skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
On the other hand, is it any different than the legal fiction in the US that says that Google and Microsoft are "people" themselves rather than businesses that employ people?
The SHAKTI they taped out with Intel 22nm FinFET is AFAIK conservatively an order of magnitude less complex than the Pentium III, which was successfully manufactured on 250nm and 180nm.
Not "person", but "legal person":

> an individual, company, or other entity which has legal rights and is subject to obligations.
Despite a lot of jokes and offended Yelp reviews I see accusing virtually every restaurant at every price level of that, I'd be surprised if any were literally microwaving frozen meals to serve. They use a lot of frozen and canned ingredients for dishes, and probably use mixes made for them in commercial kitchens and shipped to the restaurants. But a little cooking at the end can go a long way.

Chili's, for instance, serves not only freshly made salsa but freshly fried chips. The tortillas are pre-made and pre-cut and just need to be dumped in the oil, and you can make salsa in batches by dumping pre-measured portions in a blender. Panda Express is cooking everything on site throughout the day, too. Take the right bags of pre-cut vegetable blends, the meat, the sauce, stir it all furiously in a big wok, put it on a heat table. No microwave.

Most of the speed of "casual" restaurants just comes from doing a lot of prep work ahead of time, keeping everything from sauces to precooked vegetable mixes in warmers, and using the same ingredients across a range of dishes. (Prepare five grilled meats, six sauces, and put them on beds of rice, mashed potatoes, or pasta, and now come up with a name for each possible combination. Presto! You're a Cheesecake Factory.)
Isn't it mostly standard OAuth workflow, Is there something proprietary in the docs themselves.
If some differences are caused by biological reasons, and some differences are caused by social reasons, then by removing the social reasons for inequality we achieve two things at the same time:

1) men and women become more equal;

2) the remaining reasons for inequality become predominantly biological (because the social ones are reduced, while the biological ones remain).

But it is easy to make a completely opposite conclusion, such as: "if some differences are social, then all differences have to be social". And then, when trying harder does not change things anymore, it is only a proof that we need to try even harder.
They could pass laws that enact federally funded institutions that compete against state/private schools. Not sure how they could get employers to not discriminate against the "cheap" degrees though. Although in theory there would be no discrimination if the end product is ensured via appropriate testing, similar to state bar exams.

Of course, there is already the community college act, so this could be extended to having community colleges offer 4-year degrees.
It'd basically mean that rather than a company being an independent entity that can take investments and so on, you might end up with rich people being the only ones able to start companies.

This book is interesting on the subject: https://amzn.to/2XxbbSX

reviewed here in The Economist: https://www.economist.com/business/2011/01/27/the-crescent-a...
There's only one example I've heard of (some Russian guy), but generally they tend to involve innovative approaches within the establishment.

(As said Russian guy proves, sometimes this heuristic fails; but your prior should be that it's likely correct.)
I've been Vegan for a year or so, and I tried the Beyond Burger the other day (in the UK, and I never seen Impossible Burgers over here so I haven't tried) and yeah it was actually pretty good but it was a lot more 'loose' than I'm used to with an actual burger.

For me, meat tastes amazing if I'm honest.. And I've noticed I tend to prefer burgers that aren't pretending to me meat. In a local pub the other day I had a red pepper and spinach burger that was amazingly crispy on the outside.
I think the point was that lidar is too low resolution. You must have very high resolution (in both time and space) to achieve L4 or L5; to accurately determine if a pedestrian is not paying attention, or if a bicyclist is looking to cross the road.

Not that Tesla is doing any of that right now, they most likely are not. But a lidar is not going to, either. Not ever, which is the point.

I thought the fleet learning aspects Karpathy outlines came pretty damn close to the pixie dust.
The Chinese govt didn't destroy anything, they just won't let them compete. This is not a secret conspiracy, it's public knowledge.

Those counterexamples are just companies operating in China, of which there are many. There's no problem unless they try to become major players which will never happen. Ikea is the biggest and has recently come under pressure for simply suggesting that Taiwan is a separate country through packaging. This is tightly controlled market, you don't just wander in and do whatever you want.
Unless you've never been outside, eaten food that was grown or raised outdoors, consumed water, used medicine or medical services, lived in proximity to other people or done business with...well, pretty much any business, I think you're mistaken.
democracy started also as a quite philosophical debate back in those days...
None of what Elon said will change the world in the next 5 years...

It's also pretty clear based on the selective presentation of data that they're even further behind Waymo than everyone thought. This was the time to actually prove that their ahead, and all they could give was more of Elon's hot air.

At the end Elon said autonomy is basically their entire expense sheet!

