just call an ambulance.
I think the middle class hasn't been vanishing, it's been expanding into other parts of the world, particularly in India and China. The common man (globally) has more prosperity today than they have ever had. I think many people mistake an accident of history, the relative prosperity of white men in America after WWII as being something other than an aberration. Our stuff just happened to not be destroyed, so we did pretty well. And we're still nominally better off today than we were then, we're just not relatively better off compared to other people in other places because they're catching up to us.
> Or more concretely, how do you go about deciding when it is permissible to engage in self-serving actions at the expense of others?

Roughly, parochial altruism, though not in the traditional sex/race/language-based sense. As you can imagine, almost everyone's point of view here is not summarizable into text short enough to be of value for you to read, so that's the un-nuanced way of putting it.

The truth, though, is that what I said previously was more descriptive than aspirational. That's just who I am, observed solely through the lens of my actions. It's not very different from anyone else. Really, I only say "I" in that entire text because if I said "We" people would be offended, even though what I said is really banally normal.
"Usually" does not mean "always".

Giving threats is a crime in itself.

Threatening victims does not guarantee victims' silence.

If that crime is widespread then there still should be plenty of victims who, actually, report that crime.
I'm curious what led you to believe Xen was dead...?
Color Scheme for Gnome Terminal and Pantheon Terminal
> They take the XenServer sources, remove licensing restrictions

Um, how exactly? You generally can't take software with licence X, and republish it with license Y...
Added TS there because they share the runtime and the ecosystem in an almost seamless way, TS users use JS libs and vice versa. TS is being forced on JS users in indirect ways, so JS users will need to be able to at least read TS at some point. Surprisingly, npm inc states that 46% of npm users are already using TS.
There's network in networks: https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.4400
And network ensembles in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning
General AI isn't necessarily necessary for this, though it could be what brings it. And I suppose I never compile anything since I don't do it by hand? Why bark when you have a script?
Yes, this format makes it hard to ask very difficult questions, and the little chat bot rewarding the students with animated gifs of cartoon characters is a gimmick.

This is okay for teaching basic vocabulary and concepts, but seems to go no further than a pretty superficial exploration. Not much ingenuity or thinking is required from the students. Everything is pre-digested.

If a high school student were trying to learn about transformation geometry, working through Yaglom’s books of hard problems (Geometric Transformations, 4 thin volumes) would yield a much deeper understanding than going through https://mathigon.org/course/transformations-and-symmetry/tra...
Of course if we’re talking about an FTL-capable civilization then our understanding of physics is out of the window to begin with. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a civilization with FTL to make Dyson spheres or swarms, and it may be thst even if FTL is impossible it could be I desirable to build them. If the need to hide distinct technosignatures for some reason (Dark Forest perhaps) then any civilization would avoid Dyson structures.
Content Isn't King (2017)
It sounds like you have a good point in there somewhere, but it's lost when you cross into personal attack, especially when it takes the form of an aggressive rant. That's probably why your comment was downvoted and flagged.

Could you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the guidelines, even when you feel somebody did something egregious?

Edit: it looks like you've broken the site guidelines quite a bit and we even had to warn you about this recently. Continuing in that vein is going to get you banned here, so please fix this.
The only ways to leave Canada are by air or to the US, and in either case your departure will be shared with the Canadian government by either the airline or the US government. Among other things, it prevents residency fraud (claiming benefits like healthcare or old age pension while actually living abroad).

Countries that lack strong bilateral cooperation with their only land neighbour have to use other methods, like exit controls.
As much as I love science fiction. In reality, even making it the nearest star is an impossible feat. Even traveling at the speed of light (which we are not even sure the human body can handle) it would take 100 years to reach our nearest star; let alone the nearest black hole. Even whether black holes exist, and what they really are is hotly debated. I think the idea of interstellar travel is futile, and we should focus on improving our quality of life here (free energy i.e. Telsa tech, transporting goods with electrogravitic vehicles, curing diseases, more scientific agricultural practices, easing access to education/job skills, etc).
I'm in a more conservative camp than speed limits: the practicality one.

Even if we ignore the ponies and rainbows of wormhole travel, if you want to travel to a plain black hole to use the magic teleporter, the nearest two are V616 Mon at 11 solar masses and 3000 LY away, and Cyg X1 at 15 SM and 6000 LY. If you buy into the article's assertion that you won't get burned or spaghettified on your way to becoming a nucleon paste, and you want a heavier BH, the nearest is Sag A* at 4.1e6 SM and 25000 LY away.

Anyway, to travel between the teleporter and Earth, we're talking most of the resources of a planet to accelerate a mass to substantial fractions of c. Then you've got thousands of years of collisions, radiation, and maybe (assumption?) cultural and biological challenges of living in space for aeons, plus needing another planet's worth of resources to slow down at the destination. All this makes it hard enough even to get a dozen LY to our nearest start system.

My opinion is we're in something of a Well World universe, where everyone is pretty well travel-isolated from their neighbors.
> If they did who would listen?

Police.

> If they did what risks and repercussions do they face?

Based on my experience as a victim of a crime, complaint to police very quickly reduced my risk of repercussions -- as soon as perpetrators faced police.

> this kind of abuse

What kind of abuse?
Development Guidelines for Hypermedia Web APIs
I love this stuff. Coolest science to learn and read about. Thank you for sharing it!
The irony in this title is a new level above epic. So awesome.
How, in general, does Node.js handle 10k concurrent requests?
Wouldn't that just mean the brain's more like a small-world network, with small highly connected 'blobs' tied together in a sparser, larger network?
You should think of Khan Academy as an average high school lecture course, aimed at an audience of typical students, and with an approach and exercises closely aligned to the standard (frankly, quite uninspiring) USA school curriculum. It isn’t the best possible quality, but it does have 2 big advantages: (1) it is self-paced and available to anyone anytime, and (2) it is consistently okay, setting a quality floor. Human teachers are more variable in quality.

As a society, we could definitely aspire to producing much better materials, but even though I myself would never use it, I’m glad that Khan Academy exists.
Red lost me when they started banging on about blockchain nonsense.
We might be able to create our own spinning black hole gate :-P

What could possibly go wrong with that idea?
I like these kinds of scientific/mathematic explorations that relate to craft. The article on mad weave also sounds interesting (unfortunately it's not open access).

The site seems to be overloaded, but there's a Google cache available:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oCEyfys...