Must have missed that part, but if he actually said that it would have been a material misrepresentation of Tesla's financials, since they supposedly made a chunk of cars in Q1...OTOH, if the statement is true and Tesla basically made no cars in Q1, it would explain by Panasonic is refusing to make additional investments in the Gigafactory.

Whether they succeed or fail I admire them aiming so high, and planning so far ahead.

Other companies are both capable of aiming high, planning, and succeeding. Tesla has yet to demonstrate the capacity to do items 2 and 3 on this list. Case in point: pretty much everything about the Model 3 launch, from building to distribution, the solar roof panel (and really, the entire SolarCity acquisition). I'm even going to throw BoringCo in there since it's based out of the Tesla lot and uses Tesla vehicles and engineers.
"Sometimes people are looking for sysctl cargo cult values that bring high throughput and low latency with no trade-off and that works on every occasion."

That behavior was somewhat self inflicted by Linux distros that for a long time, shipped with lousy defaults. Not just for kernel settings, but for web servers, database servers, etc.

Such that changing the defaults did indeed, work magic.
>False dichotomy: poor factory farm conditions vs. better factory farm conditions. There is also the option of no factory farms at all, which would be the least amount of suffering at the hands of humans.

When it comes down to it we can just agree to disagree on this point. I believe in a more intermediate future where meat comes from animals that, yes, while being bred for consumption, are happy animals that lived happy lives; lives which would be better than any lack of existence. I believe most meat eaters would realistically support this future as well - if not through their purchasing power then at least potentially by law. Lastly, I believe that getting to this future is through strong support of farmers who have already achieved it.

>Would you choose to be fed okay food, in a pen, until you were about 15, then killed?

This might surprise you but actually I would be inclined to say yes. I would absolutely chose that life over no life [1]. Have you raised farm animals before? They generally feel safer and less agitated in a "pen" of sorts because they view it as protection. They get to socialize all day - and don't usually have to worry about predators or food. Humans aren't motivated by the same environmental dynamics as cows or chicken.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huT5__BqY_U
If Tesla succeeds at FSD - Tesla is competing against them with hardware that operates at (using the numbers from the presentation, if I recall them correctly) ~1/10th the price.

They have contracts in place with the owners of cars they have sold preventing them from letting Uber and Lyft use the self driving capability to compete.
It seems that the "proof" still really isn't, from the article:

"only the most senior U.K. officials are believed to have seen the intelligence, which the CIA awarded a strong but not cast-iron classification of certainty."

Note the weasel words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
The livestream is gone though https://youtu.be/Ucp0TTmvqOE
This has to be a regional thing, similar to how in some areas of the American south, "Coke" is a generic term for all sodas. But at least in my area (Portland, OR), what you're saying is definitely not true.

I've never heard someone use Apple trademarks as generic terms. The generic term people use for a touchscreen smartphone is...a smartphone. Likewise, a generic term for a tablet is "tablet". I've never heard someone use "iPhone" to refer to all smartphones or "iPad" to refer to all tablets.

Though as a kid, I know my parents would say to "put away the Nintendo" when it was the PlayStation stuff that was all spread out on the floor.
It would be interesting for sure.

If corporations cannot get those benefits, how will we as a society get any benefit from people working together for something complex? You cannot make a workable spaceship, car engine (a car might be possible once you have an engine that meets emissions, and several other complex parts). Our modern world is mostly designed around retirement plans owning corporations - without some legal shield 3/4ths of the US should go to prison for Enron

Will it be a few rich people who enter into all those contracts and pay their people? At what point do the rich refuse because they have too many people signing contracts on their behalf that they dare not take the risk?

There could well be other solutions to the problem. It could be that some alternative is a "better" compromise. However it is not easy to come up with something that doesn't have flaws that are worse than what we have.
I have the first few lessons 90% completed but not published yet. You can bookmark my personal site natemeye.rs since they will initially be posted there before I move them to their own location.
An 8-Bit Digital Marketing Strategy Guide
Loudness in restaurants seems to be hip right now. It also has been shown to correlate positively with both alcohol consumption and table turnover, so it might not be going anywhere soon.
But slack isn't supported by ads is it? Why would investors care about increasing engagement/screen time?

I would think they would care more about adoption of the service across more kinds of companies.
Ok, I am late to the show. Where can I watch the recording?
Are you accusing Rocket of any of those? They're famous for cloning business plans, but I wasn't aware they went beyond that.
The solution is the same as every other time this comes up. Upzone the city. They tried this at the state level with SB827. That bill was flawed but the idea was good.

The city could fix this for itself if they could get the political will to do so. Follow the lead of Minneapolis, and make R1 zoning good for up to four units, instead of single family. That one change alone would make a huge difference.

People are afraid whole city blocks would be converted, but that wouldn't happen. Single family homes with good transit would slowly be sold to developers who would replace them with quads, bringing in increased taxes so that transit could be expanded, leading to more SFHs near transit, and so on.

It's just that the people who have SFHs don't want to ruin the "character" of their neighborhood.
why should a natural entity not be treated like a person?

The obvious answer here is "ok, they're all persons, and as soon as they can stand up in court and tell us what they want, we'll listen to them".
Microsoft employees tried to stand up against military contracts but got nowhere. If google does listen at all, eg with dragonfly, that's not nothing.
San Francisco described in a 1930s era book about the Gold Rush:

"Despite the amazingly high cost of living and the extraordinary opportunities for frittering away money, everyone in early San Francisco was supremely confident that he would soon be able to return home with an incalculable amount of gold. Everything was conceived on a vast scale, and there was always plenty of cash available for any scheme that might be proposed, no matter how impossible or bizarre it seemed. No one hesitated to borrow money, ..."
It wasn't my example, but it's just disproving the notion that FP somehow means you need to write big if statements to dispatch your functions.

Traits are not functional-language specific except in that they are often used in FP to solve problems similar to those one might use inheritance to solve in OOP.
San Francisco is an elephants' graveyard for ovaries and hot takes.
Some internet outages predicted for the coming month as '768k Day' approaches
> My point being that I don't understand where you draw the line.

Agreed – one reason I'm opposed to aborting babies suspected of having a mental disorder.
Who speaks on the behalf of the mentally handicapped, and children without parents? Are they people?
It does mostly mean that existing Flash content like old Flash games breaks at that date.

Stopping distribution means that Adobe will no longer host official Flash Player plugins for download at all, meaning that old Flash games that try to helpfully auto-install the Flash player for you will fail as those links will go dark. Presumably archive sites may preserve installers to manually install the Flash Player after the 2020 shutdown date, but that will be an increased amount of effort that will make it less likely people will do it.

Stopping updates particularly means security updates, which is an increasing reason for the ongoing maintenance of the Flash Player. That will add an increased reason for people to avoid manually installing the Flash Player as it will be an increasing security liability.

Most browsers are already on the path to disabling the sorts of plugin APIs that Flash Player has used for security footprint reasons alone. When the Flash Player no longer receives official security updates, the browsers will have increased reason to eliminate that risk, and disable those APIs for good. That means that a manual install of the Flash player will be increasingly unlikely to even work soon after the shutdown date. Most browsers have already been planning to disable such APIs and break such plugins near or around the date Adobe has given already, so this process has largely already started.

Flash content and old Flash games are going to break. The web will be a little bit different at that date.
Any job is a Rust job if you're in charge of deciding the language.
I wonder how participating in a walkout affects that reputation with hiring managers. Actually curious
Beats nothing.
It kinda is though. Snow deposition is a function of surface temperature, which is uniform across the sensor. Hit the wrong initial temp when you enter a blizzard, and deposition takes your vision in seconds. It can be hard enough to see out the windshield which has heating, wipers and anti-freeze wiper fluid fighting for it.
"Wealthy people don't hold money. They invest it. Even money sitting in a checking account isn't actually there - the bank loans it out."

What does government do with the money? The money is only productive in the billionaires bank account?

"People create wealth, it is not given to them."
People take wealth, if Bezos has $150B, he didn't create it out of thin air, he took the money out of lots of mom and pop shops that don't exist anymore. Did he actually created jobs or destroyed jobs?
So not one that worked out well.

The article discusses Microsoft's anti-piracy measures. And it brings back horrible memories. So I had this server, running Windows Server 2000. And there was a nearby lightning strike, which bricked the motherboard.

But hey, service contract. Except that the company had gone through reorganization. So they sent me a motherboard that was comparable and compatible with the box. But it had a different seller code, so my copy of Windows Server 2000 wouldn't install.

Microsoft couldn't/wouldn't fix that. So I had to return the replacement motherboard, wait for another replacement, and install it. But hey, it all worked out in the end.
This is why we need to be supporting open and free hardware, everything else is some form of compromise.

EDIT: Kodos for the moral, I'm on mobile and couldn't read it since the formatting is a little off, and my iPhone can't easily inspect element. See what I mean?
After my internship I certainly have that fear. It seems unreal that there could be a bunch of other companies out there that have the same calibre of people
Iwi.
>many times better than any competing existing hardware

Except that it isn't. NVIDA's Drive AGX Pegasus delivers 320 TOPS:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-says-tesla-inaccura...

Of course, nobody inside the Musk Reality Distortion Field actually cares about this.
Probably not, but I think a pretty vast number of people would agree that these sorts of corporate legal fictions should also not exist.

Giving a corporation personhood does not give the corporation rights as much as does take away rights from those who interact with that corporation.
As someone who lives in Italy, a lot of what seems to be considered "Italian" in the US sometimes feels like little more than a caricature. It does trouble me slightly, because it feels like an impersonation of Italian culture.

On the other hand, it's probably just culture diverging and developing in different ways after migration, which is to be expected. So the problem is mostly one of identity: the same label - italian - means very different things to people across the world...
The neutral-most stance, if any, is for them to accept all willing clients.

This is not neutrality; it is capitalism without ethics, which is a moral stance that you are taking.

these employees are imposing their worldview on the company's decision-making

Your alternative is that the company should be able to impose their decision-making on the employees, and e.g. ask them to work on things which violate their personal principles, with their only alternative being to leave the company. In a world with a universal basic income without health care being tied to employment, where individuals were free to choose how to allocate their labor in a non-coercive environment, you might be able to argue this, but instead you are arguing that corporations have the right to freely transact in the market but employees (many of whom cannot pick and choose their employment or tolerate underemployment) do not have that right. Capitalism without ethics.

Corporations are simply groups of people. And those people are responsible for what the corporation does. They have not only a right, but an obligation to oppose actions by the corporation inimical to their worldview.
If the current state of autopilot is even tangentially related to their progress on full self-driving, then it's a lot more than a few years away.
This is definitely not true. The engineer explicitly stated that Tesla only gets data when trigger conditions are met (and that this was in fact always the case), so most of the miles that Tesla drivers have been driving was actually never even sent back to the mothership for use in ML training.

IOW, despite Elon claiming for years that they're ahead because of the "millions of miles" of free data collection by Tesla drivers, it turns out once the engineers on the ground actually speak...they're actually pretty far behind on the data front, and most of the data they are getting is the same safe routes over and over again since they're not trying to put Autopilot into novel situations to acquire new data or test the ML algorithm's capabilities to handle unique/novel situations (like trucks turning in the highway, or freeway dividers).
I think there is a lot of scope for an autonomous vehicle to be safer than a human driver. Consider:

1) computer has faster reaction times.

2) 360-degree awareness

3) better awareness of vehicle performance.

Imagine a scenario where you are at speed and get a tire blowout. The car can sense it instantly through tire pressure sensor, and counter the swerve appropriately - something that humans are very poorly prepared or practiced for.

Alternatively, a driver in a neighboring lane makes an unsafe lane change into your lane. The car sees him, honks the horn, moves/brakes/accelerates to avoid the other car, before you've even seen whats happening.
> The reporting on this plan so far seems to be very light on the details of how the federal government is going to eliminate something it doesn't control (public university tuition).

Public (and private, for that matter) universities rely on federal funding for lots of things; make public research funding available only to non-tuition universities, eliminate federal grants and loans to students that help pay tuition and replace them with, say, enrollment based grants directly to tuition-free institutions, and you'll be left with tuition-free institutions and not much else.
Here (bracket zero) is an important video of someone making iced tea, and why it's this.

(bracket zero) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFLiuaEtvdo
That is truly poetic.
Parks can already be corporations. I don't know how it would be any different than Disney Land suing you for littering on their property. The whole issue is tragedy of the commons which often does not occur with private property. Maybe it should be a corporation owned by the people who live around it as shareholders, and they can bring a lawsuit against anyone that damages their property. In fact making public goods corporations like that beholden to their shareholders might help protect them better, like for instance sources of water and such. Shares can be tied directly to land and housing a certain distance from that public work.
> I'm always amazed when this argument is raised. I can't fathom anyone actually believes more life, for the sake of life, is "better". It strikes me as a bad faith argument. There is a colossal difference between ending a life and preventing one from happening.

There are indeed such people. Depending on your particular flavor of utilitarianism, it's a pretty reasonable to conclude that the best things you can do in your life are to A) ensure that there if more life in the future; and B) work to make sure that life is happier than present life.

It basically comes down to how much weight you place on two factors. The first factor is the weight of pleasure (aka happiness, contentment, joy, pick your favorite single word) vs suffering. The second is the weight of present vs future beings.

If you think pleasure outweighs suffering and you are future-oriented then the best possible world is achieved done by increasing the number of happy sentient beings in the universe.

If, OTOH, you believe, as I do, that the negatives of suffering are much stronger than the positives of happiness and you heavily discount future not-yet-existent beings, then you want to focus on eliminating suffering in the present and you should be fairly skeptical of future increases in sentient beings.
Andrej Karpathy (who was one of the presenters today) actually made similar statements last year, about how the part of the software stack that is not neural networks is gradually shrinking:
https://youtu.be/y57wwucbXR8?t=352
So.....a new Mercedes with driver assist package then? And Mercedes will not stop you from modding their cars to your heart's content, you don't have to ask them for permission to work on your car like you have to with a Tesla.